essays written in support of the ratification of the constitution

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.

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

U.S. Constitution.net

Federalist Papers and the Constitution

During the late 1780s, the United States faced significant challenges with its initial governing framework, the Articles of Confederation. These issues prompted the creation of the Federalist Papers, a series of essays aimed at advocating for a stronger central government under the newly proposed Constitution. This article will examine the purpose, key arguments, and lasting impact of these influential writings.

Background and Purpose of the Federalist Papers

The Articles of Confederation, though a pioneer effort, left Congress without the power to tax or regulate interstate commerce, making it difficult to pay off Revolutionary War debts and curb internal squabbles among states.

In May 1787, America's brightest political minds convened in Philadelphia and created the Constitution—a document establishing a robust central government with legislative, executive, and judicial branches. However, before it could take effect, the Constitution needed ratification from nine of the thirteen states, facing opposition from critics known as Anti-Federalists.

The Federalist Papers, a series of 85 essays written by Alexander Hamilton , James Madison , and John Jay under the pseudonym "Publius," aimed to calm fears and win support for the Constitution. Hamilton initiated the project, recruiting Madison and Jay to contribute. Madison drafted substantial portions of the Constitution and provided detailed defenses, while Jay, despite health issues, also contributed essays.

The Federalist Papers systematically dismantled the opposition's arguments and explained the Constitution's provisions in detail. They gained national attention, were reprinted in newspapers across the country, and eventually collated into two volumes for broader distribution.

Hamilton emphasized the necessity of a central authority with the power to tax and enforce laws, citing specific failures under the Articles like the inability to generate revenue or maintain public order. Jay addressed the need for unity and the inadequacies of confederation in foreign diplomacy.

The Federalist Papers provided the framework needed to understand and eventually ratify the Constitution, remaining essential reading for anyone interested in the foundations of the American political system.

A painting-style illustration depicting Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay engaged in a passionate discussion, with the U.S. Constitution and the Federalist Papers visible on the table before them, symbolizing their efforts to advocate for a stronger central government.

Key Arguments in the Federalist Papers

Among the key arguments presented in the Federalist Papers, three themes stand out:

The need for a stronger central government
The importance of checks and balances
The dangers of factionalism

Federalist No. 23 , written by Alexander Hamilton, argued for a robust central government, citing the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation. Hamilton contended that empowering the central government with the means to enforce laws and collect taxes was essential for the Union's survival and prosperity.

In Federalist No. 51 , James Madison addressed the principle of checks and balances, arguing that the structure of the new government would prevent any single branch from usurping unrestrained power. Each branch—executive, legislative, and judicial—would have the means and motivation to check the power of the others, safeguarding liberty.

Federalist No. 10 , also by Madison, delved into the dangers posed by factions—groups united by a common interest adverse to the rights of others or the interests of the community. Madison acknowledged that factions are inherent within any free society and cannot be eliminated without destroying liberty. He argued that a well-constructed Union would break and control the violence of faction by filtering their influence through a large republic.

Hamilton's Federalist No. 78 brought the concept of judicial review to the forefront, establishing the judiciary as a guardian of the Constitution and essential for interpreting laws and checking the actions of the legislature and executive branches. 1

The Federalist Papers meticulously dismantled Anti-Federalist criticisms and showcased how the proposed system would create a stable and balanced government capable of both governing effectively and protecting individual rights. These essays remain seminal works for understanding the underpinnings of the United States Constitution and the brilliance of the Founding Fathers.

An illustration depicting the three branches of the U.S. government—executive, legislative, and judicial—as interconnected cogs in a machine, working together and checking each other's power to maintain balance and prevent any single branch from becoming too powerful.

Analysis of Federalist 10 and Federalist 51

Federalist 10 and Federalist 51 are two of the most influential essays within the Federalist Papers, elucidating fundamental principles that continue to support the American political system. They were carefully crafted to address the concerns of Anti-Federalists who feared that the new Constitution might pave the way for tyranny and undermine individual liberties.

In Federalist 10 , James Madison addresses the inherent dangers posed by factions. He argues that a large republic is the best defense against their menace, as it becomes increasingly challenging for any single faction to dominate in a sprawling and diverse nation. The proposed Constitution provides a systemic safeguard against factionalism by implementing a representative form of government, where elected representatives act as a filtering mechanism.

Federalist 51 further elaborates on how the structure of the new government ensures the protection of individual rights through a system of checks and balances. Madison supports the division of government into three coequal branches, each equipped with sufficient autonomy and authority to check the others. He asserts that ambition must be made to counteract ambition, emphasizing that the self-interest of individuals within each branch would serve as a natural check on the others. 2

Madison also delves into the need for a bicameral legislature, comprising the House of Representatives and the Senate. This dual structure aims to balance the demands of the majority with the necessity of protecting minority rights, thereby preventing majoritarian tyranny.

Together, Federalist 10 and Federalist 51 form a comprehensive blueprint for a resilient and balanced government. Madison's insights address both the internal and external mechanisms necessary to guard against tyranny and preserve individual liberties. These essays speak to the enduring principles that have guided the American republic since its inception, proving the timeless wisdom of the Founding Fathers and the genius of the American Constitution.

A focused image of James Madison writing with a quill pen, his face illuminated by candlelight, with pages of the Federalist Papers scattered on the desk before him, capturing the intensity and thoughtfulness behind his influential essays, particularly Federalist 10 and Federalist 51.

Impact and Legacy of the Federalist Papers

The Federalist Papers had an immediate and profound impact on the ratification debates, particularly in New York, where opposition to the Constitution was fierce and vocal. Alexander Hamilton, a native of New York, understood the weight of these objections and recognized that New York's support was crucial for the Constitution's success, given the state's economic influence and strategic location. The essays were carefully crafted to address New Yorkers' specific concerns and to persuade undecided delegates.

