book of essays explaining and supporting the constitution was called

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

Federalist Papers

By: History.com Editors

Updated: June 22, 2023 | Original: November 9, 2009

The Federalist Papers are a collection of essays written in the 1780s in support of the proposed U.S. Constitution and the strong federal government it advocated. In October 1787, the first in a series of 85 essays arguing for ratification of the Constitution appeared in the Independent Journal , under the pseudonym “Publius.” Addressed to “The People of the State of New York,” the essays were actually written by the statesmen Alexander Hamilton , James Madison and John Jay . They would be published serially from 1787-88 in several New York newspapers. The first 77 essays, including Madison’s famous Federalist 10 and Federalist 51 , appeared in book form in 1788. Titled The Federalist , it has been hailed as one of the most important political documents in U.S. history.

Articles of Confederation

As the first written constitution of the newly independent United States, the Articles of Confederation nominally granted Congress the power to conduct foreign policy, maintain armed forces and coin money.

But in practice, this centralized government body had little authority over the individual states, including no power to levy taxes or regulate commerce, which hampered the new nation’s ability to pay its outstanding debts from the Revolutionary War .

In May 1787, 55 delegates gathered in Philadelphia to address the deficiencies of the Articles of Confederation and the problems that had arisen from this weakened central government.

A New Constitution

The document that emerged from the Constitutional Convention went far beyond amending the Articles, however. Instead, it established an entirely new system, including a robust central government divided into legislative , executive and judicial branches.

As soon as 39 delegates signed the proposed Constitution in September 1787, the document went to the states for ratification, igniting a furious debate between “Federalists,” who favored ratification of the Constitution as written, and “Antifederalists,” who opposed the Constitution and resisted giving stronger powers to the national government.

How Did Magna Carta Influence the U.S. Constitution?

The 13th‑century pact inspired the U.S. Founding Fathers as they wrote the documents that would shape the nation.

The Founding Fathers Feared Political Factions Would Tear the Nation Apart

The Constitution's framers viewed political parties as a necessary evil.

Checks and Balances

Separation of Powers The idea that a just and fair government must divide power between various branches did not originate at the Constitutional Convention, but has deep philosophical and historical roots. In his analysis of the government of Ancient Rome, the Greek statesman and historian Polybius identified it as a “mixed” regime with three branches: […]

The Rise of Publius

In New York, opposition to the Constitution was particularly strong, and ratification was seen as particularly important. Immediately after the document was adopted, Antifederalists began publishing articles in the press criticizing it.

They argued that the document gave Congress excessive powers and that it could lead to the American people losing the hard-won liberties they had fought for and won in the Revolution.

In response to such critiques, the New York lawyer and statesman Alexander Hamilton, who had served as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, decided to write a comprehensive series of essays defending the Constitution, and promoting its ratification.

Who Wrote the Federalist Papers?

As a collaborator, Hamilton recruited his fellow New Yorker John Jay, who had helped negotiate the treaty ending the war with Britain and served as secretary of foreign affairs under the Articles of Confederation. The two later enlisted the help of James Madison, another delegate to the Constitutional Convention who was in New York at the time serving in the Confederation Congress.

To avoid opening himself and Madison to charges of betraying the Convention’s confidentiality, Hamilton chose the pen name “Publius,” after a general who had helped found the Roman Republic. He wrote the first essay, which appeared in the Independent Journal, on October 27, 1787.

In it, Hamilton argued that the debate facing the nation was not only over ratification of the proposed Constitution, but over the question of “whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.”

After writing the next four essays on the failures of the Articles of Confederation in the realm of foreign affairs, Jay had to drop out of the project due to an attack of rheumatism; he would write only one more essay in the series. Madison wrote a total of 29 essays, while Hamilton wrote a staggering 51.

Federalist Papers Summary

In the Federalist Papers, Hamilton, Jay and Madison argued that the decentralization of power that existed under the Articles of Confederation prevented the new nation from becoming strong enough to compete on the world stage or to quell internal insurrections such as Shays’s Rebellion .

In addition to laying out the many ways in which they believed the Articles of Confederation didn’t work, Hamilton, Jay and Madison used the Federalist essays to explain key provisions of the proposed Constitution, as well as the nature of the republican form of government.

'Federalist 10'

In Federalist 10 , which became the most influential of all the essays, Madison argued against the French political philosopher Montesquieu ’s assertion that true democracy—including Montesquieu’s concept of the separation of powers—was feasible only for small states.

A larger republic, Madison suggested, could more easily balance the competing interests of the different factions or groups (or political parties ) within it. “Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests,” he wrote. “[Y]ou make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens[.]”

After emphasizing the central government’s weakness in law enforcement under the Articles of Confederation in Federalist 21-22 , Hamilton dove into a comprehensive defense of the proposed Constitution in the next 14 essays, devoting seven of them to the importance of the government’s power of taxation.

Madison followed with 20 essays devoted to the structure of the new government, including the need for checks and balances between the different powers.

'Federalist 51'

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary,” Madison wrote memorably in Federalist 51 . “If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”

After Jay contributed one more essay on the powers of the Senate , Hamilton concluded the Federalist essays with 21 installments exploring the powers held by the three branches of government—legislative, executive and judiciary.

Impact of the Federalist Papers

Despite their outsized influence in the years to come, and their importance today as touchstones for understanding the Constitution and the founding principles of the U.S. government, the essays published as The Federalist in 1788 saw limited circulation outside of New York at the time they were written. They also fell short of convincing many New York voters, who sent far more Antifederalists than Federalists to the state ratification convention.

Still, in July 1788, a slim majority of New York delegates voted in favor of the Constitution, on the condition that amendments would be added securing certain additional rights. Though Hamilton had opposed this (writing in Federalist 84 that such a bill was unnecessary and could even be harmful) Madison himself would draft the Bill of Rights in 1789, while serving as a representative in the nation’s first Congress.

HISTORY Vault: The American Revolution

Stream American Revolution documentaries and your favorite HISTORY series, commercial-free.

Ron Chernow, Hamilton (Penguin, 2004). Pauline Maier, Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (Simon & Schuster, 2010). “If Men Were Angels: Teaching the Constitution with the Federalist Papers.” Constitutional Rights Foundation . Dan T. Coenen, “Fifteen Curious Facts About the Federalist Papers.” University of Georgia School of Law , April 1, 2007. 

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

Explore the Constitution

The constitution.

• Read the Full Text

Dive Deeper

Constitution 101 course.

• The Drafting Table
• Supreme Court Cases Library
• Founders' Library
• Constitutional Rights: Origins & Travels

Start your constitutional learning journey

• News & Debate Overview
• Constitution Daily Blog
• America's Town Hall Programs
• Special Projects
• Media Library

America’s Town Hall

Watch videos of recent programs.

• Education Overview

Constitution 101 Curriculum

• Classroom Resources by Topic
• Classroom Resources Library
• Live Online Events
• Professional Learning Opportunities
• Constitution Day Resources

Explore our new 15-unit high school curriculum.

• Explore the Museum
• Plan Your Visit
• Exhibits & Programs
• Field Trips & Group Visits
• Host Your Event
• Buy Tickets

New exhibit

The first amendment, historic document, federalist 1 (1787).

Alexander Hamilton | 1787

On October 27, 1787, Alexander Hamilton published the opening essay of The Federalist Papers — Federalist 1 . The Federalist Papers were a series of 85 essays printed in newspapers to persuade the American people (and especially Hamilton’s fellow New Yorkers) to support ratification of the new Constitution. These essays were written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay—with all three authors writing under the pen name “Publius.” On September 17, 1787, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention had signed the new U.S. Constitution. This new Constitution was the Framers’ proposal for a new national government. But it was only that—a proposal. The Framers left the question of ratification—whether to say “yes” or “no” to the new Constitution—to the American people. In the Framers’ view, only the American people themselves had the authority to tear up the previous framework of government—the Articles of Confederation—and establish a new one. The ratification process itself embodied one of the Constitution’s core principles: popular sovereignty, or the idea that all political power is derived from the consent of “We the People.” In Federalist 1, Hamilton captured this vision well, framing the stakes of the battle over ratification. In this opening essay, Hamilton called on the American people to “deliberate on a new Constitution” and prove to the world that they were capable of choosing a government based on “reflection and choice,” not “accident and force.”

Selected by

The National Constitution Center

AFTER an unequivocal experience of the inefficiency of the subsisting federal government, you are called upon to deliberate on a new Constitution for the United States of America. The subject speaks its own importance; comprehending in its consequences nothing less than the existence of the UNION, the safety and welfare of the parts of which it is composed, the fate of an empire in many respects the most interesting in the world. It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force. If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made; and a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind. This idea will add the inducements of philanthropy to those of patriotism, to heighten the solicitude which all considerate and good men must feel for the event. Happy will it be if our choice should be directed by a judicious estimate of our true interests, unperplexed and unbiased by considerations not connected with the public good. But this is a thing more ardently to be wished than seriously to be expected. The plan offered to our deliberations affects too many particular interests, innovates upon too many local institutions, not to involve in its discussion a variety of objects foreign to its merits, and of views, passions and prejudices little favorable to the discovery of truth. 

Among the most formidable of the obstacles which the new Constitution will have to encounter may readily be distinguished the obvious interest of a certain class of men in every State to resist all changes which may hazard a diminution of the power, emolument, and consequence of the offices they hold under the State establishments; and the perverted ambition of another class of men, who will either hope to aggrandize themselves by the confusions of their country, or will flatter themselves with fairer prospects of elevation from the subdivision of the empire into several partial confederacies than from its union under one government. 

It is not, however, my design to dwell upon observations of this nature. I am well aware that it would be disingenuous to resolve indiscriminately the opposition of any set of men (merely because their situations might subject them to suspicion) into interested or ambitious views. Candor will oblige us to admit that even such men may be actuated by upright intentions; and it cannot be doubted that much of the opposition which has made its appearance, or may hereafter make its appearance, will spring from sources, blameless at least, if not respectable—the honest errors of minds led astray by preconceived jealousies and fears. So numerous indeed and so powerful are the causes which serve to give a false bias to the judgment, that we, upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the wrong as well as on the right side of questions of the first magnitude to society. This circumstance, if duly attended to, would furnish a lesson of moderation to those who are ever so much persuaded of their being in the right in any controversy. And a further reason for caution, in this respect, might be drawn from the reflection that we are not always sure that those who advocate the truth are influenced by purer principles than their antagonists. Ambition, avarice, personal animosity, party opposition, and many other motives not more laudable than these, are apt to operate as well upon those who support as those who oppose the right side of a question. Were there not even these inducements to moderation, nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties. For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution. 

And yet, however just these sentiments will be allowed to be, we have already sufficient indications that it will happen in this as in all former cases of great national discussion. A torrent of angry and malignant passions will be let loose. To judge from the conduct of the opposite parties, we shall be led to conclude that they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives. An enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government will be stigmatized as the offspring of a temper fond of despotic power and hostile to the principles of liberty. An over-scrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the people, which is more commonly the fault of the head than of the heart, will be represented as mere pretense and artifice, the stale bait for popularity at the expense of the public good. It will be forgotten, on the one hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of love, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust. On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants. . . . 

It may perhaps be thought superfluous to offer arguments to prove the utility of the UNION, a point, no doubt, deeply engraved on the hearts of the great body of the people in every State, and one, which it may be imagined, has no adversaries. But the fact is, that we already hear it whispered in the private circles of those who oppose the new Constitution, that the thirteen States are of too great extent for any general system, and that we must of necessity resort to separate confederacies of distinct portions of the whole. This doctrine will, in all probability, be gradually propagated, till it has votaries enough to countenance an open avowal of it. For nothing can be more evident, to those who are able to take an enlarged view of the subject, than the alternative of an adoption of the new Constitution or a dismemberment of the Union. It will therefore be of use to begin by examining the advantages of that Union, the certain evils, and the probable dangers, to which every State will be exposed from its dissolution. This shall accordingly constitute the subject of my next address.  

Explore the full document

Modal title.

Modal body text goes here.

Share with Students

The American Founding

Introduction to the Federalist Papers

Origin of the Federalist

The 85 essays appeared in one or more of the following four New York newspapers: 1)  The New York Journal , edited by Thomas Greenleaf, 2)  Independent Journal , edited by John McLean, 3)  New York Advertiser , edited by Samuel and John Loudon, and 4)  Daily Advertiser , edited by Francis Childs. This site uses the 1818 Gideon edition. Initially, they were intended to be a 20-essay response to the  Antifederalist  attacks on the  Constitution  that were flooding the New York newspapers right after the  Constitution  had been signed in Philadelphia on September 17, 1787. The Cato letters started to appear on September 27,  George Mason ‘s objections were in circulation and the Brutus Essays were launched on October 18. The number of essays in  The Federalist  was extended in response to the relentless, and effective,  Antifederalist  criticism of the proposed  Constitution .

McLean bundled the first 36 essays together—they appeared in the newspapers between October 27, 1787 and January 8, 1788—and published them as Volume 1 on March 22, 1788. Essays 37 through 77 of  The Federalist  appeared between January 11 and April 2, 1788. On May 28, McLean took  Federalist  37-77 as well as the yet to be published  Federalist  78-85 and issued them all as Volume 2 of  The Federalist . Between June 14 and August 16, these eight remaining essays— Federalist  78-85—appeared in the  Independent Journal  and  New York Packet .

THE STATUS OF  THE FEDERALIST

One of the persistent questions concerning the status of  The Federalist  is this: is it a propaganda tract written to secure ratification of the  Constitution  and thus of no enduring relevance or is it the authoritative expositor of the meaning of the  Constitution  having a privileged position in constitutional interpretation? It is tempting to adopt the former position because 1) the essays originated in the rough and tumble of the ratification struggle. It is also tempting to 2) see  The Federalist  as incoherent; didn’t  Hamilton  and  Madison  disagree with each other within five years of co-authoring the essays? Surely the seeds of their disagreement are sown in the very essays! 3) The essays sometimes appeared at a rate of about three per week and, according to  Madison , there were occasions when the last part of an essay was being written as the first part was being typed.

• One should not confuse self-serving propaganda with advocating a political position in a persuasive manner. After all, rhetorical skills are a vital part of the democratic electoral process and something a free people have to handle. These are op-ed pieces of the highest quality addressing the most pressing issues of the day.
• Moreover, because  Hamilton  and  Madison  parted ways doesn’t mean that they weren’t in fundamental agreement in 1787-1788 about the need for a more energetic form of government. And just because they were written with a certain haste, doesn’t mean that they were unreflective and not well written.  Federalist  10 , the most famous of all the essays, is actually the final draft of an essay that originated in  Madison ‘s  Vices  in 1787, matured at the  Constitutional Convention  in June 1787, and was refined in a letter to Jefferson in October 1787. All of  Jay ‘s essays focus on foreign policy, the heart of the Madisonian essays are  Federalist  37-51 on the great difficulty of founding, and  Hamilton  tends to focus on the institutional features of federalism and the separation of powers.

