Is this you? As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work.
Claim your profile
Articles by Ratification Debates
Tench Coxe Defends the Structure of the House of Representatives
Countering Anti-Federalist fears that Congress wouldn’t represent the diverse interests of the American population, Tench Coxe came out swinging, insisting that the House would be “the immediate delegates of the people” and calling it a “popular assembly.” He made his case in his third essay of An American Citizen, as he examined the “nature and powers” of the House of Representatives by contrasting it with the British House of Commons.
Tench Coxe on the Senate: A Counter to Anti-Federalist Aristocracy Fears
The structure of the Senate was a serious point of contention for many Anti-Federalists, who warned it would quickly become a permanent or baneful aristocracy, with most senators serving for life. Tench Coxe was a leading voice on the Federalist side rejecting these fears. He repeatedly emphasized that the election of senators by State legislatures, along with other features built into the legislative system, would check any aristocratic tendencies.
Tench Coxe on the Executive Branch: President, not a King
American presidents behave almost like elected kings, exercising vast powers with very little accountability. But that wasn’t the plan. Tench Coxe was a key figure in the ratification debates, and he argued the presidency was designed to be a far cry from a powerful monarch, an institution the founders fought a long, bloody war to secede from. There was no federal executive under the Articles of Confederation.
How Tench Coxe Shaped the Ratification Debates: Essays of A Pennsylvanian
History often overlooks Tench Coxe, but he was one of the most important founding fathers. While the Federalist Papers are celebrated and widely discussed today, Coxe’s essays, written under the pen name “A Pennsylvanian,” had a far greater impact on swaying public opinion during the ratification debates. But they’re almost completely ignored today.
Was Shays’ Rebellion Overblown? The Debate Over the Constitution
“Never let a good crisis go to waste” isn’t just some modern invention by people who want to expand government power. It seems to be an approach used to convince people of the need to replace the Articles of Confederation with a new Constitution in 1787. Even James Madison admitted as much later in life. Shays’ Rebellion was one of the most prominent reasons given for a system of government more “energetic” than the one formed under the Articles.
Limited or Absolute Power: Warnings from Anti-Federalist Agrippa
The Anti-Federalist writer Agrippa powerfully expressed many of the same reservations about the Constitution as other opponents – that it would create a consolidated government leading to a loss of liberty. But unlike most others, Agrippa was also concerned with the implications a strong central government would have on the economies of the states and their people.
Mercy Otis Warren: Constitution Would “Terminate in the Most Uncontrolled Despotism”
Mercy Otis Warren came down firmly opposed to ratification of the Constitution, and her anonymously written pamphlet titled “Observations on the new Constitution, and on the Federal and State Conventions” was highly influential during the ratification debates. Warren has been referred to as America’s first female historian.
Federalist Papers or Anti-Federalist Papers: Which Is the Most Reliable Source for Interpreting the Constitution?
When composing the list of books that incoming freshmen should have read before beginning their studies at the University of Virginia, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison included The Federalist Papers. Their list was compiled in 1825, evidence that The Federalist Papers were already considered an authoritative text for understanding and interpreting the Constitution.
Top Warnings from the Antifederalist Brutus
In his series of essays during the ratification debates, the Anti-federalist writer Brutus repeatedly warned about the dangers of centralized power, predicting the proposed federal government would end up exercising “infinite” and “incomprehensible” power. Like everyone else, Brutus didn’t get everything right. But some of what he predicted may sound absolutely prophetic. However, it wasn’t. He – like many others at the time – was a student of both history and human nature.
Federal Farmer Makes his Case for the Tenth Amendment
In one of his later essays, the Federal Farmer made a strong case for what eventually became the Tenth Amendment. A major contention among anti-federalists and other skeptics of the proposed Constitution revolved around the limits on federal power. In particular, they were skeptical the federal government would remain limited to the “enumeration” of federal powers in the document.
Federal Farmer: Will the Judiciary Preserve or Destroy Liberty?
While many anti-federalists, including Patrick Henry, regarded the judicial branch of the federal government under the proposed U.S. Constitution with deep suspicion, the Federal Farmer took a more moderate, albeit guarded stance. In his fifteenth letter dated Jan. 18, 1788, he wrote that hostility toward the overall concept of the federal judicial branch was not warranted.
Federal Farmer: Appointment Power Should Be Divided
In an earlier essay, the Federal Farmer argued that appointed officers would have too much power in the constitutional system and that there should be provisions made to reduce it. In his fourteen letter dated Jan. 17, 1788, he further expounded on his view that it was too much authority to bequeath to a single section of the federal government. As part of the solution, he suggested the appointment power should be divided.
Federal Farmer: Politicians and Bureaucrats must be “Recallable”
Given the power various officers in the federal government would wield, the Federal Farmer believed that there needed to be a better mechanism to appoint them and remove them from power when necessary. The Constitution delegated the power to appoint various officers to their positions to the president, with some, such as Supreme Court justices and military leadership, requiring the advice and consent of the Senate.
Federal Farmer: Representation Isn’t Sufficient
When it was ratified, the U.S. Constitution set a cap on the number of representatives at no more than one per 30,000 persons. In his seventh letter dated Dec. 31, 1787, the Federal Farmer argues that this constituted too few representatives to accurately reflect the will of different classes of people who made up all 13 states. In the letter he described three types of aristocracy. The first is a “constitutional aristocracy,” that the Farmer said doesn’t exist in the United States.
Federal Farmer: Amendments are Essential and Necessary
In his sixth letter dated Dec. 25, 1787, the Federal Farmer wrote of the “essential and necessary” inclusion of meaningful amendments to the Constitution prior to its ratification. Though some federalists like James Madison would later support proposed amendments at the Virginia Ratifying Convention in June 1788, and an inclusion of a Bill of Rights after ratification, the Federal Farmer feared that the Constitution would be adopted first, and any enthusiasm for adding amendments would dissipate.