The comprehensive detail and logical rigor of the Federalist Papers succeeded in swaying public opinion. They systematically addressed Anti-Federalist critiques, such as the fear that a strong central government would trample individual liberties. Hamilton, Madison, and Jay argued for the necessity of a powerful, yet balanced federal system, capable of uniting the states and ensuring both national security and economic stability.

In New York, the Federalist essays began appearing in newspapers in late 1787 and continued into 1788. Despite opposition, especially from influential Anti-Federalists like Governor George Clinton, the arguments laid out by "Publius" played a critical role in turning the tide. They provided Federalists with a potent arsenal of arguments to counter Anti-Federalists at the state's ratification convention. When the time came to vote, the persuasive power of the essays contributed significantly to New York's eventual decision to ratify the Constitution by a narrow margin.

The impact of the Federalist Papers extends far beyond New York. They influenced debates across the fledgling nation, helping to build momentum towards the required nine-state ratification. Their detailed exposition of the Constitution's provisions and the philosophic principles underlying them offered critical insights for citizens and delegates in other states. The essays became indispensable tools in the broader national dialogue about what kind of government the United States should have, guiding the country towards ratification.

The long-term significance of the Federalist Papers in American political thought and constitutional interpretation is substantial. Over the centuries, they have become foundational texts for understanding the intentions of the Framers. Jurists, scholars, and lawmakers have turned to these essays for guidance on interpreting the Constitution's provisions, shaping American constitutional law. Judges, including the justices of the Supreme Court, have frequently cited these essays in landmark rulings to elucidate the Framers' intent.

The Federalist Papers have profoundly influenced the development of American political theory, contributing to discussions about federalism, republicanism, and the balance between liberty and order. Madison's arguments in Federalist No. 10 have become keystones in the study of pluralism and the mechanisms by which diverse interests can coexist within a unified political system.

The essays laid the groundwork for ongoing debates about the role of the federal government, the balance of power among its branches, and the preservation of individual liberties. They provided intellectual support for later expansions of constitutional rights through amendments and judicial interpretations.

Their legacy also includes a robust defense of judicial review and the judiciary's role as a guardian of the Constitution. Hamilton's Federalist No. 78 provided a compelling argument for judicial independence, which has been a cornerstone in maintaining the rule of law and protecting constitutional principles against transient political pressures.

The Federalist Papers were crucial in the ratification of the Constitution, particularly in the contentious atmosphere of New York's debates. Their immediate effect was to facilitate the acceptance of the new governing framework. In the long term, their meticulously argued positions have provided a lasting blueprint for constitutional interpretation, influencing American political thought and practical governance for over two centuries. The essays stand as a testament to the foresight and philosophical acumen of the Founding Fathers, continuing to illuminate the enduring principles of the United States Constitution.

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

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.

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

Connect with the Library

All ways to connect

Subscribe & Comment

RSS & E-Mail

Download & Play

iTunesU (external link)

Pocket Constitution Books

");x2("qmparent",lsp,1);lsp.cdiv=b;b.idiv=lsp;if(qm_n&&qm_v

The Federalist Papers

The Federalist Papers are a series of 85 essays arguing in support of the United States Constitution . Alexander Hamilton , James Madison , and John Jay were the authors behind the pieces, and the three men wrote collectively under the name of Publius .

Seventy-seven of the essays were published as a series in The Independent Journal , The New York Packet , and The Daily Advertiser between October of 1787 and August 1788. They weren't originally known as the "Federalist Papers," but just "The Federalist." The final 8 were added in after.

Alexander Hamilton author of the Federalist Papers

At the time of publication, the authorship of the articles was a closely guarded secret. It wasn't until Hamilton's death in 1804 that a list crediting him as one of the authors became public. It claimed fully two-thirds of the essays for Hamilton. Many of these would be disputed by Madison later on, who had actually written a few of the articles attributed to Hamilton.

Once the Federal Convention sent the Constitution to the Confederation Congress in 1787, the document became the target of criticism from its opponents. Hamilton, a firm believer in the Constitution, wrote in Federalist No. 1 that the series would "endeavor to give a satisfactory answer to all the objections which shall have made their appearance, that may seem to have any claim to your attention."

Alexander Hamilton was the force behind the project, and was responsible for recruiting James Madison and John Jay to write with him as Publius. Two others were considered, Gouverneur Morris and William Duer . Morris rejected the offer, and Hamilton didn't like Duer's work. Even still, Duer managed to publish three articles in defense of the Constitution under the name Philo-Publius , or "Friend of Publius."

Hamilton chose "Publius" as the pseudonym under which the series would be written, in honor of the great Roman Publius Valerius Publicola . The original Publius is credited with being instrumental in the founding of the Roman Republic. Hamilton thought he would be again with the founding of the American Republic. He turned out to be right.

John Jay author of the Federalist Papers

John Jay was the author of five of the Federalist Papers. He would later serve as Chief Justice of the United States. Jay became ill after only contributed 4 essays, and was only able to write one more before the end of the project, which explains the large gap in time between them.

Jay's Contributions were Federalist: No. 2 , No. 3 , No. 4 , No. 5 , and No. 64 .

James Madison author of the Federalist Papers

James Madison , Hamilton's major collaborator, later President of the United States and "Father of the Constitution." He wrote 29 of the Federalist Papers, although Madison himself, and many others since then, asserted that he had written more. A known error in Hamilton's list is that he incorrectly ascribed No. 54 to John Jay, when in fact Jay wrote No. 64 , has provided some evidence for Madison's suggestion. Nearly all of the statistical studies show that the disputed papers were written by Madison, but as the writers themselves released no complete list, no one will ever know for sure.

Opposition to the Bill of Rights

The Federalist Papers, specifically Federalist No. 84 , are notable for their opposition to what later became the United States Bill of Rights . Hamilton didn't support the addition of a Bill of Rights because he believed that the Constitution wasn't written to limit the people. It listed the powers of the government and left all that remained to the states and the people. Of course, this sentiment wasn't universal, and the United States not only got a Constitution, but a Bill of Rights too.