I suggest, furthermore, that the moment these essays were available in book form, they acquired a status that went beyond the more narrowly conceived objective of trying to influence the ratification of the  Constitution .  The Federalist  now acquired a “timeless” and higher purpose, a sort of icon status equal to the very  Constitution  that it was defending and interpreting. And we can see this switch in tone in  Federalist  37  when  Madison  invites his readers to contemplate the great difficulty of founding.  Federalist  38 , echoing  Federalist  1 , points to the uniqueness of the America Founding: never before had a nation been founded by the reflection and choice of multiple founders who sat down and deliberated over creating the best form of government consistent with the genius of the American people. Thomas Jefferson referred to the  Constitution  as the work of “demigods,” and  The Federalist  “the best commentary on the principles of government, which ever was written.” There is a coherent teaching on the constitutional aspects of a new republicanism and a new federalism in  The Federalist  that makes the essays attractive to readers of every generation.

AUTHORSHIP OF  THE FEDERALIST

A second question about  The Federalist  is how many essays did each person write? James Madison —at the time a resident of New York since he was a Virginia delegate to the Confederation Congress that met in New York— John Jay , and  Alexander Hamilton —both of New York— wrote these essays under the pseudonym, “Publius.” So one answer to the question is that it doesn’t matter since everyone signed off under the same pseudonym, “Publius.” But given the icon status of  The Federalist , there has been an enduring curiosity about the authorship of the essays. Although it is virtually agreed that  Jay  wrote only five essays, there have been several disputes over the decades concerning the distribution of the essays between  Hamilton  and  Madison . Suffice it to note, that  Madison ‘s last contribution was  Federalist  63 , leaving  Hamilton  as the exclusive author of the nineteen Executive and Judiciary essays.  Madison  left New York in order to comply with the residence law in Virginia concerning eligibility for the  Virginia ratifying convention . There is also widespread agreement that  Madison  wrote the first 13 essays on the great difficulty of founding. There is still dispute over the authorship of  Federalist  50-58, but these have persuasively been resolved in favor of  Madison .

OUTLINE OF  THE FEDERALIST

A third question concerns how to “outline” the essays into its component parts. We get some natural help from the authors themselves.  Federalist  1  outlines the six topics to be discussed in the essays without providing an exact table of contents. The authors didn’t know in October 1787 how many essays would be devoted to each topic. Nevertheless, if one sticks with the “formal division of the subject” outlined in the first essay, it is possible to work out the actual division of essays into the six topic areas or “points” after the fact so to speak.

Martin Diamond was one of the earliest scholars to break  The Federalist  into its component parts. He identified Union as the subject matter of the first 36  Federalist  essays and Republicanism as the subject matter of the last 49 essays. There is certain neatness to this breakdown, and accuracy to the Union essays. The fist three topics outlined in  Federalist  1  are:

• The utility of the union
• The insufficiency of the present confederation under the  Articles of Confederation
• The need for a government at least as energetic as the one proposed.

The opening paragraph of  Federalist  15  summarizes the previous 14 essays and says: “in pursuance of the plan which I have laid down for the pursuance of the subject, the point next in order to be examined is the ‘insufficiency of the present confederation.’” So we can say with confidence that  Federalist  1-14 is devoted to the utility of the union. Similarly,  Federalist  23  opens with the following observation: “the necessity of a Constitution, at least equally energetic as the one proposed…is the point at the examination of the examination at which we are arrived.” Thus  Federalist  15-22 covered the second point dealing with union or federalism. Finally,  Federalist  37  makes it clear that coverage of the third point has come to an end and new beginning has arrived. And since McLean bundled the first 36 essays into Volume 1, we have confidence in declaring a conclusion to the coverage of the first three points all having to do with union and federalism.

The difficulty with the Diamond project is that it becomes messy with respect to topics 4, 5, and 6 listed in  Federalist  1 : 4) the  Constitution  conforms to the  true principles of republicanism , 5) the analogy of the  Constitution  to state governments, and 6) the added benefits from adopting the  Constitution . Let’s work our way backward. In  Federalist  85 , we learn that “according to the formal division of the subject of these papers announced in my first number, there would appear still to remain for discussion two points,” namely, the fifth and sixth points. That leaves, “republicanism,” the fourth point, as the topic for  Federalist  37-84, or virtually the entire Part II of  The Federalist .

I propose that we substitute the word  Constitutionalism  for  Republicanism  as the subject matter for essays 37-51, reserving the appellation  Republicanism  for essays 52-84. This substitution is similar to the “Merits of the  Constitution ” designation offered by Charles Kesler in his new introduction to the Rossiter edition; the advantage of this Constitutional approach is that it helps explain why issues other than Republicanism strictly speaking are covered in  Federalist  37-46. Kesler carries the Constitutional designation through to the end; I suggest we return to Republicanism with  Federalist  52 .

Finally, to assist the reader in following the argument of  The Federalist , I have broken the argument down into seven major parts. This breakdown follows the open ended one provided in  Federalist  1 . This can be used in conjunction with the  Essay-by-Essay Summary  and the actual text of  The Federalist .

Note:  The text of  The Federalist  used on this site is from the edition reviewed by James Madison and published by Jacob Gideon in 1818. There may be slight variations in language from the essays as originally published.

State:  Virginia

Age at Convention:  36

Date of Birth:  March 16, 1751

Date of Death:  June 28, 1836

Schooling:  College of New Jersey (Princeton) 1771

Occupation:  Politician

Prior Political Experience:  Lower House of Virginia 1776, 1783-1786, Upper House of Virginia 1778, Virginia State Constitutional Convention 1776, Confederation Congress 1781- 1783, 1786-1788, Virginia House of Delegates 1784-1786, Annapolis Convention Signer 1786

Committee Assignments:  Third Committee of Representation, Committee of Slave Trade, Committee of Leftovers, Committee of Style

Convention Contributions:  Arrived May 25 and was present through the signing of the Constitution. He is best known for writing the Virginia Plan and defending the attempt to build a stronger central government. He kept copious notes of the proceedings of the Convention which were made available to the general public upon his death in 1836. William Pierce stated that “Mr. Madison is a character who has long been in public life; and what is very remarkable every Person seems to acknowledge his greatness. He blends together the profound politician, with the Scholar. … The affairs of the United States, he perhaps, has the most correct knowledge of, of any Man in the Union.”

New Government Participation:  Attended the ratification convention of Virginia and supported the ratification of the Constitution. He also coauthored the Federalist Papers. Served as Virginia’s U.S. Representative (1789-1797) where he drafted and debated the First Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; ten of which became the Bill of Rights; author of the Virginia Resolutions which argued that the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 were unconstitutional. Served as Secretary of State (1801-1809) Elected President of the United States of America (1809-1817).

Biography from the National Archives:  The oldest of 10 children and a scion of the planter aristocracy, Madison was born in 1751 at Port Conway, King George County, VA, while his mother was visiting her parents. In a few weeks she journeyed back with her newborn son to Montpelier estate, in Orange County, which became his lifelong home. He received his early education from his mother, from tutors, and at a private school. An excellent scholar though frail and sickly in his youth, in 1771 he graduated from the College of New Jersey (later Princeton), where he demonstrated special interest in government and the law. But, considering the ministry for a career, he stayed on for a year of postgraduate study in theology.

Back at Montpelier, still undecided on a profession, Madison soon embraced the patriot cause, and state and local politics absorbed much of his time. In 1775 he served on the Orange County committee of safety; the next year at the Virginia convention, which, besides advocating various Revolutionary steps, framed the Virginia constitution; in 1776-77 in the House of Delegates; and in 1778-80 in the Council of State. His ill health precluded any military service.

In 1780 Madison was chosen to represent Virginia in the Continental Congress (1780-83 and 1786-88). Although originally the youngest delegate, he played a major role in the deliberations of that body. Meantime, in the years 1784-86, he had again sat in the Virginia House of Delegates. He was a guiding force behind the Mount Vernon Conference (1785), attended the Annapolis Convention (1786), and was otherwise highly instrumental in the convening of the Constitutional Convention in 1787. He had also written extensively about deficiencies in the Articles of Confederation.

Madison was clearly the preeminent figure at the convention. Some of the delegates favored an authoritarian central government; others, retention of state sovereignty; and most occupied positions in the middle of the two extremes. Madison, who was rarely absent and whose Virginia Plan was in large part the basis of the Constitution, tirelessly advocated a strong government, though many of his proposals were rejected. Despite his poor speaking capabilities, he took the floor more than 150 times, third only after Gouverneur Morris and James Wilson. Madison was also a member of numerous committees, the most important of which were those on postponed matters and style. His journal of the convention is the best single record of the event. He also played a key part in guiding the Constitution through the Continental Congress.

Playing a lead in the ratification process in Virginia, too, Madison defended the document against such powerful opponents as Patrick Henry, George Mason, and Richard Henry Lee. In New York, where Madison was serving in the Continental Congress, he collaborated with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay in a series of essays that in 1787-88 appeared in the newspapers and were soon published in book form as The Federalist (1788). This set of essays is a classic of political theory and a lucid exposition of the republican principles that dominated the framing of the Constitution.

In the U.S. House of Representatives (1789-97), Madison helped frame and ensure passage of the Bill of Rights. He also assisted in organizing the executive department and creating a system of federal taxation. As leaders of the opposition to Hamilton’s policies, he and Jefferson founded the Democratic-Republican Party.

In 1794 Madison married a vivacious widow who was 16 years his junior, Dolley Payne Todd, who had a son; they were to raise no children of their own. Madison spent the period 1797-1801 in semiretirement, but in 1798 he wrote the Virginia Resolutions, which attacked the Alien and Sedition Acts. While he served as Secretary of State (1801-9), his wife often served as President Jefferson’s hostess.

In 1809 Madison succeeded Jefferson. Like the first three Presidents, Madison was enmeshed in the ramifications of European wars. Diplomacy had failed to prevent the seizure of U.S. ships, goods, and men on the high seas, and a depression wracked the country. Madison continued to apply diplomatic techniques and economic sanctions, eventually effective to some degree against France. But continued British interference with shipping, as well as other grievances, led to the War of 1812.

The war, for which the young nation was ill prepared, ended in stalemate in December 1814 when the inconclusive Treaty of Ghent which nearly restored prewar conditions, was signed. But, thanks mainly to Andrew Jackson’s spectacular victory at the Battle of New Orleans (Chalmette) in January 1815, most Americans believed they had won. Twice tested, independence had survived, and an ebullient nationalism marked Madison’s last years in office, during which period the Democratic-Republicans held virtually uncontested sway.

In retirement after his second term, Madison managed Montpelier but continued to be active in public affairs. He devoted long hours to editing his journal of the Constitutional Convention, which the government was to publish 4 years after his death. He served as co-chairman of the Virginia constitutional convention of 1829-30 and as rector of the University of Virginia during the period 1826-36. Writing newspaper articles defending the administration of Monroe, he also acted as his foreign policy adviser.

Madison spoke out, too, against the emerging sectional controversy that threatened the existence of the Union. Although a slaveholder all his life, he was active during his later years in the American Colonization Society, whose mission was the resettlement of slaves in Africa.

Madison died at the age of 85 in 1836, survived by his wife and stepson.

Age at Convention:  62

Date of Birth:  December 11,1725

Date of Death:  October 7, 1792

Schooling:  Personal tutors

Occupation:  Planter and Slave Holder, Lending and Investments, Real Estate Land Speculation, Public Security Investments, Land owner

Prior Political Experience:  Author of Virginia Bill of Rights, State Lower House of Virginia 1776-1780, 1786-1787, Virginia State Constitutional Convention 1776

Committee Assignments:  First Committee of Representation, Committee of Assumption of State Debts, Committee of Trade, Chairman Committee of Economy, Frugality, and Manufactures

Convention Contributions:  Arrived May 25 and was present through the signing of the Constitution, however he did not sign the Constitution. Initially Mason advocated a stronger central government but withdrew his support toward the end of the deliberations. He argued that the Constitution inadequately represented the interests of the people and the States and that the new government will “produce a monarchy, or a corrupt, tyrannical aristocracy.” William Pierce stated that “he is able and convincing in debate, steady and firm in his principles, and undoubtedly one of the best politicians in America.” He kept notes of the debates at the Convention.

New Government Participation:  He attended the ratification convention of Virginia where he opposed the ratification of the Constitution. Did not serve in the new Federal Government.

Biography from the National Archives:  In 1725 George Mason was born to George and Ann Thomson Mason. When the boy was 10 years old his father died, and young George’s upbringing was left in the care of his uncle, John Mercer. The future jurist’s education was profoundly shaped by the contents of his uncle’s 1500-volume library, one-third of which concerned the law.

Mason established himself as an important figure in his community. As owner of Gunston Hall he was one of the richest planters in Virginia. In 1750 he married Anne Eilbeck, and in 23 years of marriage they had five sons and four daughters. In 1752 he acquired an interest in the Ohio Company, an organization that speculated in western lands. When the crown revoked the company’s rights in 1773, Mason, the company’s treasurer, wrote his first major state paper, Extracts from the Virginia Charters, with Some Remarks upon Them.

During these years Mason also pursued his political interests. He was a justice of the Fairfax County court, and between 1754 and 1779 Mason was a trustee of the city of Alexandria. In 1759 he was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses. When the Stamp Act of 1765 aroused outrage in the colonies, George Mason wrote an open letter explaining the colonists’ position to a committee of London merchants to enlist their support.

In 1774 Mason again was in the forefront of political events when he assisted in drawing up the Fairfax Resolves, a document that outlined the colonists’ constitutional grounds for their objections to the Boston Port Act. Virginia’s Declaration of Rights, framed by Mason in 1776, was widely copied in other colonies, served as a model for Jefferson in the first part of the Declaration of Independence, and was the basis for the federal Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

The years between 1776 and 1780 were filled with great legislative activity. The establishment of a government independent of Great Britain required the abilities of persons such as George Mason. He supported the disestablishment of the church and was active in the organization of military affairs, especially in the West. The influence of his early work, Extracts from the Virginia Charters, is seen in the 1783 peace treaty with Great Britain, which fixed the Anglo-American boundary at the Great Lakes instead of the Ohio River. After independence, Mason drew up the plan for Virginia’s cession of its western lands to the United States.

By the early 1780s, however, Mason grew disgusted with the conduct of public affairs and retired. He married his second wife, Sarah Brent, in 1780. In 1785 he attended the Mount Vernon meeting that was a prelude to the Annapolis convention of 1786, but, though appointed, he did not go to Annapolis.

At Philadelphia in 1787 Mason was one of the five most frequent speakers at the Constitutional Convention. He exerted great influence, but during the last two weeks of the convention he decided not to sign the document.

