Ratifying the Constitution 149centralization, at the time and ever since, have pre-
dicted theimminent disappearance of the states as
sovereign bodies.But despite a steady trend toward
centralization, probablyinevitable as American soci-
ety has grown ever more complex, the states remain
powerful political organizations that are sovereignin
many areas of government.
The founders believed that since the new powers
of government might easily be misused, each should
be held within safe limits by some countervailing
force.The Constitutionis full ofingenious devices
(“checks and balances”) whereby one power controls
and limits another without reducingittoimpotence.
“Let Congress Legislate, let others execute, let others
judge,”John Jay suggested.This separation of legisla-
tive, executive, andjudicial functionsis the fundamen-
tal example of the principle.Other examples are the
president’s veto;Congress’s power ofimpeachment,
cleverly divided between the House and Senate;the
Senate’s power over treaties and appointments;and
the balance between Congress’sright to declare war
and the president’s control of the armed forces.
Ratifying the Constitution
Influenced by the widespread approval of the decision
of Massachusetts to submit its state constitution of
1780 to the voters for ratification, the framers of the
Constitution provided (Article VII) that their handi-
work be ratified by special state conventions. This
procedure gave the Constitution what Madison called
“the highest source of authority”—the endorsement
of the people, expressed through representatives cho-
sen specifically to vote on it. The framers may also
have been motivated by a desire to bypass the state
legislatures, where many members might resent the
reductions being made in state authority. This was
not of central importance because the legislatures
could have blocked ratification by refusing to call
conventions. Only Rhode Island did so, and since the
Constitution was to go into operation when nine
states had approved it, Rhode Island’s stubbornness
did no vital harm.
Such a complex and controversial document as
the Constitution naturally excited argument through-
out the country.Those who favoredit called them-
selvesFederalists, thereby avoiding the more accurate
but politically unattractive label of Centralizers.Their
opponents thus became theAntifederalists.
The Federalists tended to be substantial individu-
als, members of the professions, well-to-do, active in
commercial affairs, and somewhat alarmed by the
changes wrought by the Revolution. They were more
interested, perhaps, in orderly and efficient govern-
ment than in safeguarding the maximum freedom of
individual choice.
The Antifederalists were more often small farm-
ers, debtors, and persons to whom free choice was
moreimportant than power and who resented those
who sought and held power.“Lawyers and men of
learning and money men...expect to be the man-
agers of the Const[itution], and get all the power
and all the money into their own hands,” a
Massachusetts Antifederalist complained.“Then they
will swallow up all us little folks...just as the whale
swallowed upJonah.”
But many rich and worldly citizens opposed the
Constitution, and many poor and obscure persons
were for it. It seems likely that most did not support or
oppose the new system for narrowly selfish reasons.
The historian David Ramsay, who lived at the time
when these groups were forming, was probably correctTable 5.1 Issues and Compromises that Produced the ConstitutionIssue Ye s No CompromiseDebate 1785–1787
Should Articles of Confederation be replaced? Federalists Antifederalists Federalists win: All states but R.I. send
delegates to Constitutional Convention
at Philadelphia (1787)Constitutional Convention Debates
Should national government have broad powers? Federalists Antifederalists Federalists win: National government
imposes taxes, regulates trade, maintains
army, issues money
Should seats in national legislature be unequal,
based on a state’s population?Populous states Small states Great Compromise: Two-house
legislature: In House of Representatives,
delegates are apportioned by size of
each state’s population; in Senate, each
state gets two senators