No. 1: General Introduction Written by: Alexander Hamilton October 27, 1787

No.2: Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence Written by: John Jay October 31, 1787

No. 3: The Same Subject Continued: Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence Written by: John Jay November 3, 1787

No. 4: The Same Subject Continued: Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence Written by: John Jay November 7, 1787

No. 5: The Same Subject Continued: Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence Written by: John Jay November 10, 1787

No. 6:Concerning Dangers from Dissensions Between the States Written by: Alexander Hamilton November 14, 1787

No. 7 The Same Subject Continued: Concerning Dangers from Dissensions Between the States Written by: Alexander Hamilton November 15, 1787

No. 8: The Consequences of Hostilities Between the States Written by: Alexander Hamilton November 20, 1787

No. 9 The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection Written by: Alexander Hamilton November 21, 1787

No. 10 The Same Subject Continued: The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection Written by: James Madison November 22, 1787

No. 11 The Utility of the Union in Respect to Commercial Relations and a Navy Written by: Alexander Hamilton November 24, 1787

No 12: The Utility of the Union In Respect to Revenue Written by: Alexander Hamilton November 27, 1787

No. 13: Advantage of the Union in Respect to Economy in Government Written by: Alexander Hamilton November 28, 1787

No. 14: Objections to the Proposed Constitution From Extent of Territory Answered Written by: James Madison November 30, 1787

No 15: The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union Written by: Alexander Hamilton December 1, 1787

No. 16: The Same Subject Continued: The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union Written by: Alexander Hamilton December 4, 1787

No. 17: The Same Subject Continued: The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union Written by: Alexander Hamilton December 5, 1787

No. 18: The Same Subject Continued: The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union Written by: James Madison December 7, 1787

No. 19: The Same Subject Continued: The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union Written by: James Madison December 8, 1787

No. 20: The Same Subject Continued: The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union Written by: James Madison December 11, 1787

No. 21: Other Defects of the Present Confederation Written by: Alexander Hamilton December 12, 1787

No. 22: The Same Subject Continued: Other Defects of the Present Confederation Written by: Alexander Hamilton December 14, 1787

No. 23: The Necessity of a Government as Energetic as the One Proposed to the Preservation of the Union Written by: Alexander Hamilton December 18, 1787

No. 24: The Powers Necessary to the Common Defense Further Considered Written by: Alexander Hamilton December 19, 1787

No. 25: The Same Subject Continued: The Powers Necessary to the Common Defense Further Considered Written by: Alexander Hamilton December 21, 1787

No. 26: The Idea of Restraining the Legislative Authority in Regard to the Common Defense Considered Written by: Alexander Hamilton December 22, 1787

No. 27: The Same Subject Continued: The Idea of Restraining the Legislative Authority in Regard to the Common Defense Considered Written by: Alexander Hamilton December 25, 1787

No. 28: The Same Subject Continued: The Idea of Restraining the Legislative Authority in Regard to the Common Defense Considered Written by: Alexander Hamilton December 26, 1787

No. 29: Concerning the Militia Written by: Alexander Hamilton January 9, 1788

No. 30: Concerning the General Power of Taxation Written by: Alexander Hamilton December 28, 1787

No. 31: The Same Subject Continued: Concerning the General Power of Taxation Written by: Alexander Hamilton January 1, 1788

No. 32: The Same Subject Continued: Concerning the General Power of Taxation Written by: Alexander Hamilton January 2, 1788

No. 33: The Same Subject Continued: Concerning the General Power of Taxation Written by: Alexander Hamilton January 2, 1788

No. 34: The Same Subject Continued: Concerning the General Power of Taxation Written by: Alexander Hamilton January 5, 1788

No. 35: The Same Subject Continued: Concerning the General Power of Taxation Written by: Alexander Hamilton January 5, 1788

No. 36: The Same Subject Continued: Concerning the General Power of Taxation Written by: Alexander Hamilton January 8, 1788

No. 37: Concerning the Difficulties of the Convention in Devising a Proper Form of Government Written by: Alexander Hamilton January 11, 1788

No. 38: The Same Subject Continued, and the Incoherence of the Objections to the New Plan Exposed Written by: James Madison January 12, 1788

No. 39: The Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles Written by: James Madison January 18, 1788

No. 40: The Powers of the Convention to Form a Mixed Government Examined and Sustained Written by: James Madison January 18, 1788

No. 41: General View of the Powers Conferred by the Constitution Written by: James Madison January 19, 1788

No. 42: The Powers Conferred by the Constitution Further Considered Written by: James Madison January 22, 1788

No. 43: The Same Subject Continued: The Powers Conferred by the Constitution Further Considered Written by: James Madison January 23, 1788

No. 44: Restrictions on the Authority of the Several States Written by: James Madison January 25, 1788

No. 45: The Alleged Danger From the Powers of the Union to the State Governments Considered Written by: James Madison January 26, 1788

No. 46: The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared Written by: James Madison January 29, 1788

No. 47: The Particular Structure of the New Government and the Distribution of Power Among Its Different Parts Written by: James Madison January 30, 1788

No. 48: These Departments Should Not Be So Far Separated as to Have No Constitutional Control Over Each Other Written by: James Madison February 1, 1788

No. 49: Method of Guarding Against the Encroachments of Any One Department of Government Written by: James Madison February 2, 1788

No. 50: Periodic Appeals to the People Considered Written by: James Madison February 5, 1788

No. 51: The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments Written by: James Madison February 6, 1788

No. 52: The House of Representatives Written by: James Madison February 8, 1788

No. 53: The Same Subject Continued: The House of Representatives Written by: James Madison February 9, 1788

No. 54: The Apportionment of Members Among the States Written by: James Madison February 12, 1788