Mason’s refusal prompts some surprise, especially since his name is so closely linked with constitutionalism. He explained his reasons at length, citing the absence of a declaration of rights as his primary concern. He then discussed the provisions of the Constitution point by point, beginning with the House of Representatives. The House he criticized as not truly representative of the nation, the Senate as too powerful. He also claimed that the power of the federal judiciary would destroy the state judiciaries, render justice unattainable, and enable the rich to oppress and ruin the poor. These fears led Mason to conclude that the new government was destined to either become a monarchy or fall into the hands of a corrupt, oppressive aristocracy.

Two of Mason’s greatest concerns were incorporated into the Constitution. The Bill of Rights answered his primary objection, and the 11th amendment addressed his call for strictures on the judiciary.

Throughout his career Mason was guided by his belief in the rule of reason and in the centrality of the natural rights of man. He approached problems coolly, rationally, and impersonally. In recognition of his accomplishments and dedication to the principles of the Age of Reason, Mason has been called the American manifestation of the Enlightenment. Mason died on October 7, 1792, and was buried on the grounds of Gunston Hall.

State:  New York (Born in British West Indies, immigrated 1772)

Age at Convention:  30

Date of Birth:  January 11, 1757

Date of Death:  July 12, 1804

Schooling:  Attended Kings College (Columbia)

Occupation:  Lawyer, Public Security Interests, Real Estate, Land Speculation, Soldier

Prior Political Experience:  Confederation Congress 1782-1783, Represented New York at Annapolis Convention 1786, Lower State Legislature of New York 1787

Committee Assignments:  Committee of Rules, Committee of Style

Convention Contributions:  Arrived May 25, departed June 30, and except for one day, August 13, he was absent until September 6. Upon his return he remained present through the signing of the Constitution. His most important contribution was the introduction and defense of the Hamilton plan on June 18, 1787, that argued neither the Virginia Plan nor the New Jersey Plan were adequate to the task at hand. William Pierce stated that “there is no skimming over the surface of a subject with him, he must sink to the bottom to see what foundation it rests on.”

New Government Participation:  Attended the New York ratifying convention and supported the ratification of the Constitution. President Washington nominated and the Senate confirmed Hamilton as the Secretary of the Treasury (1789 – 1796). He was the principle author of the Federalist Papers.

Biography from the National Archives:  Hamilton was born in 1757 on the island of Nevis, in the Leeward group, British West Indies. He was the illegitimate son of a common-law marriage between a poor itinerant Scottish merchant of aristocratic descent and an English-French Huguenot mother who was a planter’s daughter. In 1766, after the father had moved his family elsewhere in the Leewards to St. Croix in the Danish (now United States) Virgin Islands, he returned to St. Kitts while his wife and two sons remained on St. Croix.

The mother, who opened a small store to make ends meet, and a Presbyterian clergyman provided Hamilton with a basic education, and he learned to speak fluent French. About the time of his mother’s death in 1768, he became an apprentice clerk at Christiansted in a mercantile establishment, whose proprietor became one of his benefactors. Recognizing his ambition and superior intelligence, they raised a fund for his education.

In 1772, bearing letters of introduction, Hamilton traveled to New York City. Patrons he met there arranged for him to attend Barber’s Academy at Elizabethtown (present Elizabeth), NJ. During this time, he met and stayed for a while at the home of William Livingston, who would one day be a fellow signer of the Constitution. Late the next year, 1773, Hamilton entered King’s College (later Columbia College and University) in New York City, but the Revolution interrupted his studies.

Although not yet 20 years of age, in 1774-75 Hamilton wrote several widely read pro-Whig pamphlets. Right after the war broke out, he accepted an artillery captaincy and fought in the principal campaigns of 1776-77. In the latter year, winning the rank of lieutenant colonel, he joined the staff of General Washington as secretary and aide-de-camp and soon became his close confidant as well.

In 1780 Hamilton wed New Yorker Elizabeth Schuyler, whose family was rich and politically powerful; they were to have eight children. In 1781, after some disagreements with Washington, he took a command position under Lafayette in the Yorktown, VA, campaign (1781). He resigned his commission that November.

Hamilton then read law at Albany and quickly entered practice, but public service soon attracted him. He was elected to the Continental Congress in 1782-83. In the latter year, he established a law office in New York City. Because of his interest in strengthening the central government, he represented his state at the Annapolis Convention in 1786, where he urged the calling of the Constitutional Convention.

In 1787 Hamilton served in the legislature, which appointed him as a delegate to the convention. He played a surprisingly small part in the debates, apparently because he was frequently absent on legal business, his extreme nationalism put him at odds with most of the delegates, and he was frustrated by the conservative views of his two fellow delegates from New York. He did, however, sit on the Committee of Style, and he was the only one of the three delegates from his state who signed the finished document. Hamilton’s part in New York’s ratification the next year was substantial, though he felt the Constitution was deficient in many respects. Against determined opposition, he waged a strenuous and successful campaign, including collaboration with John Jay and James Madison in writing The Federalist. In 1787 Hamilton was again elected to the Continental Congress.

When the new government got under way in 1789, Hamilton won the position of Secretary of the Treasury. He began at once to place the nation’s disorganized finances on a sound footing. In a series of reports (1790-91), he presented a program not only to stabilize national finances but also to shape the future of the country as a powerful, industrial nation. He proposed establishment of a national bank, funding of the national debt, assumption of state war debts, and the encouragement of manufacturing.

Hamilton’s policies soon brought him into conflict with Jefferson and Madison. Their disputes with him over his pro-business economic program, sympathies for Great Britain, disdain for the common man, and opposition to the principles and excesses of the French revolution contributed to the formation of the first U.S. party system. It pitted Hamilton and the Federalists against Jefferson and Madison and the Democratic-Republicans.

During most of the Washington administration, Hamilton’s views usually prevailed with the President, especially after 1793 when Jefferson left the government. In 1795 family and financial needs forced Hamilton to resign from the Treasury Department and resume his law practice in New York City. Except for a stint as inspector-general of the Army (1798-1800) during the undeclared war with France, he never again held public office.

While gaining stature in the law, Hamilton continued to exert a powerful impact on New York and national politics. Always an opponent of fellow-Federalist John Adams, he sought to prevent his election to the presidency in 1796. When that failed, he continued to use his influence secretly within Adams’ cabinet. The bitterness between the two men became public knowledge in 1800 when Hamilton denounced Adams in a letter that was published through the efforts of the Democratic-Republicans.

In 1802 Hamilton and his family moved into The Grange, a country home he had built in a rural part of Manhattan not far north of New York City. But the expenses involved and investments in northern land speculations seriously strained his finances.

Meanwhile, when Jefferson and Aaron Burr tied in Presidential electoral votes in 1800, Hamilton threw valuable support to Jefferson. In 1804, when Burr sought the governorship of New York, Hamilton again managed to defeat him. That same year, Burr, taking offense at remarks he believed to have originated with Hamilton, challenged him to a duel, which took place at present Weehawken, NJ, on July 11. Mortally wounded, Hamilton died the next day. He was in his late forties at death. He was buried in Trinity Churchyard in New York City.

State:  New York

Age at Ratifying Convention:  42

Affiliation:  Federalist

Nom de Plume:  Publius (with Madison and Hamilton)

Vote at Ratifying Convention:  Yea

Date of Birth:  December 12, 1745

Date of Death:  May 17, 1829

Schooling:  King’s College (Columbia)

Occupation:  Attorney, Judge

Prior Political Experience:  Delegate to the First Continental Congress, 1774; Delegate to the Second Continental Congress; New York Provincial Congress; Chief Justice of the New York Supreme Court, 1777-1778; United States Secretary of Foreign Affairs, 1784-1790

Other Political Activities:  Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, 1790-1795; Governor of New York, 1795-1800

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center

Federalist papers summary

Federalist papers , formally The Federalist , Eighty-five essays on the proposed Constitution of the United States and the nature of republican government, published in 1787–88 by Alexander Hamilton , James Madison , and John Jay in an effort to persuade voters of New York state to support ratification. Most of the essays first appeared serially in New York newspapers; they were reprinted in other states and then published as a book in 1788. A few of the essays were issued separately later. All were signed “Publius.” They presented a masterly exposition of the federal system and the means of attaining the ideals of justice, general welfare, and the rights of individuals.

The Federalist Papers

Appearing in New York newspapers as the New York Ratification Convention met in Poughkeepsie, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison wrote as Publius and addressed the citizens of New York through the Federalist Papers.  These essays subsequently circulated and were reprinted throughout the states as the Ratification process unfolded in other states.  Initially appearing as individual items in several New York newspapers, all eighty-five essays were eventually combined and published as The Federalist .  Click here to view a chronology of the Printing and Reprintings of The Federalist .   

Considerable debate has surrounded these essays since their publication. Many suggest they represent the best exposition of the Constitution to date. Their conceptual design would affirm this view.  Others contend that they were mere propaganda to allay fears of the opposition to the Constitution. Regardless, they are often included in the canon of the world’s great political writings. A complete introduction exploring the purpose, authorship, circulation, and reactions to The Federalist  can be found here.

General Introduction

• No. 1 (Hamilton) New York Independent Journal , 27 October 1787

Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence

• No. 2 (Jay) New York Independent Journal , 31 October 1787
• No. 3 (Jay) New York Independent Journal , 3 November 1787
• No. 4 (Jay) New York Independent Journal , 7 November 1787
• No. 5 (Jay) New York Independent Journal , 10 November 1787

Concerning Dangers from Dissensions Between the States

• No. 6 (Hamilton) New York Independent Journal , 14 November 1787
• No. 7 (Hamilton) New York Independent Journal , 17 November 1787
• No. 8 (Hamilton) New York Packet , 20 November 1787
• No. 9 (Hamilton) New York Independent Journal , 21 November 1787

The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection

• No. 10 (Madison) New York Daily Advertiser , 22 November 1787

The Utility of the Union in Respect to Commercial Relations and a Navy

• No. 11 (Hamilton) New York Independent Journal , 24 November 1787

The Utility of the Union in Respect to Revenue

• No. 12 (Hamilton) New York Packet , 27 November 1787

Advantage of the Union in Respect to Economy in Government

• No. 13 (Hamilton) New York Independent Journal , 28 November 1787

Objections to the Proposed Constitution from Extent of Territory Answered

• No. 14 (Madison) New York Packet , 30 November 1787

The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union

• No. 15 (Hamilton) New York Independent Journal , 1 December 1787
• No. 16 (Hamilton) New York Packet , 4 December 1787
• No. 17 (Hamilton) New York Independent Journal , 5 December 1787
• No. 18 (Madison with Hamilton) New York Packet , 7 December 1787
• No. 19 (Madison with Hamilton) New York Independent Journal , 8 December 1787
• No. 20 (Madison with Hamilton) New York Packet , 11 December 1787
• No. 21 (Hamilton) New York Independent Journal , 12 December 1787
• No. 22 (Hamilton) New York Packet , 14 December 1787

The Necessity of Energetic Government to Preserve of the Union

• No. 23 (Hamilton) New York Packet , 18 December 1787

Powers Necessary to the Common Defense Further Considered

• No. 24 (Hamilton) New York Independent Journal , 19 December 1787
• No. 25 (Hamilton) New York Packet , 21 December 1787

Restraining the Legislative Authority in Regard to the Common Defense

• No. 26 (Hamilton) New York Independent Journal , 22 December 1787
• No. 27 (Hamilton) New York Packet , 25 December 1787
• No. 28 (Hamilton) New York Independent Journal , 26 December 1787

Concerning the Militia

• No. 29 (Hamilton) New York Independent Journal , 9 January 1788

Concerning the General Power of Taxation

• No. 30 (Hamilton) New York Packet , 28 December 1787
• No. 31 (Hamilton) New York Packet , 1 January 1788
• Nos. 32–33 (Hamilton) New York Independent Journal , 2 January 1788
• No. 34 (Hamilton) New York Packet , 4 January 1788
• No. 35 (Hamilton) New York Independent Journal , 5 January 1788
• No. 36 (Hamilton) New York Packet , 8 January 1788

The Difficulties of the Convention in Devising a Proper Form of Government

• No. 37 (Madison) New York Daily Advertiser , 11 January 1788
• No. 38 (Madison) New York Independent Journal , 12 January 1788

The Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles

• No. 39 (Madison) New York Independent Journal , 16 January 1788

The Powers of the Convention to Form a Mixed Government Examined

• No. 40 (Madison) New York Packet , 18 January 1788

General View of the Powers Conferred by the Constitution

• No. 41 (Madison) New York Independent Journal , 19 January 1788
• No. 42 (Madison) New York Packet , 22 January 1788
• No. 43 (Madison) New York Independent Journal , 23 January 1788

Restrictions on the Authority of the Several States

• No. 44 (Madison) New York Packet , 25 January 1788

Alleged Danger from the Powers of the Union to the State Governments

• No. 45 (Madison) New York Independent Journal , 26 January 1788

Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared

• No. 46 (Madison) New York Packet , 29 January 1788

Structure of the New Government and the Distribution of Powers

• No. 47 (Madison) New York Independent Journal , 30 January 1788

Departments Should Not Be So Far Separated

• No. 48 (Madison) New York Packet , 1 February 1788

Guarding Against the Encroachments of Any One Department of Government

• No. 49 (Madison) New York Independent Journal , 2 February 1788

Periodic Appeals to the People Considered

• No. 50 (Madison) New York Packet , 5 February 1788

Structure of Government Must Furnish Proper Checks and Balances

• No. 51 (Madison) New York Independent Journal , 6 February 1788

The House of Representatives

• No. 52 (Madison?) New York Packet , 8 February 1788
• No. 53 (Madison or Hamilton) New York Independent Journal , 9 February 1788

The Apportionment of Members Among the States

• No. 54 (Madison) New York Packet , 12 February 1788

The Total Number of the House of Representatives

• No. 55 (Madison?) New York Independent Journal , 13 February 1788
• No. 56 (Madison?) New York Independent Journal , 16 February 1788

The Alleged Tendency of the Plan to Elevate the Few at the Expense of the Many

• No. 57 (Madison?) New York Packet , 19 February 1788

Objection That the Numbers Will Not Be Augmented as Population Increases

• No. 58 (Madison?) New York Independent Journal , 20 February 1788

Concerning the Power of Congress to Regulate the Election of Members

• No. 59 (Hamilton) New York Packet , 22 February 1788
• No. 60 (Hamilton) New York Independent Journal , 23 February 1788
• No. 61 (Hamilton) New York Packet , 26 February 1788
• No. 62 (Madison?) New York Independent Journal , 27 February 1788
• No. 63 (Madison?) New York Independent Journal , 1 March 1788
• No. 64 (Jay) New York Independent Journal , 5 March 1788
• No. 65 (Hamilton) New York Packet , 7 March 1788

Objections to the Power of the Senate to Set as a Court for Impeachments

• No. 66 (Hamilton) New York Independent Journal , 8 March 1788

The Executive Department

• No. 67 (Hamilton) New York Packet , 11 March 1788

The Mode of Electing the President

• No. 68 (Hamilton) New York Independent Journal , 12 March 1788

The Real Character of the Executive

• No. 69 (Hamilton) New York Packet , 14 March 1788

The Executive Department Further Considered

• No. 70 (Hamilton) New York Independent Journal , 15 March 1788

The Duration in Office of the Executive

• No. 71 (Hamilton) New York Packet , 18 March 1788

Re-Eligibility of the Executive Considered

• No. 72 (Hamilton) New York Independent Journal , 19 March 1788

Provision for The Support of the Executive, and the Veto Power

• No. 73 (Hamilton) New York Packet , 21 March 1788

The Command of the Military and Naval Forces, and the Pardoning Power

• No. 74 (Hamilton) New York Packet , 25 March 1788

The Treaty Making Power of the Executive

• No. 75 (Hamilton) New York Independent Journal , 26 March 1788

The Appointing Power of the Executive

• No. 76 (Hamilton) New York Packet , 1 April 1788

Appointing Power and Other Powers of the Executive Considered

• No. 77 (Hamilton) New York Independent Journal , 2 April 1788

The Judiciary Department

• No. 78 (Hamilton) Book Edition, Volume II, 28 May 1788
• No. 79 (Hamilton) Book Edition, Volume II, 28 May 1788

The Powers of the Judiciary

• No. 80 (Hamilton) Book Edition, Volume II, 28 May 1788

The Judiciary Continued, and the Distribution of the Judicial Authority

• No. 81 (Hamilton) Book Edition, Volume II, 28 May 1788

The Judiciary Continued

• No. 82 (Hamilton) Book Edition, Volume II, 28 May 1788

The Judiciary Continued in Relation to Trial by Jury

• No. 83 (Hamilton) Book Edition, Volume II, 28 May 1788

Miscellaneous Objections to the Constitution Considered

• No. 84 (Hamilton) Book Edition, Volume II, 28 May 1788

Library of Congress

Exhibitions.

