2G - Ratification of the new Republic: the forwarding of the constitution to the states by the Continental Congress, ratification of the constitution by state conventions
Learn how a proposal written in Philadelphia became the basis of a new government, why state conventions mattered, and how debate, concessions and pressure secured ratification.
Congress transmits the proposal
Signing the Constitution in Philadelphia did not put it into operation. The convention sent its proposal to the existing Congress, which had to decide how to handle a document that replaced rather than merely revised the Articles. The proposal reached Congress in September 1787. Some members questioned whether the delegates had exceeded their authority.
On 28 September, Congress agreed to transmit the Constitution to the state legislatures so that they could call conventions to consider ratification. This was an essential procedural bridge: the institutions of the Confederation enabled consideration of their own replacement. It was not Congress ratifying the Constitution for the states. NARA's ratification account records this distinction.
Article VII required approval by conventions in nine states to establish the new system among the ratifying states. This differed sharply from the Articles' requirement that amendments receive the assent of every state legislature. Supporters claimed that a constitution deriving authority from the people could be approved through specially chosen representatives. Opponents argued that the procedure evaded the existing constitutional agreement. The legitimacy of change was itself part of the controversy.
Ratifying convention
A body of delegates chosen in a state specifically to decide whether to approve the proposed Constitution, distinct from its ordinary legislature.
Conventions helped bypass legislators whose offices and state authority might be weakened by the new system. They also gave the proposal a public forum after the secrecy of Philadelphia. “The people” did not mean universal participation: voting qualifications varied by state and excluded much of the population. Nevertheless, the process claimed a source of authority broader than the decision of the convention's original delegates.
Winning the public argument
Ratification depended on political persuasion as well as constitutional rules. Supporters and opponents argued in newspapers, pamphlets, meetings and the state conventions. Federalists presented the choice as one between a more capable union and continued financial weakness, commercial rivalry and insecurity. Washington's endorsement helped reassure Americans who distrusted concentrated power but trusted his revolutionary service.
Anti-Federalists questioned whether the new president, national taxation and federal courts would threaten liberty. They also objected to the absence of a bill of rights. A claim that they simply opposed any union misses the issue: many wanted cooperation among states but believed that the proposed distribution of power endangered self-government.
Hamilton, Madison and Jay published the Federalist Papers to defend the proposal, especially in New York. The essays explained institutions and answered objections, but their later fame should not be treated as proof that they alone secured approval across the country. Convention management, local interests, influential endorsements and concessions were also important. A contemporary argument demonstrates what supporters wanted readers to believe; it does not establish how every voter responded.
The Federalists' crucial tactical concession was to accept recommended amendments after ratification. This allowed delegates to approve the Constitution without insisting that Philadelphia meet again first. It reassured some doubters that rights could be protected while avoiding delays or incompatible state conditions which might unravel the agreement.
Continue this lesson.
You’re previewing NovaLearn without an account. Create a free account to read the rest.
Create free account