No. 55: The Total Number of the House of Representatives Written by: James Madison February 13, 1788

No. 56: The Same Subject Continued: The Total Number of the House of Representatives Written by: James Madison February 16, 1788

No. 57: The Alleged Tendency of the New Plan to Elevate the Few at the Expense of the Many Written by: James Madison February 19, 1788

No. 58: Objection That The Number of Members Will Not Be Augmented as the Progress of Population Demands Considered Written by: James Madison February 20, 1788

No. 59: Concerning the Power of Congress to Regulate the Election of Members Written by: Alexander Hamilton February 22, 1788

No. 60: The Same Subject Continued: Concerning the Power of Congress to Regulate the Election of Members Written by: Alexander Hamilton February 23, 1788

No. 61: The Same Subject Continued: Concerning the Power of Congress to Regulate the Election of Members Written by: Alexander Hamilton February 26, 1788

No. 62: The Senate Written by: James Madison February 27, 1788

No. 63: The Senate Continued Written by: James Madison March 1, 1788

No. 64: The Powers of the Senate Written by: John Jay March 5, 1788

No. 65: The Powers of the Senate Continued Written by: Alexander Hamilton March 7, 1788

No. 66: Objections to the Power of the Senate To Set as a Court for Impeachments Further Considered Written by: Alexander Hamilton March 8, 1788

No. 67: The Executive Department Written by: Alexander Hamilton March 11, 1788

No. 68: The Mode of Electing the President Written by: Alexander Hamilton March 12, 1788

No. 69: The Real Character of the Executive Written by: Alexander Hamilton March 14, 1788

No. 70: The Executive Department Further Considered Written by: Alexander Hamilton March 15, 1788

No. 71: The Duration in Office of the Executive Written by: Alexander Hamilton March 18, 1788

No. 72: The Same Subject Continued, and Re-Eligibility of the Executive Considered Written by: Alexander Hamilton March 19, 1788

No. 73: The Provision For The Support of the Executive, and the Veto Power Written by: Alexander Hamilton March 21, 1788

No. 74: The Command of the Military and Naval Forces, and the Pardoning Power of the Executive Written by: Alexander Hamilton March 25, 1788

No. 75: The Treaty Making Power of the Executive Written by: Alexander Hamilton March 26, 1788

No. 76: The Appointing Power of the Executive Written by: Alexander Hamilton April 1, 1788

No. 77: The Appointing Power Continued and Other Powers of the Executive Considered Written by: Alexander Hamilton April 2, 1788

No. 78: The Judiciary Department Written by: Alexander Hamilton June 14, 1788

No. 79: The Judiciary Continued Written by: Alexander Hamilton June 18, 1788

No. 80: The Powers of the Judiciary Written by: Alexander Hamilton June 21, 1788

No. 81: The Judiciary Continued, and the Distribution of the Judicial Authority Written by: Alexander Hamilton June 25, 1788

No. 82: The Judiciary Continued Written by: Alexander Hamilton July 2, 1788

No. 83: The Judiciary Continued in Relation to Trial by Jury Written by: Alexander Hamilton July 5, 1788

No. 84: Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections to the Constitution Considered and Answered Written by: Alexander Hamilton July 16, 1788

No. 85: Concluding Remarks Written by: Alexander Hamilton August 13, 1788

Images courtesy of Wikimedia Commons, licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0.

To learn more about the Constitution — the people, the events, the landmark cases — order a copy of “The U.S. Constitution & Fascinating Facts About It” today!

Call to order: 1-800-887-6661 or order books online.

Plan Your Visit

Things to Do
Where to Eat
Hours & Directions
Frequently Asked Questions
Accessibility
Group Reservations
Washington, D.C. Metro Area
Guest Policies
Historic Area
Distillery & Gristmill
Virtual Tour

George Washington

French & Indian War
Revolutionary War
Constitution
First President
Martha Washington
Native Americans

Preservation

Collections
Archaeology
Architecture
The Mount Vernon Ladies' Association
Restoration Projects
Preserving the View
Preservation Timeline
For Teachers
Primary Source Collections
Secondary Sources
Educational Events
Interactive Tools
Videos and Podcasts
Hands on History at Home

Washington Library

Catalogs and Digital Resources
Research Fellowships
The Papers of George Washington
Library Events & Programs
Leadership Institute
Center for Digital History
George Washington Prize
About the Library
Back to Main menu
Colonial Music Institute
Past Projects
Digital Exhibits
Digital Encyclopedia
About the Encyclopedia
Contributors
George Washington Presidential Library

Estate Hours

9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

u_turn_left Directions & Parking

Federalist Papers

The federalist : a collection of essays, written in favour of the new Constitution, as agreed upon by the Federal Convention, September 17, 1787, Library of Congress

George Washington was sent draft versions of the first seven essays on November 18, 1787 by James Madison, who revealed to Washington that he was one of the anonymous writers. Washington agreed to secretly transmit the drafts to his in-law David Stuart in Richmond, Virginia so the essays could be more widely published and distributed. Washington explained in a letter to David Humphreys that the ratification of the Constitution would depend heavily "on literary abilities, & the recommendation of it by good pens," and his efforts to proliferate the Federalist Papers reflected this feeling. 1

Washington was skeptical of Constitutional opponents, known as Anti-Federalists, believing that they were either misguided or seeking personal gain. He believed strongly in the goals of the Constitution and saw The Federalist Papers and similar publications as crucial to the process of bolstering support for its ratification. Washington described such publications as "have thrown new lights upon the science of Government, they have given the rights of man a full and fair discussion, and have explained them in so clear and forcible a manner as cannot fail to make a lasting impression upon those who read the best publications of the subject, and particularly the pieces under the signature of Publius." 2

Although Washington made few direct contributions to the text of the new Constitution and never officially joined the Federalist Party, he profoundly supported the philosophy behind the Constitution and was an ardent supporter of its ratification.