• Ask a Librarian
• Digital Collections
• Library Catalogs

• Exhibitions Home
• Current Exhibitions
• All Exhibitions
• Loan Procedures for Institutions
• Special Presentations

Creating the United States Convention and Ratification

Return to Creating the United States Constitution List   Previous Section: Road to the Constitution  |  Next Section: Constitution Legacy

When delegates to the Constitutional Convention began to assemble at Philadelphia in May 1787, they quickly resolved to replace rather than merely revise the Articles of Confederation. Although James Madison is known as the “father of the constitution,” George Washington’s support gave the convention its hope of success.

Division of power between branches of government and between the federal and state governments, slavery, trade, taxes, foreign affairs, representation, and even the procedure to elect a president were just a few of the contentious issues.  Diverging plans, strong egos, regional demands, and states’ rights made solutions difficult. Five months of debate, compromise, and creative strategies produced a new constitution creating a federal republic with a strong central government, leaving most of the power with the state governments.

Ten months of public and private debate were required to secure ratification by the minimum nine states. Even then Rhode Island and North Carolina held out until after the adoption of a Bill of Rights.

“For we are sent hither to consult not contend, with each other; and Declaration of a fix’ Opinion, and of determined Resolutions never to change it, neither enlighten nor convince us.”

Benjamin Franklin, Speech in Congress, June 11, 1787

Philadelphia, Birthplace of the Constitution

Philadelphia, the largest city in the American colonies, and its adjacent rural areas are depicted on this 1752 map. The first illustration of the city’s State House, later called Independence Hall, dominates the upper portion of the map. The map also identifies the owners of many individual properties. Philadelphia was, in essence, the capital of the United States during the Revolutionary War, and the State House was home to the second Continental Congress and the Federal Convention of 1787.

A Map of Philadelphia and Parts Adjacent with a Perspective View of the State House. Philadelphia: N[icholas] Scull and G[eorge] Heap; L[awrence] Hebert sculpt., 1752. Hand colored engraved map. Geography and Map Division , Library of Congress (055.01.00) [Digital ID# ct000294]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/convention-and-ratification.html#obj22

The Virginia Plan

The Virginia delegates to the Constitutional Convention, led by James Madison (1741–1836) and George Washington (1732–1799), prepared a plan of government that provided for proportional representation in a bicameral (two-house) legislature and a strong national government with veto power over state laws. Virginia’s governor, Edmund Randolph (1753–1813), who ultimately refused to sign the Constitution, presented the plan to the convention on May 29, 1787.  The plan, designed to protect the interests of the large states in a strong, national republic, became the basis for debate.

“The Virginia Plan of Government” in James Madison’s notes. Notes of Debates in the Federal Constitutional Convention, May 29, 1787. Manuscript. James Madison Papers, Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (056.01.02) [Digital ID# us0056_01]

Read the transcript

“The Virginia Plan of Government” in James Madison’s notes on the Constitutional Convention, May 29, 1787. Manuscript. James Madison Papers, Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (056.01.01) [Digital ID# us0056_01p01]

The Virginia Plan of Government, May 1787. Manuscript in the hand of George Washington. George Washington Papers, Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (56.00.00) [Digital ID#s us0056, //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/Constitution/Ratification/Assets/us0056_1_enlarge_725.Jpeg ">us0056_1 , //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/Constitution/Ratification/Assets/us0056_2_enlarge_725.Jpeg ">us0056_2 ]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/convention-and-ratification.html#obj0

William Paterson Defends New Jersey Plan

William Paterson (1745–1806) presented a plan of government to the Convention that came to be called the “New Jersey Plan.” Paterson wanted to retain a unicameral (one-house) legislature with equal votes of states and have the national legislature elect the executive. This plan maintained the form of government under the Articles of Confederation while adding powers to raise revenue and regulate commerce and foreign affairs.

William Paterson. Notes for Speeches in Convention, June 16, 1787. Manuscript. William Paterson Papers, Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (59.01.00) [Digital ID# us0059_01p1]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/convention-and-ratification.html#obj4

The New Jersey Plan

The New Jersey delegates to the Constitutional Convention, led by William Paterson (1745–1806) proposed an alternative to the Virginia Plan on June 15, 1787.  The New Jersey Plan was designed to protect the security and power of the small states by limiting each state to one vote in Congress, as under the Articles of Confederation. Its acceptance would have doomed plans for a strong national government and minimally altered the Articles of Confederation.

“The New Jersey Plan of Government” in James Madison. Notes of Debates in the Federal Constitutional Convention, June 15, 1787. Manuscript. James Madison Papers, Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (057.01.02) [Digital ID#s us0057_01p2, //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/Constitution/Ratification/Assets/us0057_01p01_enlarge.jpg ">us0057_01p01 , //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/Constitution/Ratification/Assets/us0057_01_enlarge.jpg ">us0057_01 ]

The New Jersey Plan of Government, June 1787. Manuscript in the hand of George Washington. George Washington Papers, Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (57.00.01) [Digital ID#s us0057, //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/Constitution/Ratification/Assets/us0057_1_enlarge_725.Jpeg ">us0057_1 , //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/Constitution/Ratification/Assets/us0057_2_enlarge.jpg ">us0057_2 ]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/convention-and-ratification.html#obj1

Back to Top

Madison Responds to Paterson’s New Jersey Plan

William Paterson’s New Jersey Plan proposed a unicameral (one-house) legislature with equal votes of states and an executive elected by a national legislature. This plan maintained the form of government under the Articles of Confederation while adding powers to raise revenue and regulate commerce and foreign affairs. James Madison commented on Paterson’s proposed plan in his journal that he maintained during the course of the proceedings. Madison’s notes, which he refined nightly, have become the most important contemporary record of the debates in the Convention.

James Madison. Notes of Debates in the Federal Constitutional Convention, June 16, 1787. Manuscript. James Madison Papers, Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (059.00.02) [Digital ID# us0059p3]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/convention-and-ratification.html#obj20

Pennsylvania State House in Philadelphia

The Pennsylvania State House (known today as “Independence Hall”) in Philadelphia was the site of American government during the revolutionary and early national years. The national Congress held most of its sessions there from 1775 to 1800. Within its walls the Declaration of Independence was adopted, and the Constitution of the United States was debated, drafted, and signed. This print depicts the back of the building, with citizens and Native Americans walking on the lawn.

William Birch & Son. “ Back of the State House, Philadelphia ,” from The City of Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania, North America, As it Appeared in the Year 1800. . . . Etching. Philadelphia: 1800, restrike printed in 1840. Marian S. Carson Collection, Prints and Photographs Division , Library of Congress (055.02.00) [Digital ID# ppmsca-24335]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/convention-and-ratification.html#obj21

Convention Rejects Franklin’s Proposed Daily Prayer

Responding to the divisive tension among the delegates that threatened to jeopardize the purpose of the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin proposed that a clergyman lead a daily prayer to provide divine guidance in resolving differences. The delegates declined the proposal, citing the numerous religious sects represented in the Convention and a lack of funds to pay a chaplain.

Benjamin Franklin. Draft of a speech, June 28, 1787. Manuscript. Benjamin Franklin Papers, Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (058.01.02) [Digital ID# us0058_01p2]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/convention-and-ratification.html#obj17

Franklin Soothes Anger

When delegates at the Federal Constitutional Convention became frustrated and angry because of the contentious issue of proportional representation in the new national legislature, Benjamin Franklin (1706–1790) urged “great Coolness and Temper.”  James Wilson (1742–1798) from Pennsylvania reading Franklin’s speech, told the delegates “we are sent here to consult, not to contend, with each other.”  As the eldest delegate at the convention, Franklin acted on several occasions to restore harmony and good humor to the proceedings.

Benjamin Franklin. Draft speech, [June 28, 1787]. Manuscript. Benjamin Franklin Papers, Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (058.01.01) [Digital ID# us0058_01p2, //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/Constitution/Ratification/Assets/us0058_enlarge_725.Jpeg ">us0058 ], //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/Constitution/Ratification/Assets/us0058_1_enlarge_725.Jpeg ">us0058_1 , //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/Constitution/Ratification/Assets/us0058_01p1_enlarge.jpg ">us0058_01p1 ]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/convention-and-ratification.html#obj2

“Great Compromise” Saves the Convention

By mid-July the representation issue had the Constitutional Convention teetering on the brink of dissolution. Finally, delegates made a “great compromise,” to create a bicameral (two-house) legislature with the states having equal representation in the upper house or senate and the people having proportional representation in the lower house, where all money bills were to originate.

James Madison’s notes on the Constitutional Convention, July 16, 1787. Manuscript. James Madison Papers, Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (59) [Digital ID#s us0059tt_1, //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/Constitution/Ratification/Assets/us0059tt_2_enlarge_725.Jpeg ">us0059tt_2 , //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/Constitution/Ratification/Assets/us0059tt_3_enlarge_725.Jpeg ">us0059tt_3 ]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/convention-and-ratification.html#obj3

Committee of Detail

John Rutledge (1739–1800) of South Carolina chaired the five-member Committee of Detail assigned on July 23, 1787, to take the nineteen resolutions adopted by the Convention, a plan presented by South Carolina delegate Charles Pinckney (1757–1824), and the rejected New Jersey Plan, as the basis for producing a draft constitution. The Committee of Detail draft boldly refocused the convention. The multiple annotations by Alexander Hamilton (1757–1804) of New York illustrate the hard work remaining for the delegates.

Draft United States Constitution: Report of the Committee of Detail, ca. August 6, 1787. Printed document with annotations by Charles Cotesworth Pinckney. Charles Cotesworth Pinckney Family Papers, Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (061.03.00) [Digital ID# us0061_03]

Draft United States Constitution: Report of the Committee of Detail, ca. August 6, 1787. Printed document with annotations by James Madison. James Madison Papers, Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (61.02.00) [Digital ID# us0061_02]

Draft United States Constitution: Report of the Committee of Detail, August 6–September 8, 1787. Printed document with annotations by Alexander Hamilton. Alexander Hamilton Papers, Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (61.01.00) [Digital ID# us0061_01]

Draft United States Constitution: Report of the Committee of Detail, ca. August 6, 1787. Printed document with annotations by Convention Secretary William Jackson. William Johnson Papers, Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (61) [Digital ID# us0061]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/convention-and-ratification.html#obj5

Report of the Committee of Style

The Committee of Style, chaired by William Samuel Johnson (1727–1819) working with James Madison (1751–1836), Rufus King (1755–1827), and Alexander Hamilton, gave the Constitution its substance. Gouverneur Morris (1752–1816), a delegate from Pennsylvania, is credited with providing the preamble phrase “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union”—a dramatic change from the opening of the previous version. This simple phrase anchored the new national government in the consent of the people rather than a confederation of states.

Draft United States Constitution: Reports of the Committee of Style, September 8–15, 1787. Printed document with annotations by Charles Cotesworth Pinckney. Charles Cotesworth Pinckney Family Papers, Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (062.04.01) [Digital ID# us0062_04]; //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/Constitution/Ratification/Assets/us0062_04p1_enlarge.jpg ">us0062_04p1 , //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/Constitution/Ratification/Assets/us0062_04p2_enlarge.jpg ">us0062_04p2 , //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/Constitution/Ratification/Assets/us0062_04p3_enlarge.jpg ">us0062_04p3

Draft United States Constitution: Report of the Committee of Style, September 8–15, 1787. Printed document with annotations by James Madison. James Madison Papers, Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (062.03.00) [Digital ID#s us0062_03p1 //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/Constitution/Ratification/Assets/us0062_03p2_enlarge.jpg ">us0062_03p2 , //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/Constitution/Ratification/Assets/us0062_03p3_enlarge.jpg ">us0062_03p3 , //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/Constitution/Ratification/Assets/us0062_03p4_enlarge.jpg ">us0062_03p4 ]

Draft United States Constitution: Report of the Committee of Style, September 8–15, 1787. Printed document with annotations by Convention Secretary William Jackson. William Samuel Johnson Papers, Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (62.02.00) [Digital ID#s us0062_02p1; //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/Constitution/Ratification/Assets/us0062_02p2_enlarge.jpg ">us0062_02p2 , //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/Constitution/Ratification/Assets/us0062_02p3_enlarge.jpg ">us0062_02p3 , //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/Constitution/Ratification/Assets/us0062_02p4_enlarge.jpg ">us0062_02p4 ]

Draft United States Constitution: Report of the Committee of Style, September 8–15, 1787. Printed document with annotations by Alexander Hamilton. Alexander Hamilton Papers, Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (62.01.00) [Digital ID#s us0062_01p1, //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/Constitution/Ratification/Assets/us0062_01p2_enlarge_725.Jpeg ">us0062_01p2 , //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/Constitution/Ratification/Assets/us0062_01p3_enlarge_725.Jpeg ">us0062_01p3 , //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/Constitution/Ratification/Assets/us0062_01p4_enlarge_725.Jpeg ">us0062_01p4 ]

Draft United States Constitution: Report of the Committee of Style, September 8–12, 1787. Printed document with annotations by George Washington and Convention Secretary William Jackson. George Washington Papers, Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (62) [Digital ID#s us0062, //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/Constitution/Ratification/Assets/us0062_1_enlarge_725.Jpeg ">us0062_1 , //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/Constitution/Ratification/Assets/us0062_2_enlarge_725.Jpeg ">us0062_2 , //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/Constitution/Ratification/Assets/us0062_3_enlarge_725.Jpeg ">us0062_3 ]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/convention-and-ratification.html#obj6

Washington’s Frustrations at the Convention

George Washington, president of the Federal Constitutional Convention, revealed few of the personal conflicts and compromises of the delegates in his daily diary. However, even the unflappable Washington exposed his frustrations when he noted on September 17, 1787, that all delegates to the convention had signed the Constitution except “Govr. [Edmund] Randolph and Colo. [George] Mason from Virginia & Mr. [Elbridge] Gerry from Massachusetts.”