Today in History: Pennsylvania Ratifies the Constitution
Today in 1787, Pennsylvania became the second state to ratify the United States Constitution. The event was the culmination of a bitter fight in Philadelphia between delegates both for and against ratification in the state.
Federal Farmer: Constitution creates “a strong tendency to aristocracy”
In his third letter dated Oct. 10, 1787, the anti-federalist writer Federal Farmer wrote skeptically of the proposed new federal government for fear it would bring about a “tendency toward aristocracy,” similar to those which could be found in European nations. Aristocracy differs from what the founding generation called “popular government” in that the titles such as king, prince, baron, and earl are inherited and not elected positions.
Patrick Henry’s Warning on “Implied Authority”
By: TJ Martinell|Published on: Nov 28, 2022|Categories: Patrick Henry, Ratification Debates Patrick Henry’s impassioned remarks during the final days of the Virginia Ratifying Convention were the culmination of week-long arguments between skeptics of the proposed Constitution and its supporters, such as James Madison. In modern context, it is easy at first glance to find much of what Henry said to be, unfortunately, pro-slavery.
Why the Framers Thought Ratification by Only Nine States Was Sufficient
By: Rob Natelson|Published on: Oct 18, 2022|Categories: Constitution, Constitutional Convention, Ratification Debates In an earlier essay in my “Defending the Constitution” series, I responded to the common charge that the 1787 Constitutional Convention abused its trust. The charge is that the commissioners (delegates) exceeded the scope of the convention “call” issued by Congress. In response, I pointed out that Congress did not call the Constitutional Convention; Virginia did.
The Division of Federal and State Powers
How much power would the federal government have? And what powers would the states retain? This was a hotly debated question as the states considered ratifying a new constitution. For the average person, the Federalist Papers are the go-to source for understanding the Constitution and its limits on federal power.
Today in History: James Wilson Delivers “State House Yard Speech” in Favor of the Constitution
On October 6, 1787, eminent Pennsylvanian James Wilson delivered his famous “State House Yard Speech” in support of the Constitution in Philadelphia. On the dawn of the first true test for the Constitution’s palatability, Wilson intended to explain how the Constitution was intended to be understood in the eyes of those who drafted the document the same summer.
Patrick Henry: Jury Trials Are the “Last and Best Privilege”
During the Virginia ratifying convention on June 20, 1789, Patrick Henry warned that the power bestowed to the Supreme Court would undermine the right to trial by jury. Henry was a strong opponent of ratification throughout the convention. He was deeply wary of the many new powers delegated to the general government and what he saw as the potential or certain loss of individual rights and liberties.
Patrick Henry Warns of “Dangerous and Destructive” Treaty Powers
Anti-Federalists generally worried that the Constitution would give the general government too much power. One area that caused concern was the power to make treaties. Patrick Henry addressed this issue in speeches during the Virginia ratifying convention. Under the Constitution, the Senate is delegated the power to ratify all treaties that the executive branch intends to make with other countries.
Patrick Henry Debates Federalists, Insists on a Bill of Rights
One of the most ardent proponents of a Bill of Rights for the U.S. Constitution was Patrick Henry. During the Virginia Ratifying Convention he repeatedly and doggedly advocated that a list of fundamental liberties – free speech, freedom of religion, right to a jury trial – be explicitly listed as being out of reach from federal power. At the time of the Convention, states had adopted their own Bills of Rights enshrined in their respective Constitutions. Virginia was no exception.
Patrick Henry Warns of a “Great and Mighty Empire”
On June 5, 1788, Patrick Henry gave a speech at the Virginia Ratifying Convention warning that “consolidation” – centralizing of power – would turn the United States into a dangerous empire. The speech was prophetic, and if you didn’t know otherwise, you’d assume it was spoken by some modern political analyst. The convention ran from June 2-22. Participants included James Madison, Edmund Randolph, John Marshall and George Mason.
Patrick Henry’s Lesson on the Need for a Bill of Rights
On June 12, 1788, Patrick Henry spoke during the Virginia Ratifying Convention, reiterating the need for a Bill of Rights in the proposed U.S. Constitution before its adoption. During this speech, he offered a history lesson highlighting the importance of preserving freedom, but he also warned that written guarantees are, by themselves, ineffective. The debate over the Bill of Rights was more nuanced than one might think.
Today in History: New York Ratifies the Constitution
On this date in 1788, New York became the 11th state to ratify the Constitution. The Constitution narrowly won approval by a 30-27 vote on July 26, 1788, after a long, hotly contested debate. Technically, the Constitution was already in effect. New Hampshire ratified over a month earlier on June 21, becoming the requisite ninth state for “the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same,” set forth in Article 7.
Patrick Henry Argues Against Imaginary Dangers
On June 9, 1788, Patrick Henry delivered a speech at the Virginia Ratifying Convention arguing that many of the alleged crises of the time used to justify the proposed constitution were “imaginary.” This was actually the fourth long speech Henry delivered during the convention and it builds on arguments he previously made on June 7 when he observed “it is the fortune of a free people not to be intimidated by imaginary dangers” and urged the addition of a bill of rights to the proposed...
The meaning of “militia” in the Second Amendment
This is the second article examining contributions to our understanding of the Constitution from the three brand new volumes of the Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution of the United States. My first article observed that probably the greatest contribution of these three new volumes is reproduction, in indexed and easy-to-use hard copy form, of four essays by Tench Coxe.
Show More
loading
Actions
Is this you?
As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work.Get in touch with Ratification
Contact Ratification, search articles and posts on X, monitor coverage, and track replies from one place.
Learn more about Muck Rack