The philosophical influence of the Enlightenment factored significantly in the essays, as the writers sought to establish a balance between centralized political power and individual liberty. Although the writers sought to build support for the Constitution, Madison, Hamilton, and Jay did not see their work as a treatise, per se, but rather as an on-going attempt to make sense of a new form of government.

The Federalist Paper s represented only one facet in an on-going debate about what the newly forming government in America should look like and how it would govern. Although it is uncertain precisely how much The Federalist Papers affected the ratification of the Constitution, they were considered by many at the time—and continue to be considered—one of the greatest works of American political philosophy.

Adam Meehan The University of Arizona

Notes: 1. "George Washington to David Humphreys, 10 October 1787," in George Washington, Writings , ed. John Rhodehamel (New York: Library of America, 1997), 657.

2. "George Washington to John Armstrong, 25 April 1788," in George Washington, Writings , ed. John Rhodehamel (New York: Library of America, 1997), 672.

Bibliography: Chernow, Ron. Washington: A Life . New York: Penguin, 2010.

Epstein, David F. The Political Theory of The Federalist . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984.

Furtwangler, Albert. The Authority of Publius: A Reading of the Federalist Papers . Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1984.

George Washington, Writings , ed. John Rhodehamel. New York: Library of America, 1997.

The Federalist No. 1: Annotated

Alexander Hamilton’s anonymous essay challenged the voting citizens of New York to hold fast to the truth when deciding to ratify (or not) the US Constitution.

In May 1788, the second volume of what would come to be called The Federalist Papers , a collection of both new and previously printed essays written to sell the ratification of the US Constitution to “The People of the State of New York,” was published. Originally printed in newspapers in New York and elsewhere, The Federalist Papers are now foundational documents of American history and political thought.

Federalist No. 1, written by Alexander Hamilton using the pseudonym “Publius” , began as a response to two earlier essays written against the ratification (by “Cato” and “Brutus” respectively.) Hamilton proposed a series of writings “to give a satisfactory answer to all the objections which shall have made their appearance, that may seem to have any claim to your attention.” He was joined by James Madison and John Jay , ultimately producing eighty-five essays that are to this day used by scholars and Supreme Court justices alike to make their cases for the intent of the Constitution’s framers and its meanings.

Below is Hamilton’s opening salvo in the debate about the future of America: would it remain a confederation of states (as it had been under the Articles of Confederation ) or a new type of federalism, inspired by the Scottish Enlightenment, Montesquieu, and “Publius”? We have annotated the essay below, with scholarship on Constitutional history, the role The Federalist Papers continues to play in American legal and political life, and the style and rhetoric of the author(s). As always, these linked resources are free to read and download.

General Introduction

For the Independent Journal .

Author: Alexander Hamilton

To the People of the State of New York:

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.

Weekly Newsletter

Get your fix of JSTOR Daily’s best stories in your inbox each Thursday.

In the course of the preceding observations, I have had an eye, my fellow-citizens, to putting you upon your guard against all attempts, from whatever quarter, to influence your decision in a matter of the utmost moment to your welfare, by any impressions other than those which may result from the evidence of truth. You will, no doubt, at the same time, have collected from the general scope of them, that they proceed from a source not unfriendly to the new Constitution. Yes, my countrymen, I own to you that, after having given it an attentive consideration, I am clearly of opinion it is your interest to adopt it. I am convinced that this is the safest course for your liberty, your dignity, and your happiness. I affect not reserves which I do not feel. I will not amuse you with an appearance of deliberation when I have decided. I frankly acknowledge to you my convictions, and I will freely lay before you the reasons on which they are founded. The consciousness of good intentions disdains ambiguity. I shall not, however, multiply professions on this head. My motives must remain in the depository of my own breast. My arguments will be open to all, and may be judged of by all. They shall at least be offered in a spirit which will not disgrace the cause of truth.

I propose, in a series of papers, to discuss the following interesting particulars:

THE UTILITY OF THE UNION TO YOUR POLITICAL PROSPERITY
THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE PRESENT CONFEDERATION TO PRESERVE THAT UNION
THE NECESSITY OF A GOVERNMENT AT LEAST EQUALLY ENERGETIC WITH THE ONE PROPOSED, TO THE ATTAINMENT OF THIS OBJECT
THE CONFORMITY OF THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION TO THE TRUE PRINCIPLES OF REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT
ITS ANALOGY TO YOUR OWN STATE CONSTITUTION and lastly,
THE ADDITIONAL SECURITY WHICH ITS ADOPTION WILL AFFORD TO THE PRESERVATION OF THAT SPECIES OF GOVERNMENT, TO LIBERTY, AND TO PROPERTY.

In the progress of this discussion I shall endeavor to give a satisfactory answer to all the objections which shall have made their appearance, that may seem to have any claim to your attention.

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.

*The same idea, tracing the arguments to their consequences, is held out in several of the late publications against the new Constitution. [ Editor’s Note: this note appeared in the margins of the original source. ]

[Text taken from the US Library of Congress: https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/full-text ]

Support JSTOR Daily! Join our membership program on Patreon today.

JSTOR is a digital library for scholars, researchers, and students. JSTOR Daily readers can access the original research behind our articles for free on JSTOR.

Get Our Newsletter

The Enduring Drive-In Theater

Geishas for Enlightened Motherhood

Support JSTOR Daily

If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

To log in and use all the features of Khan Academy, please enable JavaScript in your browser.

US government and civics

Course: us government and civics > unit 1.