George Washington diary entry, September 17, 1787. Manuscript. George Washington Papers, Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (063.01.00) [Digital ID#s us0063_01, //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/Constitution/Ratification/Assets/us0063_enlarge_725.Jpeg ">us0063 ]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/convention-and-ratification.html#obj7

Opposition to the Constitution

As the convention concluded, George Mason (1725–1792) continued to fear an ultra-national constitution and the absence of a bill of rights. On the eve of the Constitution’s adoption on September 17, 1787, Mason noted these major objections on the version of his copy of the Committee of Style draft. Mason sent copies of his objections to friends, from whence they soon appeared in the press.

George Mason. “Objections to the Constitution of Government Formed by the Convention,” ca. September 17, 1787. Manuscript document. George Washington Papers, Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (64.00.01) [Digital ID#s us0064_1, //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/Constitution/Ratification/Assets/us0064_enlarge_725.Jpeg ">us0064 ]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/convention-and-ratification.html#obj9

“Monarchy or a Republic?”

As the Constitutional Convention adjourned, “a woman [Mrs. Eliza Powell] asks Dr. Franklin well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy? A republic replied the Doctor if you can keep it.” Although this story recorded by James McHenry (1753–1816), a delegate from Maryland, is probably fictitious, people wondered just what kind of government was called for in the new constitution.

James McHenry. Diary, September 18, 1787. Manuscript. James McHenry Papers, Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (63.02.00) [Digital ID# us0063_02p1]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/convention-and-ratification.html#obj8

Early Optimism of the Acceptance of New Constitution

Samuel Powel (1739–1793), a Philadelphia political leader, reflects the early optimism for the quick acceptance of the new federal Constitution. Such optimism proved premature as Anti-Federalist opponents of the Constitution mounted stiff opposition in key states, such as New York, Massachusetts, and Virginia, but its proponents ultimately prevailed.

Letter from Samuel Powel to George Washington, November 13, 1787. Manuscript. George Washington Papers, Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (67.01.00) [Digital ID# us0067_01p1]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/convention-and-ratification.html#obj13

Jefferson’s Concern about Method of Electing President

Because they were serving as American ministers abroad during the constitutional debates John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were not involved in the Constitutional Convention. Neither saw major flaws in the new constitution. However, Jefferson thought that the legislature would be too restricted and greatly feared that the manner of electing the president would weaken the office. Jefferson asserted that the United States president “seems a bad edition of a Polish King, a reference to the custom in eighteenth-century Poland of electing kings, which undercut royal authority.

Letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, November 13, 1787. Manuscript. Thomas Jefferson Papers, Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (67) [Digital ID# us0067]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/convention-and-ratification.html#obj12

Conflict in Ratification of the Constitution

The process of state ratification of the United States Constitution was a divisive one. This satirical, eighteenth-century engraving touches on some of the major issues in the Connecticut politics on the eve of ratification. The two rival factions shown are the “Federals,” supporters of the Constitution who represented the trading interests and were for tariffs on imports, and the “Antifederals,” those committed to agrarian interests and more receptive to paper money issues. Although drawn to portray events in Connecticut, the concepts could be applied throughout the nation.

Amos Doolittle. The Looking Glass for 1787 . [New Haven]: 1787. Engraving with watercolor. Prints and Photographs Division , Library of Congress (68) [Digital ID# ppmsca-17522]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/convention-and-ratification.html#obj14

Madison Defends Constitution

In the ensuing debate over adoption of the Constitution, James Madison teamed with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay of New York to write a masterful dissection and analysis of the system of government presented in the Constitution. The eighty-five articles were originally published in New York newspapers as arguments aimed at anti-Federal forces in that state, but their intended scope was far larger. Madison's Federalist No. X explains what an expanding republic might do if it accepted the basic premise of majority rule, a balanced government of three separate branches, and a commitment to balance all the diverse interests through a system of checks and balances.

Publius (pseudonym for James Madison). The Federalist. No. X in the New York Daily Advertiser, November 22, 1787. Serial and Government Publications Division (68.03.00) [Digital ID# vc6.7a]

The Federalist: A Collection of Essays, Written in Favour of the New Constitution . 2 vols. New York: J. and A. McLean, 1788. Thomas Jefferson Library, Rare Book and Special Collections Division , Library of Congress (66) [Digital ID# us0066, The Federalist: A Collection of Essays, Written in Favour of the New Constitution . 2 vols. New York: J. and A. McLean, 1788. Thomas Jefferson Library, Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Library of Congress (66) [Digital ID# us0066_1] //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/Constitution/Ratification/Assets/us0066_1_enlarge_725.Jpeg ">us0066_1 , The Federalist: A Collection of Essays, Written in Favour of the New Constitution . 2 vols. New York: J. and A. McLean, 1788. Thomas Jefferson Library, Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Library of Congress (66) [Digital ID# us0066_2] //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/Constitution/Ratification/Assets/us0066_2_enlarge_725.Jpeg ">us0066_2 , The Federalist: A Collection of Essays, Written in Favour of the New Constitution . 2 vols. New York: J. and A. McLean, 1788. Thomas Jefferson Library, Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Library of Congress (66) [Digital ID# us0066_3] //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/Constitution/Ratification/Assets/Jpeg.jpg ">us0066_3 ]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/convention-and-ratification.html#obj10

The Federalist Papers

The Federalist Papers were a series of eighty-five newspaper essays published anonymously but were in fact written in defense of the Constitution by James Madison, John Jay (1745–1829), and Alexander Hamilton. The essays were collected and published as a two-volume work. This edition was once owned by Hamilton’s wife, Elizabeth Schuyler, whose sister gave it to Thomas Jefferson. As his notes indicate, Jefferson attempted to determine the authorship of each essay.

The Federalist: A Collection of Essays, Written in Favour of the New Constitution . 2 vols. New York: J. and A. McLean, 1788. Thomas Jefferson Library, Rare Book and Special Collections Division , Library of Congress (66.00.01) [Digital ID# vc127]

The Federalist: A Collection of Essays, Written in Favour of the New Constitution . 2 vols. New York: J. and A. McLean, 1788. Thomas Jefferson Library, Rare Book and Special Collections Division , Library of Congress (66) [Digital ID# us0066, The Federalist: A Collection of Essays, Written in Favour of the New Constitution . 2 vols. New York: J. and A. McLean, 1788. Thomas Jefferson Library, Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Library of Congress (66) [Digital ID# us0066_1] //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/Constitution/Ratification/Assets/us0066_1_enlarge_725.Jpeg ">us0066_1 , The Federalist: A Collection of Essays, Written in Favour of the New Constitution . 2 vols. New York: J. and A. McLean, 1788. Thomas Jefferson Library, Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Library of Congress (66) [Digital ID# us0066_2] //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/Constitution/Ratification/Assets/us0066_2_enlarge_725.Jpeg ">us0066_2 , The Federalist: A Collection of Essays, Written in Favour of the New Constitution . 2 vols. New York: J. and A. McLean, 1788. Thomas Jefferson Library, Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Library of Congress (66) [Digital ID# us0066_3] //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/Constitution/Ratification/Assets/us0066_3_enlarge_725.Jpeg ">us0066_3 ]

• Watch the video

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/convention-and-ratification.html#obj11

James Madison Defends the Constitution

The Federalist Papers, a series of eighty-five newspaper essays published anonymously, were in fact written in defense of the Constitution by James Madison, John Jay (1745–1829), and Alexander Hamilton. In this essay, Madison argues against the criticism that a republic can not govern a large territory. “A democracy consequently will be confined to a small spot,” wrote Madison, but “A republic may be expanded over a large region.”

[James Madison]. Number XIV. The Federalist: A Collection of Essays, Written in Favour of the New Constitution. 2 vols. New York: J. and A. McLean, 1788. Rare Book and Special Collections Division , Library of Congress (066.02.00) [Digital ID# us0066_02]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/convention-and-ratification.html#obj19

Alexander Hamilton Defends the New Constitution

The Federalist Papers, a series of eighty-five newspaper essays published anonymously, were in fact written in defense of the Constitution by James Madison (1751–1836), John Jay (1745–1829), and Alexander Hamilton (1755–1804). In this essay Hamilton opens his argument in support of a strong executive branch with: “the election of the president is pretty well guarded. I venture somewhat further; and hesitate to affirm, that if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent. It unites in an eminent degree all the advantages; the union of which was to be desired.” This collected volume was owned and annotated by James Madison.

[Alexander Hamilton]. Number LXVIII. The Federalist: A Collection of Essays, Written in Favour of the New Constitution. 2 vols. New York: J. and A. McLean, 1788. Rare Book and Special Collections Division , Library of Congress (66.01.00) [Digital ID# us0066_01]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/convention-and-ratification.html#obj16

Federal Constitution Ratified by Virginia

Before the newly proposed Constitution could become the supreme law of the United States, it would require the ratification of nine states. New Hampshire and Virginia became the ninth and tenth states to approve the document. Supporters of the Constitution used these state ratifications to pressure the remaining states to approve and join the establishment of the new federal republic. New York followed suit in July 1788, but Rhode Island and North Carolina did not ratify until after the formation of the new government in 1789.

“Ratification of the New Constitution by the Convention of Virginia” in Supplement to the Independent Journal, July 2, 1788. New York: J. and A. McLean. Broadside. Constitutional Convention Broadside Collection, Rare Book and Special Collections Division , Library of Congress (071.03.00) [Digital ID# us0071_03]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/convention-and-ratification.html#obj18

New York Parade to Support the New Federal Constitution

On July 23, 1788, a New York City parade of ten divisions of artisans and professionals, preceded by the firing of ten guns, was launched to pressure the New York Ratification Convention. Just days later New York became the eleventh state to ratify the new federal Constitution on July 26, 1788.

Order of procession, in honor of the Constitution of the United States . . . by order of the Committee of Arrangements, Richard Platt, chairman,  July 23 [1788]. New York: 1788.  Printed broadside. Rare Book and Special Collections Division , Library of Congress (68.01.00)  [Digital ID# us0068_02]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/convention-and-ratification.html#obj15

Back to top

Connect with the Library

All ways to connect

Subscribe & Comment

• RSS & E-Mail

Download & Play

• iTunesU (external link)

About | Press | Jobs | Donate Inspector General | Legal | Accessibility | External Link Disclaimer | USA.gov

2.4 The Ratification of the Constitution

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Identify the steps required to ratify the Constitution
• Describe arguments the framers raised in support of a strong national government and counterpoints raised by the Anti-Federalists

On September 17, 1787, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia voted to approve the document they had drafted over the course of many months. Some did not support it, but the majority did. Before it could become the law of the land, however, the Constitution faced another hurdle. It had to be ratified by the states.

THE RATIFICATION PROCESS

Article VII, the final article of the Constitution, required that before the Constitution could become law and a new government could form, the document had to be ratified by nine of the thirteen states. Eleven days after the delegates at the Philadelphia convention approved it, copies of the Constitution were sent to each of the states, which were to hold ratifying conventions to either accept or reject it.

This approach to ratification was an unusual one. Since the authority inherent in the Articles of Confederation and the Confederation Congress had rested on the consent of the states, changes to the nation’s government should also have been ratified by the state legislatures. Instead, by calling upon state legislatures to hold ratification conventions to approve the Constitution, the framers avoided asking the legislators to approve a document that would require them to give up a degree of their own power. The men attending the ratification conventions would be delegates elected by their neighbors to represent their interests. They were not being asked to relinquish their power; in fact, they were being asked to place limits upon the power of their state legislators, whom they may not have elected in the first place. Finally, because the new nation was to be a republic in which power was held by the people through their elected representatives, it was considered appropriate to leave the ultimate acceptance or rejection of the Constitution to the nation’s citizens. If convention delegates, who were chosen by popular vote, approved it, then the new government could rightly claim that it ruled with the consent of the people.

The greatest sticking point when it came to ratification, as it had been at the Constitutional Convention itself, was the relative power of the state and federal governments. The framers of the Constitution believed that without the ability to maintain and command an army and navy, impose taxes, and force the states to comply with laws passed by Congress, the young nation would not survive for very long. But many people resisted increasing the powers of the national government at the expense of the states. Virginia’s Patrick Henry , for example, feared that the newly created office of president would place excessive power in the hands of one man. He also disapproved of the federal government’s new ability to tax its citizens. This right, Henry believed, should remain with the states.

Other delegates, such as Edmund Randolph of Virginia, disapproved of the Constitution because it created a new federal judicial system. Their fear was that the federal courts would be too far away from where those who were tried lived. State courts were located closer to the homes of both plaintiffs and defendants, and it was believed that judges and juries in state courts could better understand the actions of those who appeared before them. In response to these fears, the federal government created federal courts in each of the states as well as in Maine, which was then part of Massachusetts, and Kentucky, which was part of Virginia. 11

Perhaps the greatest source of dissatisfaction with the Constitution was that it did not guarantee protection of individual liberties. State governments had given jury trials to residents charged with violating the law and allowed their residents to possess weapons for their protection. Some had practiced religious tolerance as well. The Constitution, however, did not contain reassurances that the federal government would do so. Although it provided for habeas corpus and prohibited both a religious test for holding office and granting noble titles, some citizens feared the loss of their traditional rights and the violation of their liberties. This led many of the Constitution’s opponents to call for a bill of rights and the refusal to ratify the document without one. The lack of a bill of rights was especially problematic in Virginia, as the Virginia Declaration of Rights was the most extensive rights-granting document among the states. The promise that a bill of rights would be drafted for the Constitution persuaded delegates in many states to support ratification. 12

Insider Perspective

Thomas jefferson on the bill of rights.

