50 Chapter 2Chapter 2 || The Constitution and the FoundingThe Constitution and the FoundingThe Federalists’ Strategies
The Federalists counterattacked on several fronts. First, supporters of the Constitution
gained the upper hand in the debate by claiming the term “federalist.” It is a common
tactic in debates to co-opt a strong point of the opposing side as a positive for your side. The
opponents of the Constitution probably had a stronger claim than its supporters to being
federalists—that is, those who favor and emphasize the autonomous power of the state
governments. Today, for example, the Federalist Society is a conservative group organized
around the principles of states’ rights and limited government. By calling themselves
Federalists, the supporters of the Constitution asserted that they were the true protectors
of states’ interests, which irritated the Antifederalists to no end. The Antifederalists also
had the rhetorical disadvantage of having “anti” attached to their name, thereby being
defined in terms of their opponents’ position rather than their own. But the problem was
more than just rhetorical: the Federalists pointed out that the Antifederalists did not have
their own plan to solve the problems created by the Articles and therefore were cast as
defenders of the status quo, which the Federalists viewed as unsustainable.
Second, as we mentioned earlier, the Federalists published the Federalist Papers.
Although originally published in New York newspapers, they were widely read
throughout the nation. The Federalist Papers were essentially one-sided arguments
aimed at changing public opinion. The authors downplayed potentially unpopular
aspects of the new system, such as the power of the president, while emphasizing
points they knew would appeal to the opposition. Despite the authors’ biased
arguments, the Federalist Papers are considered the best comprehensive discussion
of the political theory underlying the Constitution, such as the framers’ views of
self-interested human nature and the dangers of factions, and their interpretations
of many of the document’s key provisions.
Third, the Federalists agreed that the new Congress’s first order of business would
be to add a Bill of Rights to the Constitution to protect individual rights and liberties.
This promise was essential for securing the support of New York, Massachusetts,
and Virginia. The ninth state, New Hampshire, ratified the Constitution on June 21,
1788, but New York and Virginia were still dragging their heels, and their support was
viewed as necessary for the legitimacy of the United States, even if it technically was
not needed. By the end of the summer, both Virginia and New York finally voted for
ratification. Rhode Island and North Carolina refused to ratify until Congress made
good on its promise of a Bill of Rights (our civil liberties, which are guaranteed in the Bill
of Rights, will be examined in Chapter 4). The 1st Congress submitted 12 amendments
to the states, and 10 were ratified by all the states as of December 15, 1791.Bill of Rights
The first 10 amendments to the
Constitution; they protect individual
rights and liberties.Alexander Hamilton authored a
majority of the Federalist Papers and
was a strong advocate for ratification
of the Constitution.“Why
Should
I Care?”
Politicians today have a very difficult time compromising on issues like gun control,
abortion rights, and even the proper levels of taxation and spending. At the
Constitutional Convention, the framers had to struggle with fundamental issues such as
executive power and state versus national power as well as incredibly divisive issues like
slavery. The framers were facing uncertainty about the very survival of their new nation
and the nearly impossible task of creating a new framework that would allow our nation
to not only survive but also flourish. Yet the framers were able to arrive at workable
compromises on all of these issues. Without compromise, our nation would not exist.
When you hear a politician today say, “I am going to stick to my principles; I am not going
to compromise,” reflect on the fact that governing is not possible without compromise.
“Compromise” is not a dirty word; it is an essential feature of politics.Full_03_APT_64431_ch02_030-069.indd 50 16/11/18 1:32 PM