The Constitutional Convention
Constitutional compromises: The Electoral College
Constitutional compromises: The Three-Fifths Compromise
The impact of constitutional compromises on us today
The Constitution of the United States
Article V and the Amendment Process
Article V of the Constitution: Amendment Process
Article VI of the Constitution: Debts, Supremacy, Oaths, Religious Tests
Article VII of the Constitution: Ratification

Ratification of the US Constitution: lesson overview

Ratification of the US Constitution

Term	Definition
	A change to the United States Constitution.
	The section of the Constitution that details how to amend the Constitution, either through a congressional proposal or a convention of the states, with final ratification from three-fourths of the states.
	Also known as the Connecticut Compromise, a major compromise at the Constitutional Convention that created a two-house legislature, with the Senate having equal representation for all states and the House of Representatives having representation proportional to state populations.
	A body of representatives from every state in the United States who formally cast votes to elect the president and vice president.
	An agreement added to the Constitution that would count each enslaved person as three-fifths of a white person for purposes of representation in the House of Representatives.

Key documents to know

The amendment process, important takeaways, review questions, want to join the conversation.

Upvote Button navigates to signup page
Downvote Button navigates to signup page
Flag Button navigates to signup page

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.

Image a shows a newspaper illustration showing five pillars standing upright representing Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia and Connecticut. A sixth pillar representing Massachusetts is broken apart from the others and falling over). Image b shows a similar newspaper illustration showing the six pillars all standing upright.

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.

This timeline includes twelve states with the dates that each ratified the Constitution. Delaware ratified on December 7, 1787; Pennsylvania ratified on December 12, 1787; New Jersey ratified on December 18, 1787; Georgia ratified on December 31, 1787; Connecticut ratified on January 9, 1788; Massachusetts ratified on February 6, 1788; Maryland ratified on April 26, 1788; South Carolina ratified on May 23, 1788; New Hampshire ratified on June 21, 1788; Virginia ratified on June 25, 1788; New York ratified on July 26, 1788; North Carolina ratified on November 21, 1789; and Rhode Island ratified on May 29, 1790.

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.

This image shows an advertisement for The Federalist papers.

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.

An engraving depicts James Madison. A painting depicts Alexander Hamilton.

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

Share This Book

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.

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.

Library of Congress
Research Guides
Newspapers & Current Periodicals

Federalist Essays in Historic Newspapers

Introduction.

Newspaper Holdings
About the Authors
Other Resources

Newspapers & Current Periodicals : Ask a Librarian

Have a question? Need assistance? Use our online form to ask a librarian for help.

Chat with a librarian , Monday through Friday, 12-2 pm Eastern Time (except Federal Holidays).

Author: Heather C. Thomas, Reference Librarian, Serial & Government Publications Division

Created: April 24, 2019

Last Updated: May 4, 2022

Although known as the Federalist Papers , the 85 essays urging the ratification of the Constitution were originally a series of letters written for publication in New York newspapers. Those newspapers did not identify the essays as the Federalist Papers , but rather preceded them with headings that read “The Federalist No. I,” “The Federalist No. II,” and so on.

Written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, the essays originally appeared anonymously under the pseudonym "Publius." The Federalist essays did not consistently appear in any one newspaper, but rather were first printed in one, then another paper.

The first essay was published on October 27, 1787 in The Independent Journal, or The General Advertiser , edited by John McLean. Subsequent essays appeared in The Independent Journal and three other New York newspapers— The New-York Packet , edited by Samuel and John Loudon; The Daily Advertiser , edited by Francis Childs; and The New York Journal and Daily Patriotic Register , edited by Thomas & Greenleaf.

Although the intention was to publish on Tuesday in The New-York Packet , on Wednesday in The Independent Journal , on Thursday in The Daily Advertiser , and on Saturday in The Independent Journal, the plan was not consistently followed. And not all of the 85 essays were published in all four newspapers. For example, the The Independent Journal, or The General Advertiser was the one newspaper to publish all 85 essays, while the The Daily Advertiser only published essays no. 1 through no. 51.

This guide serves as an index to the Federalist essays in the historic newspapers where they appeared, as well as a list of holdings of those newspapers at the Library of Congress.

Next: Newspaper Holdings >>
Last Updated: Mar 12, 2024 12:05 PM
URL: https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-essays-in-historic-newspapers

America's Founding Documents

The Constitution: How Did it Happen?

Concern about the articles of confederation.

Just a few years after the Revolutionary War, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and George Washington feared their young country was on the brink of collapse. America’s first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, gave the Confederation Congress the power to make rules and request funds from the states, but it had no enforcement powers, couldn’t regulate commerce, or print money. The states’ disputes over territory, war pensions, taxation, and trade threatened to tear the young country apart. Alexander Hamilton helped convince Congress to organize a Grand Convention of state delegates to work on revising the Articles of Confederation.

Washington as Statesman at the Constitutional Convention, 1856

Oil on canvas by Junius Brutus Steams. Courtesy of the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts

The Constitutional Convention

The Constitutional Convention assembled in Philadelphia in May of 1787. The delegates shuttered the windows of the State House and swore secrecy so they could speak freely. Although they had gathered to revise the Articles of Confederation, by mid-June they had decided to completely redesign the government. There was little agreement about what form it would take.

One of the fiercest arguments was over congressional representation—should it be based on population or divided equally among the states? The framers compromised by giving each state one representative for every 30,000 people in the House of Representatives and two representatives in the Senate. They agreed to count enslaved Africans as three-fifths of a person. Slavery itself was a thorny question that threatened to derail the Union. It was temporarily resolved when the delegates agreed that the slave trade could continue until 1808.

Writing the Constitution

After three hot summer months of equally heated debate, the delegates appointed a Committee of Detail to put its decisions in writing. Near the end of the convention, a Committee of Style and Arrangement kneaded it into its final form, condensing 23 articles into seven in less than four days.

On September 17, 1787, 38 delegates signed the Constitution. George Reed signed for John Dickinson of Delaware, who was absent, bringing the total number of signatures to 39. It was an extraordinary achievement. Tasked with revising the existing government, the delegates came up with a completely new one. Wary about centralized power and loyal to their states, they created a powerful central government. Representing wildly different interests and views, they crafted compromises. It stands today as one of the longest-lived and most emulated constitutions in the world.

