Question

Given how Americans today tend to think highly of our Constitution (or at least the idea of our Constitution), it may be surprising to learn that not everyone in the 1780s was so certain it was a good idea. And we're not just talking about extremists -- Patrick Henry adamantly opposed it; Thomas Jefferson, who was serving as ambassador to France during the debate over the Constitution, famously called the position of "American President" (there wasn't one before) a "bad edition of a Polish King" in a letter. Elbridge Gerry (signer of the Declaration of Independence) did not care for it; George Mason, a delegate from Virginia who was at the Constitutional Convention, refused to sign the final document. These were not political outsiders, and the ratification of the Constitution was not a guarantee.

Supporters of the Constitution were known as Federalists (they wanted a strong federal government), while opponents were known as Anti-federalists. One of the major results of anti-federalist sentiment was actually the creation of the Bill of Rights. Many individuals opposed to the Constitution would only support its ratification if these amendments were introduced almost immediately upon ratification. The only way to ensure the ratification of the Constitution was to promise that it would be immediately changed.

What elements of the anti-federalists do you see in Patrick Henry's Anti-Federalist argument and in the Shaysite Grievances? What was happening in the new United States that made people suspicious of a strong federal government? How were these concerns addressed (or not addressed) by the Bill of Rights? You will notice that the first Congress in 1789 immediately presented 12 amendments to the Constitution, but the states only ratified 10 of those amendments by 1791. If you were an anti-federalist in 1789, would you have been satisfied by the Bill of Rights? Why or Why not?

Answer 1