Rattfying the Constitution

Transcription

1 Handout 4 (page 1) Part A. Rattfying the Constitution Read the fact sheet, and answer the questions. The Articles of Confederation failed to address several problems confronting the newly formed United States. During the American Revolution, the failure o1 the Continental Congress to enact legislation to provide monetary support for the Continental army was rooted in its inability to tax the states without their consent. When the war ended, other problems arose. The Articles were concerned with guaranteeing the rights of the individual states. The central government was weak, and there was no chief executive. No court system was established to settle disputes between states or between states and foreign countries. Trade between states and with other countries was unregulated. States imposed tariffs on goods traded from one state to another, and each state produced its own money. Currency value varied from state to state, and often merchants found that they could not use their state's money to pay for goods in another state. Many agreed that the Articles of Confederation needed to be revised. The question was, how should it be changed. A constitutional convention was called in Philadelphia in L787. Each of the states was invited to send a delegation to discuss a revision of the Articles. Only Rhode Island failed to send a delegation. Between May and September 1787, a document that proposed not a revision of the Articles of Confederation but the establishment of a new republican democracy was produced. The delegates agreed to three days of debate and that two-thirds of the states would have to approve the document for it to be accepted. The delegates were divided into two main factions-the Anti-Federalists and the Federalists. The Anti-Federalists, led by James Wilson, Patrick Henry, and George Mason, had the support of the states. There was a general distrust of a strong national government among America:s citizens. The Anti-Federalists argued that large populations represented by a few men would lead to a failure on ttre representatives' part to know the desires of their constituents. Anti-Federalists believed that a strong federal government would lead to the destruction of the state governments and that a federal court system would undermine the work of local cuurts. They also opposed the establishment of a strong executive branch, fearing it would lead to tyranny. The Anti-Federalists were particularly concerned with the lack of a protection of individual rishts within the document. The Federalists, led by John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton, enjoyed the support of America's two truly national political figures, Benjamin Franklin and George Washington. Strong nationalists, who believed that the states should work together for the improvement and betterment of the nation, the Federalists sought to establish a federal government that could act in the national interest. They believed that a republican democracy could resolve issues of economics and politics by reaching consensus within the Congress. The Federalists proposed a government consisting of three branches, within which a system of checks and balances would prevent any single branch from becoming too powerful. Well-organized and well-financed, the Federalists succeeded in gaining passage of the new Constitution, and the document was sent to the COPYzuCHT, The Center for Learning. Used with permission. Not for resale. 20

2 Handout 4 (page 2) - It was at this point that the real debate began. In every town and city up and down the Eastern seaboard, debate raged. Newspapers, pamphlets, and broadsides supported one side or the other. The new Constitution was debated in town meetings, and state conventions gathered to decide the fate of the proposal. trighty-five letters written by the Federalists served as a blueprint for debate at the state conventions. Two-thirds of these letters were written by Jay, Hamilton, and Madison. Later these letters would by compiled in what we know today as The Federalist Papers. After much debate, the new Constitution, which limited and clearly stated the powers of the federal government, was ratified by the required nine states, and the Articles of Confederation became a memory. ]. What were some of the problems that resulted from the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation? 2. What were the main factions at the Constitutional Convention? 3. What were the main points raised bv the Anti-Federalists? 4. What were the main points raised by the Federalists? 5. What was the purpose of The Federalist Papers? 2I

3 U.S. Government, Book Handout 4 (page 3) Part B. Read the numbered arguments. Decide which ones were raised by the Federalists and which ones were raised by the Anti-Federalists. Write the number of each statement in an appropriate space on the graphic organizer. Antl-Federalists 1. The executive branch had too much power. 2. Power needed to be divided between the states and the national government. 3. The 'necessary and proper" clause gave too much power to the Congress. 4. The new government needed a strong executive. 5. Since all rights cannot be listed in the body of the Constitution, it is better to add a bill of rights after ratification. 6. No bill of rights had been proposed. 7. Because all branches were equal, no branch could control the others. 8. The national government could maintain an army in peacetime. g. In a republican form of government, representation is based on the consent of the $overned. 1O. The proposed constitution gave too much power to the national government at the expense of the COPYRIGHT, The Center for Learning. Used with permission' Not for resale. 22

4 a U.S. Government, Book 1 ksson 3 Handout 5 (page 1) Federalist and Anti-Federalist Writings Part A. James Madison is believed to have written twenty-nine of the essays that make up The Feder6rlist Papers. In the tenth essay, Madison wrote of the problems of factionalism that were confronting the country and the advantages of a republican form of government over a pure democratic government such as the one espoused by the Articles of Confederation. Read the following excerpt from the essay, and answer the questions. November 23. L7A7 Among the numerous advantages promised by a well-constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate as when he contemplates their propensity for this dangerous vice. There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects. There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests. The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long, as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed, As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the later will attach themselves.... A zeal for different opinions. have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to cooperate for Lheir common good. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interests would certainly bias his judgment and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. [T]he most numerous party or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail.... The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiaiity; yet there is' perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant parly to trample on the rules of justice... The inference to which we are brou{ht is thal the causes of faction cannot be removed and that relief is oniy to be sou$ht in the means of controlling its e;fects. If a factlon consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administralion, it may conr,rrlse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the forn-r of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interesl both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of 23

5 Iesson 3 Handout 5 (page 2) such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed... lal pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. lsluch democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. A republic, by which I mean a government in which tj.e scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking. The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of the country, over which the latter may be extended. The effect of the first difference is.. to refine and enlarge the public views by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacriflce lt to temporary or partial consideratlons. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant. to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, flrst obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious corrsiderations:. [H]owever small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals" of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude.... [A]s each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to center in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established character.... By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representative too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him undul)' attached to these and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect: the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the state legislatures. The other point of difference is the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within ttre compass of republican than 'to be in agreement "small group of people working or plotting in secret 24