Ratification

The founders set the terms for ratifying the Constitution. They bypassed the state legislatures, reasoning that their members would be reluctant to give up power to a national government. Instead, they called for special ratifying conventions in each state. Ratification by 9 of the 13 states enacted the new government. But at the time, only 6 of 13 states reported a pro-Constitution majority.

The Federalists, who believed that a strong central government was necessary to face the nation’s challenges, needed to convert at least three states. The Anti-Federalists fought hard against the Constitution because it created a powerful central government that reminded them of the one they had just overthrown, and it lacked a bill of rights.

The ratification campaign was a nail-biter. The tide turned in Massachusetts, where the “vote now, amend later” compromise helped secure victory in that state and eventually in the final holdouts.

What Does it Say? How Was it Made?

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

THE RATIFICATION PROCESS

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.

Insider Perspective

Thomas jefferson on the bill of rights.

“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?

THE RATIFICATION CAMPAIGN

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.

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.

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

Finding a Middle Ground

Term limits.

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?

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

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

© Jan 5, 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.

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

First Amendment Exhibit Historic Graphic

New exhibit

The first amendment, the anti-federalists and their important role during the ratification fight.

September 27, 2017 | by Ugonna Eze

On this day in 1787, the debate over the newly written Constitution began in the press after an anonymous writer in the New York Journal warned citizens that the document was not all that it seemed.

Most Americans know of the Federalist Papers, the collection of essays written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and Madison, in defense of the U.S. Constitution. Fewer know of the Anti-Federalist Papers authored by Cato and other incognito writers, their significance to American political history, or their responsibility for producing the Bill of Rights.

When the Constitution was drafted in the summer of 1787, its ratification was far from certain; it still needed to be ratified by at least nine of the 13 state legislatures. The failure of the Articles of Confederation made it clear that America needed a new form of government. Yet there was worry that the Constitution gave too much power to the federal government. The original draft of the Constitution did not have a Bill of Rights, declared all state laws subservient to federal ones, and created a king-like office in the presidency. At the Philadelphia Convention and in the Federalist Papers, James Madison argued against having a Bill of Rights, fearing that they would limit the people’s rights.

Opposition to the Constitution after the Philadelphia Convention began with Elbridge Gerry, Edmund Randolph, and George Mason, the “Three Dissenters” who refused to sign the document. It then grew to include Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, and Richard Henry Lee, heroes of the Revolutionary War who objected to the Constitution’s consolidation of power. In time, the various opponents to the new Constitution came to be known as the Anti-Federalists. Their collected speeches, essays, and pamphlets later became known as the “Anti-Federalist Papers.”

While each of the Anti-Federalists had their own view for what a new constitution for the United States should look like, they generally agreed on a few things. First, they believed that the new Constitution consolidated too much power in the hands of Congress, at the expense of states. Second, they believed that the unitary president eerily resembled a monarch and that that resemblance would eventually produce courts of intrigue in the nation’s capital. Third, they believed that the liberties of the people were best protected when power resided in state governments, as opposed to a federal one. Lastly, they believed that without a Bill of Rights, the federal government would become tyrannous.

These arguments created a powerful current against adopting the Constitution in each of the states. In state legislatures across the country, opponents of the Constitution railed against the extensive powers it granted the federal government and its detraction from the republican governments of antiquity. In Virginia, Patrick Henry, author of the famous “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death” speech, called the proposed constitution, “A revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain.” In the Essays of Brutus, an anonymous author worried that without any limitations, the proposed Constitution would make “the state governments… dependent on the will of the general government for their existence.”

The Anti-Federalists mobilized against the Constitution in state legislatures across the country.

Anti-Federalists in Massachusetts, Virginia and New York, three crucial states, made ratification of the Constitution contingent on a Bill of Rights. In Massachusetts, arguments between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists erupted in a physical brawl between Elbridge Gerry and Francis Dana. Sensing that Anti-Federalist sentiment would sink ratification efforts, James Madison reluctantly agreed to draft a list of rights that the new federal government could not encroach.

The Bill of Rights is a list of 10 constitutional amendments that secure the basic rights and privileges of American citizens. They were fashioned after the English Bill of Rights and George Mason’s Virginia Declaration of Rights. They include the right to free speech, the right to a speedy trial, the right to due process under the law, and protections against cruel and unusual punishments. To accommodate Anti-Federalist concerns of excessive federal power, the Bill of Rights also reserves any power that is not given to the federal government to the states and to the people.

Since its adoption, the Bill of Rights has become the most important part of the Constitution for most Americans. In Supreme Court cases, the Amendments are debated more frequently than the Articles. They have been cited to protect the free speech of Civil Rights activists, protect Americans from unlawful government surveillance, and grant citizens Miranda rights during arrest. It is impossible to know what our republic would look like today without the persistence of the Anti-Federalists over two hundred years ago.

Ugonna Eze is a Fellow for Constitutional Studies at the National Constitution Center.

More from the National Constitution Center

Constitution 101

Explore our new 15-unit core curriculum with educational videos, primary texts, and more.

Search and browse videos, podcasts, and blog posts on constitutional topics.

Founders’ Library

Discover primary texts and historical documents that span American history and have shaped the American constitutional tradition.

Modal title

Modal body text goes here.

Share with Students

With Biden Out, What Happens Next? Here’s What We Know.

Democrats are gaming out scenarios, some of them more likely than others. One thing is clear: Kamala Harris has the inside lane.

Share full article

President Biden shaking hands with Vice President Kamala Harris on a stage.

By Reid J. Epstein

Reid J. Epstein covers the 2024 presidential campaign and has reported on presidential delegate battles since 2008.

July 23, 2024

Now that President Biden has ended his re-election bid , Democrats must choose a replacement nominee in less than a month, condensing what is typically a yearlong primary campaign into just a couple weeks.