John Adams and Thomas Jefferson carried on a lively correspondence regarding the ratification of the Constitution. In the following excerpt (reproduced as written) from a letter dated March 15, 1789, after the Constitution had been ratified by nine states but before it had been approved by all thirteen, Jefferson reiterates his previously expressed concerns that a bill of rights to protect citizens’ freedoms was necessary and should be added to the Constitution:

“In the arguments in favor of a declaration of rights, . . . I am happy to find that on the whole you are a friend to this amendment. The Declaration of rights is like all other human blessings alloyed with some inconveniences, and not accomplishing fully it’s object. But the good in this instance vastly overweighs the evil. . . . This instrument [the Constitution] forms us into one state as to certain objects, and gives us a legislative & executive body for these objects. It should therefore guard us against their abuses of power. . . . Experience proves the inefficacy of a bill of rights. True. But tho it is not absolutely efficacious under all circumstances, it is of great potency always, and rarely inefficacious. . . . There is a remarkeable difference between the . . . Inconveniences which attend a Declaration of rights, & those which attend the want of it. . . . The inconveniences of the want of a Declaration are permanent, afflicting & irreparable: they are in constant progression from bad to worse.” 13

What were some of the inconveniences of not having a bill of rights that Jefferson mentioned? Why did he decide in favor of having one?

It was clear how some states would vote. Smaller states, like Delaware, favored the Constitution. Equal representation in the Senate would give them a degree of equality with the larger states, and a strong national government with an army at its command would be better able to defend them than their state militias could. Larger states, however, had significant power to lose. They did not believe they needed the federal government to defend them and disliked the prospect of having to provide tax money to support the new government. Thus, from the very beginning, the supporters of the Constitution feared that New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia would refuse to ratify it. That would mean all nine of the remaining states would have to, and Rhode Island, the smallest state, was unlikely to do so. It had not even sent delegates to the convention in Philadelphia. And even if it joined the other states in ratifying the document and the requisite nine votes were cast, the new nation would not be secure without its largest, wealthiest, and most populous states as members of the union.

THE RATIFICATION CAMPAIGN

On the question of ratification, citizens quickly separated into two groups: Federalists and Anti-Federalists. The Federalists supported it. They tended to be among the elite members of society—wealthy and well-educated landowners, businessmen, and former military commanders who believed a strong government would be better for both national defense and economic growth. A national currency, which the federal government had the power to create, would ease business transactions. The ability of the federal government to regulate trade and place tariffs on imports would protect merchants from foreign competition. Furthermore, the power to collect taxes would allow the national government to fund internal improvements like roads, which would also help businessmen. Support for the Federalists was especially strong in New England.

Opponents of ratification were called Anti-Federalists . Anti-Federalists feared the power of the national government and believed state legislatures, with which they had more contact, could better protect their freedoms. Although some Anti-Federalists, like Patrick Henry , were wealthy, most distrusted the elite and believed a strong federal government would favor the rich over those of “the middling sort.” This was certainly the fear of Melancton Smith , a New York merchant and landowner, who believed that power should rest in the hands of small, landowning farmers of average wealth who “are more temperate, of better morals and less ambitious than the great.” 14 Even members of the social elite, like Henry, feared that the centralization of power would lead to the creation of a political aristocracy, to the detriment of state sovereignty and individual liberty.

Related to these concerns were fears that the strong central government Federalists advocated for would levy taxes on farmers and planters, who lacked the hard currency needed to pay them. Many also believed Congress would impose tariffs on foreign imports that would make American agricultural products less welcome in Europe and in European colonies in the western hemisphere. For these reasons, Anti-Federalist sentiment was especially strong in the South.

Some Anti-Federalists also believed that the large federal republic that the Constitution would create could not work as intended. Americans had long believed that virtue was necessary in a nation where people governed themselves (i.e., the ability to put self-interest and petty concerns aside for the good of the larger community). In small republics, similarities among members of the community would naturally lead them to the same positions and make it easier for those in power to understand the needs of their neighbors. In a larger republic, one that encompassed nearly the entire Eastern Seaboard and ran west to the Appalachian Mountains, people would lack such a strong commonality of interests. 15

Likewise, Anti-Federalists argued, the diversity of religion tolerated by the Constitution would prevent the formation of a political community with shared values and interests. The Constitution contained no provisions for government support of churches or of religious education, and Article VI explicitly forbade the use of religious tests to determine eligibility for public office. This caused many, like Henry Abbot of North Carolina, to fear that government would be placed in the hands of “pagans . . . and Mahometans [Muslims].” 16

It is difficult to determine how many people were Federalists and how many were Anti-Federalists in 1787. The Federalists won the day, but they may not have been in the majority. First, the Federalist position tended to win support among businessmen, large farmers, and, in the South, plantation owners. These people tended to live along the Eastern Seaboard. In 1787, most of the states were divided into voting districts in a manner that gave more votes to the eastern part of the state than to the western part. 17 Thus, in some states, like Virginia and South Carolina, small farmers who may have favored the Anti-Federalist position were unable to elect as many delegates to state ratification conventions as those who lived in the east. Small settlements may also have lacked the funds to send delegates to the convention. 18

In all the states, educated men authored pamphlets and published essays and cartoons arguing either for or against ratification ( Figure 2.11 ). Although many writers supported each position, it is the Federalist essays that are now best known. The arguments these authors put forth, along with explicit guarantees that amendments would be added to protect individual liberties, helped to sway delegates to ratification conventions in many states.

For obvious reasons, smaller, less populous states favored the Constitution and the protection of a strong federal government. As shown in Figure 2.12 , Delaware and New Jersey ratified the document within a few months after it was sent to them for approval in 1787. Connecticut ratified it early in 1788. Some of the larger states, such as Pennsylvania and Massachusetts, also voted in favor of the new government. New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify the Constitution in the summer of 1788.

Although the Constitution went into effect following ratification by New Hampshire, four states still remained outside the newly formed union. Two were the wealthy, populous states of Virginia and New York. In Virginia, James Madison’s active support and the intercession of George Washington, who wrote letters to the convention, changed the minds of many. Some who had initially opposed the Constitution, such as Edmund Randolph, were persuaded that the creation of a strong union was necessary for the country’s survival and changed their position. Other Virginia delegates were swayed by the promise that a bill of rights similar to the Virginia Declaration of Rights would be added after the Constitution was ratified. On June 25, 1788, Virginia became the tenth state to grant its approval.

The approval of New York was the last major hurdle. Facing considerable opposition to the Constitution in that state, Alexander Hamilton , James Madison , and John Jay wrote a series of essays, beginning in 1787, arguing for a strong federal government and support of the Constitution ( Figure 2.13 ). Later compiled as The Federalist and now known as The Federalist Papers , these eighty-five essays were originally published in newspapers in New York and other states under the name of Publius, a supporter of the Roman Republic.

The essays addressed a variety of issues that troubled citizens. For example, in Federalist No. 51, attributed to James Madison ( Figure 2.14 ), the author assured readers they did not need to fear that the national government would grow too powerful. The federal system, in which power was divided between the national and state governments, and the division of authority within the federal government into separate branches would prevent any one part of the government from becoming too strong. Furthermore, tyranny could not arise in a government in which “the legislature necessarily predominates.” Finally, the desire of office holders in each branch of government to exercise the powers given to them, described as “personal motives,” would encourage them to limit any attempt by the other branches to overstep their authority. According to Madison , “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.”

Other essays countered different criticisms made of the Constitution and echoed the argument in favor of a strong national government. In Federalist No. 35 , for example, Hamilton ( Figure 2.14 ) argued that people’s interests could in fact be represented by men who were not their neighbors. Indeed, Hamilton asked rhetorically, would American citizens best be served by a representative “whose observation does not travel beyond the circle of his neighbors and his acquaintances” or by someone with more extensive knowledge of the world? To those who argued that a merchant and land-owning elite would come to dominate Congress, Hamilton countered that the majority of men currently sitting in New York’s state senate and assembly were landowners of moderate wealth and that artisans usually chose merchants, “their natural patron[s] and friend[s],” to represent them. An aristocracy would not arise, and if it did, its members would have been chosen by lesser men. Similarly, Jay reminded New Yorkers in Federalist No. 2 that union had been the goal of Americans since the time of the Revolution. A desire for union was natural among people of such “similar sentiments” who “were united to each other by the strongest ties,” and the government proposed by the Constitution was the best means of achieving that union.

Objections that an elite group of wealthy and educated bankers, businessmen, and large landowners would come to dominate the nation’s politics were also addressed by Madison in Federalist No. 10 . Americans need not fear the power of factions or special interests, he argued, for the republic was too big and the interests of its people too diverse to allow the development of large, powerful political parties. Likewise, elected representatives, who were expected to “possess the most attractive merit,” would protect the government from being controlled by “an unjust and interested [biased in favor of their own interests] majority.”

For those who worried that the president might indeed grow too ambitious or king-like, Hamilton, in Federalist No. 68 , provided assurance that placing the leadership of the country in the hands of one person was not dangerous. Electors from each state would select the president. Because these men would be members of a “transient” body called together only for the purpose of choosing the president and would meet in separate deliberations in each state, they would be free of corruption and beyond the influence of the “heats and ferments” of the voters. Indeed, Hamilton argued in Federalist No. 70 , instead of being afraid that the president would become a tyrant, Americans should realize that it was easier to control one person than it was to control many. Furthermore, one person could also act with an “energy” that Congress did not possess. Making decisions alone, the president could decide what actions should be taken faster than could Congress, whose deliberations, because of its size, were necessarily slow. At times, the “decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch” of the chief executive might be necessary.

Link to Learning

The Library of Congress has The Federalist Papers on their website. The Anti-Federalists also produced a body of writings, less extensive than The Federalists Papers , which argued against the ratification of the Constitution. However, these were not written by one small group of men as The Federalist Papers had been. A collection of the writings that are unofficially called The Anti-Federalist Papers is also available online.

The arguments of the Federalists were persuasive, but whether they actually succeeded in changing the minds of New Yorkers is unclear. Once Virginia ratified the Constitution on June 25, 1788, New York realized that it had little choice but to do so as well. If it did not ratify the Constitution, it would be the last large state that had not joined the union. Thus, on July 26, 1788, the majority of delegates to New York’s ratification convention voted to accept the Constitution. A year later, North Carolina became the twelfth state to approve. Alone and realizing it could not hope to survive on its own, Rhode Island became the last state to ratify, nearly two years after New York had done so.

Finding a Middle Ground

Term limits.

One of the objections raised to the Constitution’s new government was that it did not set term limits for members of Congress or the president. Those who opposed a strong central government argued that this failure could allow a handful of powerful men to gain control of the nation and rule it for as long as they wished. Although the framers did not anticipate the idea of career politicians, those who supported the Constitution argued that reelecting the president and reappointing senators by state legislatures would create a body of experienced men who could better guide the country through crises. A president who did not prove to be a good leader would be voted out of office instead of being reelected. In fact, presidents long followed George Washington’s example and limited themselves to two terms. Only in 1951, after Franklin Roosevelt had been elected four times, was the Twenty-Second Amendment passed to restrict the presidency to two terms.

Are term limits a good idea? Should they have originally been included in the Constitution? Why or why not? Are there times when term limits might not be good?

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/american-government-3e/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Glen Krutz, Sylvie Waskiewicz, PhD
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: American Government 3e
• Publication date: Jul 28, 2021
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/american-government-3e/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/american-government-3e/pages/2-4-the-ratification-of-the-constitution

© Jul 18, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

U.S. Constitution: History of

The U.S. Constitution defines the framework of the Federal Government. Passage of the Constitution occurred only after much debate and lobbying by the founding fathers.    

Articles of Confederation (1781-1789)

The Articles of Confederation served as a constitution for the 13 indepedant states after the Revolution. It was in force from March 1, 1781, until 1789 when the present day Constitution went into effect.

• Articles of Conferation: Digital Archive From the website of the Library of Congress. The Articles of Confederation plus supporting documentation such as writings of James Madison and articles from the popular press.
• Articles of Confederation: March 1, 1781 From the Avalon Project (Documents in Law, History, and Diplomacy) at the Lillian Goldman Law Library, Yale Law School.

Federalist Papers & Related Works (Lobbying for a U.S. Constitution)

"The Federalist, commonly referred to as the Federalist Papers, is a series of 85 essays written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison between October 1787 and May 1788. The essays were published anonymously, under the pen name "Publius," in various New York state newspapers of the time. The Federalist Papers were written and published to urge New Yorkers to ratify the proposed United States Constitution, which was drafted in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787. In lobbying for adoption of the Constitution over the existing Articles of Confederation, the essays explain particular provisions of the Constitution in detail. For this reason, and because Hamilton and Madison were each members of the Constitutional Convention, the Federalist Papers are often used today to help interpret the intentions of those drafting the Constitution." ~ Text from the Library of Congress.

• The Federalist Papers From the Congress.gov website. Full text of the Federalist Papers in order, including author, publication, and date info.

Constitutional Convention & Ratification (1787 -1788)

"The Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia met between May and September of 1787 to address the problems of the weak central government that existed under the Articles of Confederation. The United States Constitution that emerged from the convention established a federal government with more specific powers, including those related to conducting relations with foreign governments." ~ Text from the U.S. State Department, Office of the Historian. 

• Creating the United States: Convention & Ratification From the website of the Library of Congress. Includes maps and documents relevant to the creation and ratification of the Constitution.
• The debates in several State Conventions on the adoption of the Federal Constitution From the Library of Congress, American Memory project.
• United States Constitution: Primary Documents in American History From the Library of Congress. Includes documents, exhibitions, and teaching aids relevant to the ratification of the Constitution.

Origin of Constitution Day

Constitution Day was championed by U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd (D- W.V.) who sponsored a bill that eventually became Public Law 108-447. This bill, in part, required educational programs and resources for a September 17 celebration of the U.S. Constitution.

About Constitution Day

• Courtesy of American Bar Assoc. (ABA) ABA President gives excellent explanation of the annual Constitution Day, Sept. 17 (recorded 2017)

Read & Understand the U.S. Constitution

Click for the Interactive Constitution

• Next: Amendments >>
• Last Updated: Jul 12, 2023 11:35 AM
• URL: https://library.dewv.edu/USConstitution

Essay: The Ratification Debate

After a long, hot summer deliberating on the Constitution, the delegates to the Convention returned to their home states in late September of 1787 knowing that their work was unfinished.

The Constitution was written and signed, but its ratification by the people was far from certain. As specified in Article VII of the Constitution, two-thirds, (or nine of the then-thirteen states) would have to ratify the Constitution before it could go into effect in those states. And in many of those states, the document was met with increasing skepticism: Had the Convention exceeded its mandate to revise the Articles? Why had the Convention been conducted in secret? The delegates would have to reasonably convince their fellow Americans that the Constitution represented the best way forward for the new nation.

The U.S. Constitution

Many of the debates about the proper scope of government power that had gone on inside Independence Hall continued on in the states. Those who argued that the Constitution should be ratified became known as Federalists. Not surprisingly, most of the people who had helped write the Constitution were Federalists. James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay together wrote a collection of 85 essays that were published in newspapers of the day, arguing for the ratification of the Constitution. These essays became known as  The Federalist Papers  (1787-1788),and are still today referenced as the most authoritative source (along with Madison’s  Notes of the Federal Convention ) on the meaning of the Constitution.

