THE RATIFICATION CAMPAIGN

							THE RATIFICATION
   CAMPAIGN

     Topic #6
            Ratification = Consent
• Remember (as the framers themselves certainly remem-
  bered during their deliberations) that the framers of the
  Constitution were only making a proposal --- a proposal
  that would later be accepted or rejected in a ratification
  process.
   – The framers, especially the most enthusiastic advocates a strong
     central government, certainly had considerations of “political
     feasibility” in mind.
   – For example, they realized that, if the convention proposed a
     Constitution with all the features of the VA Plan, such a
     constitution would likely be rejected in the ratification process, so
     central government enthusiasts ultimately preferred to put forward
     a more moderate proposal.
• In terms of social contract theory, ratification is the
  decisive stage at which popular consent is given, or
  denied, to the proposed constitution.
       The Ratification Campaign
• The ratification process set in motion the first national
  political campaign in U.S. politics.
   – It resembled a contemporary President nomination
     campaign (that takes place over an extended period
     as primary elections occur in different states at
     different times) more than a contemporary President
     election campaign.

• The proponents of the Constitution realized that they
  faced a difficult task and that they need a coordinated
  strategy that exploited every possible political advantage
  available.
     Federalists vs. Antifederalists

• Proponents of the Constitution called themselves
  Federalists, stealing a political label that (given the
  political terminology of the day) would have better fit
  those who wanted to keep the existing A. of C.
   – Calling themselves Nationalists would have been
     more fitting, but less politically expedient.

• By default, the opponents of the Constitution became
  know as Antifederalists.
                 The Antifederalists
• These were the main Antifederalist “talking points.”
   – The convention violated its instructions, which called only for
     proposed amendments to the A. of C.
   – The proposed Constitution would create too strong a central
     government – the kind we threw off at great cost a few years ago.
   – The new National Executive looks too much like King George.
   – Popular government works best at the local and state level; good
     democrats want to keep the central government weak, because
     central government is inevitably oligarchic.
   – “We the people of the United States…”!!! How dare they say that?
     We are only “the people of Maryland,” “the people of Virginia,” etc.
     [Antifederalist were “localists,” not “nationalists.”]
   – They have proposed a “Godless Constitution.”
   – They created this strong central government but failed to include a
     Bill of Rights.
       • This last point turned out to be by far the most politically effective
         argument in the Antifederalist arsenal (which Hamilton tried to rebut
         in Federalist #84).
             Article VII of the Constitution
• It had been expected that the proposals of the federal
  convention would take the form of amendments to the
  Articles of Confederation.
   No alteration may be made in the Articles of Confederation unless such
     alteration be agreed to [unanimously] in a Congress of the United
     States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.
• But instead the framers inserted Article VII into their
  proposed constitution.
   • The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for
     the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying
     the Same.
   • Two key differences:
       • Ratification is by conventions (of elected delegates) in each state,
         rather than by the legislatures of the states (as under the A. of C.)
       • Ratification by any nine states is sufficient for the new Constitution
         to go into effect, rather than ratification by all thirteen states (as
         under the A. of C.
                     Article VII (cont.)
• This was a strikingly bold (even “revolutionary”) move:
  the Federalists were claiming that their Constitution
  should be ratified according to a provision in their as yet
  unratified constitution, not under the provisions of the
  existing law of the land (the Articles of Confederation).
• The particular provisions of Article VII were advan-
  tageous to the Federalist cause.
   – Ratification by conventions vs. state legislatures.
       • State legislatures up to now had exercised exclusive authority over
         the people of their states.
       • Under the proposed constitution, state legislatures would share this
         authority with the new central government.
       • So state legislatures had a significant institutional interest in
         opposing the new constitution.
       • Bypassing the state legislatures therefore advantaged the
         Federalists.
       • Moreover they could plausibly claim that their procedure was more
         popular/democratic that the A. of C. procedure.
                           Article VII (cont.)
• Ratification by nine states vs. thirteen.
   – It’s obviously easier to get the support of 9 states than 13, but the implica-
     tions of this difference are more subtle and profound than they may first
     appear.
   – Of course, under Article VII, only the states that ratify [consent to] the
     Constitution are bound by its terms.
   – But strategic analysis of Article VII implies that, not only do fewer state
     need to ratify the Constitution, but also that in the long run more states are
     likely to ratify it, than under unanimity rule.
        • Under the A. of C. rules, any state can preserve the existing union
          under the A.of C. (by rejecting the Constitution).
        • Under the Article VII rules, any state can stay out of the new union (by
          rejecting the Consitution), but it takes a coalition of five states to keep
          the A. of C. in effect.
   – Suppose, for example, that 11 states ratify the Constitution and 2 reject it
     (which is pretty much what actually happened initially).
        • Under the A. of C. rules, the Constitution is rejected and the A. of C.
          remains in effect.
        • Under the Article VII rules, the old confederal union disappears, a new
          federal union is formed among the 11 ratifying states, and the two non-
          ratying states are left out in the cold. It is likely that they will in due
          course change their minds, ratify the Constitution, and join the union.
          Other Strategic Considerations
• While formal ratification by any nine states was sufficient
  to establish the Constitution, it was recognized by all that
  ratification by the biggest states (MA, NY, PA, and VA)
  was essential, because without them a new federal
  union would not be viable.
   – NY was considered to be the most important “battleground state”
     in the ratification campaign because
       • it was closely divided between Federalists and Antifederalists, and
       • a contiguous union could not be formed without it.


• The Federalists were already organized; their basic
  strategy was to push for ratification by as many states as
  quickly as possible,
   – before the Antifederalists could get better organized, and
   – to get a “bandwagon” rolling.
  Other Strategic Considerations (cont.)
• The proposed Constitution was in effect being considered
  on a take-it-or-leave-it basis,
   – i.e., under a “closed rule” (with no amendments in order)
   – so the Federalists were exercising “agenda power.”

• The fact that the only alternative to the Constitution was
  the A. of C. worked to the Federalists’ advantage, because
  the A. of C. were widely viewed as a failure.

• The election of delegates to the state ratifying conventions
  became in effect popular referendums on the Constitution.
   – Most candidates ran on either a Federalist or Antifederalist
     “platform,”
   – though uncommitted delegates were elected in some states (most
     notably in Massachusetts).
             The Federalist Papers

• Hamilton, Madison, and Jay
  teamed up to write what are
  now called the Federalist
  Papers.
   – These “op-ed” essays appeared
     in New York City newspapers.
   – They were intended to influence
     voters to elect pro-Federalist
     delegates to the NY (and other)
     ratifying conventions and to
     influence uncommitted delegates
     while the conventions were
     meeting.
   – The essays were published
     anonymously and signed Publius.
   – Antifederalist papers were also
     written and widely circulated.
Ratification map
    and timeline

 1. Delaware
 2. Pennsylvania
 3. N.J.
 4. Conn.
 5. Georgia
 6. Mass. [Bill of Rights]
 7. Md.
 8. S.C.
 9. N.H. <<< 9/13
10. Virginia
11. N.Y.
===============
12. N.C.
13. R.I.