People who opposed the Constitution were known as Anti-Federalists. Their objections were wide and varied. They pointed to the national government’s power to tax and its supremacy over state law as other signs of danger. One point of major concern was the “necessary and proper” clause. This clause in Article I, Section 8, which came at the end of the list of Congress’s powers, gave Congress the power “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or any Department or Officer thereof”. The Anti-Federalists worried that Congressmen would see this clause as an additional grant of power, rather than a means to carry out the enumerated powers in Article I. Today this clause is sometimes referred to as the “elastic clause” (a term which would probably have caused the Anti-Federalists to say “I told you so!”) because some do in fact take it to mean Congress can “stretch” its powers to have more control over the states and the people.

The Federalist, essays written in support of the Constitution

Alexander Hamilton defended the clause in  Federalist No. 33 , asserting that the grant of power to make laws necessary and proper to carry out its listed powers was simply empowering Congress to actually bring about the ends it had been granted the power to accomplish. He asked rhetorically,

“What is the ability to do a thing, but the power of employing the means necessary to its execution?” The people, furthermore, would have a final check on the power of Congress: “If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution…” (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 33, 1788).

In  Federalist No. 44 , James Madison noted that the Necessary and Proper Clause had been “assailed” more than almost any other. He defended it on the grounds that it was the best option available, and if lawmakers abused it, it was subject to the same safeguards built into the Constitution that checked Congress’s power. If Congress went outside the bounds of the power delegated to it, the executive and judicial branches would provide checks against it, and of course the people could vote out bad Congressmen:

“[I]n the last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people who can, by the election of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers” (James Madison, Federalist No. 44, 1788).

But Hamilton’s and Madison’s arguments were not convincing to Patrick Henry. The old republican Henry had “smelt a rat” and therefore declined to attend the Convention. The great orator who a decade earlier had rallied his fellow Virginians against the British crying “Give me liberty, or give me death!” this time put his great speaking skills to work against the new plan of government. He was suspicious of the Constitution for many reasons. For one thing, it began, “We the people,” rather than with a list of the states, as the Articles of Confederation had. Henry asserted that this meant the national government was now over all the people. What, then, would become of the states? Henry was utterly convinced that the plan of government he saw in the Constitution would lead to a “consolidated” government, or one that would overpower all the states. He warned,

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined” (Patrick Henry, Virginia Convention on the Ratification of the Constitution, 1788).

His fellow Virginian George Mason was equally opposed to the Constitution. Mason had attended the Convention but, in the end, refused to sign his name to the document because he believed the rights of the people were not safe. He had many objections to the document, and one was that it lacked a bill of rights.

George Mason, one of three delegates who refused to sign the Constitution.

He and Elbridge Gerry had called for a bill of rights to be included in the document at the Convention. They pointed out that since the Constitution was supreme over state law, state bills of rights were no security. Their appeals were rejected, however, and the Constitution did not include a bill of rights. The Constitution was sent to the states for ratification, and the stage was set for a debate on the merits of the Constitution, including the need for a bill of rights.

Perhaps the most important and radical thing about the ratification debate is that it was a debate. It was a national conversation in which the engagement centered on persuasion and reasonable negotiation, not force.

Related Content

The Ratification Debate

After the Constitution was completed and signed by 39 delegates on September 17, 1787, many of the debates from Independence Hall continued in the debates over ratification in the states. For the Constitution to go into effect, at least nine states would have to ratify (or agree to adopt) it. A party division arose: Federalists argued in favor of ratification, Anti-Federalists against. Leading Federalists James Madison and Alexander Hamilton made a case for ratification in the Federalist Papers. Leading Anti-Federalists were Patrick Henry and George Mason. Mason had attended the Convention but refused to sign the final document, arguing that the central government created by the Constitution would be a threat to liberty and would take away power from the individual states.

America's Founding Documents

The Constitution: What Does it Say?

The Constitution of the United States contains a preamble and seven articles that describe the way the government is structured and how it operates. The first three articles establish the three branches of government and their powers: Legislative (Congress), Executive (office of the President,) and Judicial (Federal court system). A system of checks and balances prevents any one of these separate powers from becoming dominant. Articles four through seven describe the relationship of the states to the Federal Government, establish the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, and define the amendment and ratification processes.

Article I  assigns the responsibility for making laws to the Legislative Branch (Congress). Congress is divided into two parts, or “Houses,” the House of Representatives and the Senate. The bicameral Congress was a compromise between the large states, which wanted representation based on population, and the small ones, which wanted the states to have equal representation.

Article II details the Executive Branch and the offices of the President and Vice President. It lays down rules for electing the President (through the Electoral College), eligibility (must be a natural-born citizen at least 35 years old), and term length. The 12th and 25th Amendments modified some of these rules.

Article III

Article III establishes the Judicial Branch with the U.S. Supreme Court as the federal court system’s highest court. It specifies that Federal judges be appointed for life unless they commit a serious crime. This article is shorter than Articles I and II. The Federal Convention left much of the work of planning the court system to the First Congress. The 1789 Judiciary Act created the three-tiered court system in place today.

Article IV outlines states’ powers in relationship to each other. States have the authority to create and enforce their own laws but must respect and help enforce the laws of other states. Congress may pass Federal laws regarding how states honor other states’ laws and records.

Article V explains the amendment process, which is different and more difficult than the process for making laws. When two-thirds of the Senate and two-thirds of the House of Representatives vote to change the Constitution, an amendment goes to the state legislatures for a vote. Alternatively, two-thirds of the state legislatures can submit an application to Congress, and then Congress calls a national convention at which states propose amendments. Three-fourths of the state legislatures or state conventions must vote in favor of an amendment to ratify it.

Article VI states that Federal law is supreme, or higher than, state and local laws. This means that if a state law conflicts with a Federal law, Federal law takes precedence.

Article VII

Article VII describes the ratification process for the Constitution. It called for special state ratifying conventions. Nine states were required to enact the Constitution. Rhode Island became the 13th state to ratify the Constitution in 1790.

Back to Constitution main page How Did it Happen?

Chapter 2: The Constitution and Its Origins

The Ratification of the Constitution

Learning outcomes.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Identify the steps required to ratify the Constitution
• Describe arguments the framers raised in support of a strong national government and counterpoints raised by the Anti-Federalists

On September 17, 1787, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia voted to approve the document they had drafted over the course of many months. Some did not support it, but the majority did. Before it could become the law of the land, however, the Constitution faced another hurdle. It had to be ratified by the states.

THE RATIFICATION PROCESS

Article VII, the final article of the Constitution, required that before the Constitution could become law and a new government could form, the document had to be ratified by nine of the thirteen states. Eleven days after the delegates at the Philadelphia convention approved it, copies of the Constitution were sent to each of the states, which were to hold ratifying conventions to either accept or reject it.

This approach to ratification was an unusual one. Since the authority inherent in the Articles of Confederation and the Confederation Congress had rested on the consent of the states, changes to the nation’s government should also have been ratified by the state legislatures. Instead, by calling upon state legislatures to hold ratification conventions to approve the Constitution, the framers avoided asking the legislators to approve a document that would require them to give up a degree of their own power. The men attending the ratification conventions would be delegates elected by their neighbors to represent their interests. They were not being asked to relinquish their power; in fact, they were being asked to place limits upon the power of their state legislators, whom they may not have elected in the first place. Finally, because the new nation was to be a republic in which power was held by the people through their elected representatives, it was considered appropriate to leave the ultimate acceptance or rejection of the Constitution to the nation’s citizens. If convention delegates, who were chosen by popular vote, approved it, then the new government could rightly claim that it ruled with the consent of the people.

The greatest sticking point when it came to ratification, as it had been at the Constitutional Convention itself, was the relative power of the state and federal governments. The framers of the Constitution believed that without the ability to maintain and command an army and navy, impose taxes, and force the states to comply with laws passed by Congress, the young nation would not survive for very long. But many people resisted increasing the powers of the national government at the expense of the states. Virginia’s Patrick Henry, for example, feared that the newly created office of president would place excessive power in the hands of one man. He also disapproved of the federal government’s new ability to tax its citizens. This right, Henry believed, should remain with the states.

Other delegates, such as Edmund Randolph of Virginia, disapproved of the Constitution because it created a new federal judicial system. Their fear was that the federal courts would be too far away from where those who were tried lived. State courts were located closer to the homes of both plaintiffs and defendants, and it was believed that judges and juries in state courts could better understand the actions of those who appeared before them. In response to these fears, the federal government created federal courts in each of the states as well as in Maine, which was then part of Massachusetts, and Kentucky, which was part of Virginia. [1]

Perhaps the greatest source of dissatisfaction with the Constitution was that it did not guarantee protection of individual liberties. State governments had given jury trials to residents charged with violating the law and allowed their residents to possess weapons for their protection. Some had practiced religious tolerance as well. The Constitution, however, did not contain reassurances that the federal government would do so. Although it provided for habeas corpus and prohibited both a religious test for holding office and granting noble titles, some citizens feared the loss of their traditional rights and the violation of their liberties. This led many of the Constitution’s opponents to call for a bill of rights and the refusal to ratify the document without one. The lack of a bill of rights was especially problematic in Virginia, as the Virginia Declaration of Rights was the most extensive rights-granting document among the states. The promise that a bill of rights would be drafted for the Constitution persuaded delegates in many states to support ratification. [2]

INSIDER PERSPECTIVE

Thomas Jefferson on the Bill of Rights

John Adams and Thomas Jefferson carried on a lively correspondence regarding the ratification of the Constitution. In the following excerpt (reproduced as written) from a letter dated March 15, 1789, after the Constitution had been ratified by nine states but before it had been approved by all thirteen, Jefferson reiterates his previously expressed concerns that a bill of rights to protect citizens’ freedoms was necessary and should be added to the Constitution:

“In the arguments in favor of a declaration of rights, . . . I am happy to find that on the whole you are a friend to this amendment. The Declaration of rights is like all other human blessings alloyed with some inconveniences, and not accomplishing fully it’s object. But the good in this instance vastly overweighs the evil. . . . This instrument [the Constitution] forms us into one state as to certain objects, and gives us a legislative & executive body for these objects. It should therefore guard us against their abuses of power. . . . Experience proves the inefficacy of a bill of rights. True. But tho it is not absolutely efficacious under all circumstances, it is of great potency always, and rarely inefficacious. . . . There is a remarkeable difference between the . . . Inconveniences which attend a Declaration of rights, & those which attend the want of it. . . . The inconveniences of the want of a Declaration are permanent, afflicting & irreparable: they are in constant progression from bad to worse.” [3]

What were some of the inconveniences of not having a bill of rights that Jefferson mentioned? Why did he decide in favor of having one?

It was clear how some states would vote. Smaller states, like Delaware, favored the Constitution. Equal representation in the Senate would give them a degree of equality with the larger states, and a strong national government with an army at its command would be better able to defend them than their state militias could. Larger states, however, had significant power to lose. They did not believe they needed the federal government to defend them and disliked the prospect of having to provide tax money to support the new government. Thus, from the very beginning, the supporters of the Constitution feared that New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia would refuse to ratify it. That would mean all nine of the remaining states would have to, and Rhode Island, the smallest state, was unlikely to do so. It had not even sent delegates to the convention in Philadelphia. And even if it joined the other states in ratifying the document and the requisite nine votes were cast, the new nation would not be secure without its largest, wealthiest, and most populous states as members of the union.

THE RATIFICATION CAMPAIGN

On the question of ratification, citizens quickly separated into two groups: Federalists and Anti-Federalists. The Federalists supported it. They tended to be among the elite members of society—wealthy and well-educated landowners, businessmen, and former military commanders who believed a strong government would be better for both national defense and economic growth. A national currency, which the federal government had the power to create, would ease business transactions. The ability of the federal government to regulate trade and place tariffs on imports would protect merchants from foreign competition. Furthermore, the power to collect taxes would allow the national government to fund internal improvements like roads, which would also help businessmen. Support for the Federalists was especially strong in New England.

Opponents of ratification were called Anti-Federalists . Anti-Federalists feared the power of the national government and believed state legislatures, with which they had more contact, could better protect their freedoms. Although some Anti-Federalists, like Patrick Henry, were wealthy, most distrusted the elite and believed a strong federal government would favor the rich over those of “the middling sort.” This was certainly the fear of Melancton Smith, a New York merchant and landowner, who believed that power should rest in the hands of small, landowning farmers of average wealth who “are more temperate, of better morals and less ambitious than the great.” [4] Even members of the social elite, like Henry, feared that the centralization of power would lead to the creation of a political aristocracy, to the detriment of state sovereignty and individual liberty.

Related to these concerns were fears that the strong central government Federalists advocated for would levy taxes on farmers and planters, who lacked the hard currency needed to pay them. Many also believed Congress would impose tariffs on foreign imports that would make American agricultural products less welcome in Europe and in European colonies in the western hemisphere. For these reasons, Anti-Federalist sentiment was especially strong in the South.

Some Anti-Federalists also believed that the large federal republic that the Constitution would create could not work as intended. Americans had long believed that virtue was necessary in a nation where people governed themselves (i.e., the ability to put self-interest and petty concerns aside for the good of the larger community). In small republics, similarities among members of the community would naturally lead them to the same positions and make it easier for those in power to understand the needs of their neighbors. In a larger republic, one that encompassed nearly the entire Eastern Seaboard and ran west to the Appalachian Mountains, people would lack such a strong commonality of interests. [5]

Likewise, Anti-Federalists argued, the diversity of religion tolerated by the Constitution would prevent the formation of a political community with shared values and interests. The Constitution contained no provisions for government support of churches or of religious education, and Article VI explicitly forbade the use of religious tests to determine eligibility for public office. This caused many, like Henry Abbot of North Carolina, to fear that government would be placed in the hands of “pagans . . . and Mahometans [Muslims].” [6]

It is difficult to determine how many people were Federalists and how many were Anti-Federalists in 1787. The Federalists won the day, but they may not have been in the majority. First, the Federalist position tended to win support among businessmen, large farmers, and, in the South, plantation owners. These people tended to live along the Eastern Seaboard. In 1787, most of the states were divided into voting districts in a manner that gave more votes to the eastern part of the state than to the western part. [7] Thus, in some states, like Virginia and South Carolina, small farmers who may have favored the Anti-Federalist position were unable to elect as many delegates to state ratification conventions as those who lived in the east. Small settlements may also have lacked the funds to send delegates to the convention. [8]

In all the states, educated men authored pamphlets and published essays and cartoons arguing either for or against ratification. Although many writers supported each position, it is the Federalist essays that are now best known. The arguments these authors put forth, along with explicit guarantees that amendments would be added to protect individual liberties, helped to sway delegates to ratification conventions in many states.

For obvious reasons, smaller, less populous states favored the Constitution and the protection of a strong federal government. Delaware and New Jersey ratified the document within a few months after it was sent to them for approval in 1787. Connecticut ratified it early in 1788. Some of the larger states, such as Pennsylvania and Massachusetts, also voted in favor of the new government. New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify the Constitution in the summer of 1788.

Although the Constitution went into effect following ratification by New Hampshire, four states still remained outside the newly formed union. Two were the wealthy, populous states of Virginia and New York. In Virginia, James Madison’s active support and the intercession of George Washington, who wrote letters to the convention, changed the minds of many. Some who had initially opposed the Constitution, such as Edmund Randolph, were persuaded that the creation of a strong union was necessary for the country’s survival and changed their position. Other Virginia delegates were swayed by the promise that a bill of rights similar to the Virginia Declaration of Rights would be added after the Constitution was ratified. On June 25, 1788, Virginia became the tenth state to grant its approval.

The approval of New York was the last major hurdle. Facing considerable opposition to the Constitution in that state, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote a series of essays, beginning in 1787, arguing for a strong federal government and support of the Constitution. Later compiled as The Federalist and now known as The Federalist Papers , these eighty-five essays were originally published in newspapers in New York and other states under the name of Publius, a supporter of the Roman Republic.

The essays addressed a variety of issues that troubled citizens. For example, in Federalist No. 51, attributed to James Madison, the author assured readers they did not need to fear that the national government would grow too powerful. The federal system, in which power was divided between the national and state governments, and the division of authority within the federal government into separate branches would prevent any one part of the government from becoming too strong. Furthermore, tyranny could not arise in a government in which “the legislature necessarily predominates.” Finally, the desire of office holders in each branch of government to exercise the powers given to them, described as “personal motives,” would encourage them to limit any attempt by the other branches to overstep their authority. According to Madison, “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.”

Other essays countered different criticisms made of the Constitution and echoed the argument in favor of a strong national government. In Federalist No. 35, for example, Hamilton argued that people’s interests could in fact be represented by men who were not their neighbors. Indeed, Hamilton asked rhetorically, would American citizens best be served by a representative “whose observation does not travel beyond the circle of his neighbors and his acquaintances” or by someone with more extensive knowledge of the world? To those who argued that a merchant and land-owning elite would come to dominate Congress, Hamilton countered that the majority of men currently sitting in New York’s state senate and assembly were landowners of moderate wealth and that artisans usually chose merchants, “their natural patron[s] and friend[s],” to represent them. An aristocracy would not arise, and if it did, its members would have been chosen by lesser men. Similarly, Jay reminded New Yorkers in Federalist No. 2 that union had been the goal of Americans since the time of the Revolution. A desire for union was natural among people of such “similar sentiments” who “were united to each other by the strongest ties,” and the government proposed by the Constitution was the best means of achieving that union.

Objections that an elite group of wealthy and educated bankers, businessmen, and large landowners would come to dominate the nation’s politics were also addressed by Madison in Federalist No. 10. Americans need not fear the power of factions or special interests, he argued, for the republic was too big and the interests of its people too diverse to allow the development of large, powerful political parties. Likewise, elected representatives, who were expected to “possess the most attractive merit,” would protect the government from being controlled by “an unjust and interested [biased in favor of their own interests] majority.”

For those who worried that the president might indeed grow too ambitious or king-like, Hamilton, in Federalist No. 68, provided assurance that placing the leadership of the country in the hands of one person was not dangerous. Electors from each state would select the president. Because these men would be members of a “transient” body called together only for the purpose of choosing the president and would meet in separate deliberations in each state, they would be free of corruption and beyond the influence of the “heats and ferments” of the voters. Indeed, Hamilton argued in Federalist No. 70, instead of being afraid that the president would become a tyrant, Americans should realize that it was easier to control one person than it was to control many. Furthermore, one person could also act with an “energy” that Congress did not possess. Making decisions alone, the president could decide what actions should be taken faster than could Congress, whose deliberations, because of its size, were necessarily slow. At times, the “decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch” of the chief executive might be necessary.

LINK TO LEARNING

The Library of Congress has The Federalist Papers on their website. The Anti-Federalists also produced a body of writings, less extensive than The Federalists Papers , which argued against the ratification of the Constitution. However, these were not written by one small group of men as The Federalist Papers had been. A collection of the writings that are unofficially called The Anti-Federalist Papers is also available online.

The arguments of the Federalists were persuasive, but whether they actually succeeded in changing the minds of New Yorkers is unclear. Once Virginia ratified the Constitution on June 25, 1788, New York realized that it had little choice but to do so as well. If it did not ratify the Constitution, it would be the last large state that had not joined the union. Thus, on July 26, 1788, the majority of delegates to New York’s ratification convention voted to accept the Constitution. A year later, North Carolina became the twelfth state to approve. Alone and realizing it could not hope to survive on its own, Rhode Island became the last state to ratify, nearly two years after New York had done so.

FINDING A MIDDLE GROUND

Term Limits

One of the objections raised to the Constitution’s new government was that it did not set term limits for members of Congress or the president. Those who opposed a strong central government argued that this failure could allow a handful of powerful men to gain control of the nation and rule it for as long as they wished. Although the framers did not anticipate the idea of career politicians, those who supported the Constitution argued that reelecting the president and reappointing senators by state legislatures would create a body of experienced men who could better guide the country through crises. A president who did not prove to be a good leader would be voted out of office instead of being reelected. In fact, presidents long followed George Washington’s example and limited themselves to two terms. Only in 1951, after Franklin Roosevelt had been elected four times, was the Twenty-Second Amendment passed to restrict the presidency to two terms.

Are term limits a good idea? Should they have originally been included in the Constitution? Why or why not? Are there times when term limits might not be good?

CHAPTER REVIEW

See the Chapter 2.4 Review for a summary of this section, the key vocabulary , and some review questions to check your knowledge.

• Pauline Maier. 2010. Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788. New York: Simon & Schuster, 464. ↵
• Maier, Ratification, 431. ↵
• Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, March 15, 1789, https://www.gwu.edu/~ffcp/exhibit/p7/p7_1text.html . ↵
• Isaac Krannick. 1999. “The Great National Discussion: The Discourse of Politics in 1787.” In What Did the Constitution Mean to Early Americans? ed. Edward Countryman. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 52. ↵
• Krannick, Great National Discussion, 42-43. ↵
• Krannick, Great National Discussion, 42. ↵
• Evelyn C. Fink and William H. Riker. 1989. "The Strategy of Ratification." In The Federalist Papers and the New Institutionalism, eds. Bernard Grofman and Donald Wittman. New York: Agathon, 229. ↵
• Fink and Riker, Strategy of Ratification, 221. ↵

those who supported ratification of the Constitution

those who did not support ratification of the Constitution

a collection of eighty-five essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay in support of ratification of the Constitution

American Government (2e - Second Edition) Copyright © 2019 by OpenStax and Lumen Learning is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Library of Congress
• Research Guides
• Multiple Research Centers

Constitution Annotated: A Research Guide

Guide to constitution annotated essays.

• Introduction
• How to Use the Constitution Annotated Website
• Resources for Constitution Annotated Research
• Primary and Secondary Sources
• Related Research Guides

As a starting point to your constitutional research, you can begin to explore the Constitution Annotated by subject matter using the menu below or by inputting keywords in the search bar .

The links in the section below take you to the browse section for each constitutional provision's annotated essays. Individual essays can be accessed by clicking the serial numbers left of each essay title.

Introductory Essays

• U.S. Constitution (Articles 1-7)
• Bill of Rights (1-10)
• Early Amendments (11-12)
• Reconstruction Amendments (13-15)
• Early 20th Century Amendments (16-22)
• Post-War Amendments (23-27)

Unratified Amendments

These essays introduce the reader to various components underpinning the Constitution Annotated and how the Constitution is interpreted today.

• Constitution Annotated Methodology This section of essays explains the methodology for the current edition of the Constitution Annotated—that is, the rules and principles that dictate the organization and construction of the document.
• Organization of the Constitution Annotated The section of essays covers how the Constitution Annotated is organized.
• Historical Background of the Constitution This section of essays covers the historical background of the creation of the Constitution in 1787, looking at the Articles of Confederation and the Constitutional Convention.
• Basic Principles Underlying the Constitution This section of essays explores the basic principles underlying and permeating the Constitution, such as federalism, separation of powers, and rights.
• Ways to Interpret the Constitution This section of essays explores the various current frameworks by which the Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court, such as textualism, pragmatism, and moral reasoning.

The U.S. Constitution

The foundational legal document of the United States of America.

Legislative Power (Article I)

This section encompasses essays on Article I of the Constitution dealing specifically with the Legislative branch, its powers, and functions. A recommended first stop is the annotated essay on the Historical Origin Limits on Federal Power .

Executive Power (Article II)

This section encompasses essays on Article II of the Constitution dealing specifically with the Executive branch, the Presidency, its powers, and functions. A recommended first stop is the annotated essay on the Overview of Article II, Executive Branch .

Judicial Power (Article III)

This section encompasses essays on Article III of the Constitution dealing specifically with the Judicial branch, its powers, and functions. A recommended first stop is the annotated essay on Marbury v. Madison and Judicial Review .

Interstate Relations (Article IV)

This section encompasses essays on Article IV of the Constitution dealing specifically with the relationships between states. A recommended first stop is the annotated essay on the Purpose of Privileges and Immunities Clause.

Amending the Constitution (Article V)

This section encompasses essays on Article V of the Constitution dealing specifically with the creation of constitutional amendments. A recommended first stop is the annotated essay on Congressional Proposals of Amendments .

Supreme Law (Article VI)

This section encompasses essays on Article VI of the Constitution dealing specifically with the establishment of the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land. A recommended first stop is the annotated essay on the Overview of the Supremacy Clause.

Ratification (Article VII)

This section encompasses essays on Article VII of the Constitution dealing specifically with the ratification of the Constitution.

Bill of Rights

The first ten amendments to the Constitution.

First Amendment: Fundamental Freedoms

This section encompasses essays on the First Amendment dealing specifically with fundamental freedoms. A recommended first stop is the annotated essay on State Action Doctrine and Free Speech .

Second Amendment

This section encompasses essays on the Second Amendment dealing specifically with the right to bear arms. A recommended first stop is the annotated essay on Early Second Amendment Jurisprudence.

Third Amendment

This section encompasses essays on the Third Amendment dealing specifically with the quartering of soldiers. A recommended first stop is the annotated essay on Government Intrusion .

Fourth Amendment

This section encompasses essays on the Fourth Amendment dealing specifically with searches and seizures. A recommended first stop is the annotated essay on the Amendment’s Historical Background .

Fifth Amendment

This section encompasses essays on the Fifth Amendment dealing specifically with the rights of persons. A recommended first stop is the annotated essay overviewing Due Process .

Sixth Amendment

This section encompasses essays on the Sixth Amendment dealing specifically with rights in criminal prosecutions. A recommended first stop is the annotated essay on Prejudice and the Right to a Speedy Trial.

Seventh Amendment

This section encompasses essays on the Seventh Amendment dealing specifically with civil trial rights. A recommended first stop is the annotated essay overviewing the Seventh Amendment.

Eighth Amendment

This section encompasses essays on the Eighth Amendment dealing specifically with cruel and unusual punishment. A recommended first stop is the annotated essay on the standard of cruel and unusual punishment.

Ninth Amendment

This section encompasses essays on the Ninth Amendment dealing specifically with unenumerated rights. A recommended first stop is the annotated essay on the Amendment’s modern doctrine.

Tenth Amendment

This section encompasses essays on the Tenth Amendment dealing specifically with rights reserved to states and the people. A recommended first stop is the annotated essay on State Sovereignty .

Early Amendments

The two earliest amendments ratified after the Bill of Rights.

Eleventh Amendment

This section encompasses essays on the Eleventh Amendment dealing specifically with suits against states. A recommended first stop is the annotated essay on the Amendment’s historical background.

Twelfth Amendment

This section encompasses essays on the Twelfth Amendment dealing specifically with the election of the President.

Reconstruction Amendments

Also referred to as the Civil War Amendments, the 13th-15th Amendments were passed in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War to enshrine constitutional protections for newly-freed Black Americans.

Thirteenth Amendment

This section encompasses essays on the Thirteenth Amendment dealing specifically with the abolition of slavery. A recommended first stop is the annotated essay on Defining Badges and Incidents of Slavery

Fourteenth Amendment

This section encompasses essays on the Fourteenth Amendment dealing specifically with equal protection and other rights. A recommended first stop is the annotated essay overviewing Substantive Due Process .

Fifteenth Amendment

This section encompasses essays on the Fifteenth Amendment dealing specifically with the right to vote. A recommended first stop is the annotated essay on the right to vote generally .

Early Twentieth Century Amendments

The constitutional amendments ratified in the early twentieth century prior to the Second World War.

Sixteenth Amendment

This section encompasses essays on the Sixteenth Amendment dealing specifically with income tax. A recommended first stop is the annotated essay on the historical background of the Amendment.

Seventeenth Amendment

This section encompasses essays on the Seventeenth Amendment dealing specifically with the popular election of senators. A recommended first stop is the annotated essay on the historical background of the Amendment.

Eighteenth Amendment

This section encompasses essays on the Eighteenth Amendment dealing specifically with the prohibition of alcohol.

Nineteenth Amendment

This section encompasses essays on the Nineteenth Amendment dealing specifically with women’s suffrage. A recommended first stop is the annotated essay overviewing the amendment .

Twentieth Amendment

This section encompasses essays on the Twentieth Amendment dealing specifically with the presidential terms and succession.

Twenty-First Amendment

This section encompasses essays on the Twenty-First Amendment dealing specifically with the repeal of prohibition. A recommended first stop is the annotated essay on interstate commerce .

Twenty-Second Amendment

This section encompasses essays on the Twenty-Second Amendment dealing specifically with Presidential term limits.

Post-War Amendments

Constitutional amendments passed in the twentieth century after the conclusion of the Second World War.

Twenty-Third Amendment

This section encompasses essays on the Twenty-Third Amendment dealing specifically with District of Columbia electors.

Twenty-Fourth Amendment

This section encompasses essays on the Twenty-Fourth Amendment dealing specifically with the abolition of poll tax.

Twenty-Fifth Amendment

This section encompasses essays on the Twenty-Fifth Amendment dealing specifically with Presidential vacancy.

Twenty-Sixth Amendment

This section encompasses essays on the Twenty-Sixth Amendment dealing specifically with the reduction of voting age.

Twenty-Seventh Amendment

This section encompasses essays on the Twenty-Sixth Amendment dealing specifically with the congressional compensation. A recommended first stop is the annotated essay overviewing the amendment .

Six amendments have been proposed by Congress, but have not been ratified by the States.

• Proposed Amendments Not Ratified by the States This essay covers amendments proposed by Congress, but as of yet unratified by the States.
• << Previous: How to Use the Constitution Annotated Website
• Next: Resources for Constitution Annotated Research >>
• Last Updated: Apr 11, 2024 8:12 AM
• URL: https://guides.loc.gov/constitution-annotated