Here are answers to six key questions as Democrats navigate a possible post-Biden future.

What happens next?

Mr. Biden endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris, but the official selection of a nominee will be made by the more than 4,600 Democratic National Convention delegates, a body of senior party figures, local activists and elected officials who were selected at state party conventions this spring. Most were vetted by the Biden campaign.

Those delegates, who typically serve a functionary role, will now preside over a decision of historic import. Never in the modern history of American politics has a candidate who swept through a party’s presidential primaries abandoned his campaign so close to a national convention. There is no precedent or historical record to consult, and the party’s rules are not always clear on the details of what will unfold next.

Could a Harris challenger win over the delegates?

That would be difficult to do logistically.

Only officials at the Democratic National Committee and the Biden campaign have the full roster of delegates. If someone decided to run against Ms. Harris, the first challenge would be to gain access to the people who will make that decision.

Without access to the delegate list, alternative candidates to Ms. Harris are effectively blocked from both canvassing the delegates for their opinions and trying to persuade them to support someone other than Ms. Harris. There is no evidence to date that any serious political campaign other than Mr. Biden’s and the D.N.C. has made an effort to reach out to the convention’s delegates.

What happens to the delegates now?

They are free agents, able to vote for any candidate they choose. Mr. Biden has endorsed Ms. Harris as his successor, but he cannot force delegates to follow his lead.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber? Log in .

Want all of The Times? Subscribe .

IMAGES

The Ratification of the Constitution
📗 Essay Example on Ratification of US Constitution Leads to Formation
📚 Essay Example on Ratification of a Constitution
Ratification of the U.S. Constitution
POS2041 1
Why Did The Federalists Support The Ratification Of The Constitution

VIDEO

20 Lines about Constitution of India
Building a Republic: The Constitutional Convention
The Anti-Federalist Papers (FULL Audiobook)
U.S. Constitution Ratification Debates: Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists -- Rey Ty
PM Modi Gets Written Support From C Naidu, Nitish Kumar, Modi Takes Oath On Saturday
pluS one political science /sure essays 💥16 mark sure👍👍

COMMENTS

Federalist Papers: Summary, Authors & Impact
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 ...
The Federalist Papers
The Federalist Papers is a collection of 85 articles and essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay under the collective pseudonym "Publius" to promote the ratification of the Constitution of the United States. The collection was commonly known as The Federalist until the name The Federalist Papers emerged in the twentieth century.
Federalist Papers and the Constitution
The Federalist Papers, a series of 85 essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay under the pseudonym "Publius," aimed to calm fears and win support for the Constitution. Hamilton initiated the project, recruiting Madison and Jay to contribute. Madison drafted substantial portions of the Constitution and provided detailed ...
The Federalist Papers (article)
The Federalist Papers was a collection of essays written by John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton in 1788. The essays urged the ratification of the United States Constitution, which had been debated and drafted at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787. The Federalist Papers is considered one of the most significant ...
Federalist Papers: Primary Documents in American History
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.
Convention and Ratification
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.
Federalist Papers: Primary Documents in American History
The Federalist Papers were a series of eighty-five essays urging the citizens of New York to ratify the new United States Constitution. Written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, the essays originally appeared anonymously in New York newspapers in 1787 and 1788 under the pen name "Publius." The Federalist Papers are considered one of the most important sources for interpreting ...
The Federalist Papers
The Federalist Papers are a series of 85 essays arguing in support of the United States Constitution. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay were the authors behind the pieces, and the three men wrote collectively under the name of Publius.
Federalist Papers
The essays were written between October 1787 and August 1788, and were intended to build public and political support for the newly constructed Constitution which was sent to the States for ratification in September 1787, following the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.
The Federalist No. 1: Annotated
In May 1788, the second volume of what would come to be called The Federalist Papers, a collection of both new and previously printed essays written to sell the ratification of the US Constitution to "The People of the State of New York," was published. Originally printed in newspapers in New York and elsewhere, The Federalist Papers are now foundational documents of American history and ...
Federalist 1 (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 ...
3.5 Info Brief: The Federalist Papers
The Federalist Papers were a series of 85 essays printed in newspapers to persuade critics of the Constitution and those on the fence to support ratification. Alexander Hamilton wrote 51 of these essays, James Madison 29, and John Jay five. All three authors wrote under the same famous pen name—"Publius.".
Ratification of the US Constitution (article)
Article V. The section of the Constitution that details how to amend the Constitution, either through a congressional proposal or a convention of the states, with final ratification from three-fourths of the states. Great Compromise. Also known as the Connecticut Compromise, a major compromise at the Constitutional Convention that created a two ...
The Ratification of the Constitution
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.
James Madison, Ratification, and The Federalist Papers
September 17th is Constitution Day, the anniversary of the framers signing of the constitution in 1787. This week, we dive into the philosophy of the Federalist Papers written by Madison, Hamilton, and John Jay to support the ratification of the constitution after it was signed. I'm so excited to be joined by two of America's leading experts on ...
Ratification of the U.S. Constitution: An Overview of the Process
This constitution of 1780 and its process of ratification would serve as a model for future American constitution-writing. In 1783 a convention revised New Hampshire's "temporary" constitution of 1776, and the freemen followed Massachusetts' example by ratifying it in town meetings.
Essay: The Ratification Debate
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.
Federalist Essays in Historic Newspapers
Although known as the Federalist Papers, the 85 essays urging the ratification of the Constitution were originally a series of letters written for publication in New York newspapers.
Chapter 7 Flashcards
The eighty-five essays written in support f ratification of the Constitution are called: The Federalist. The Anti-Federalist James Winthrop argued that a bill of rights was necessary in the Constitution because: It would secure the minority against the usurpation and tyranny of the majority. Study with Quizlet and memorize flashcards containing ...
The Constitution: How Did it Happen?
They bypassed the state legislatures, reasoning that their members would be reluctant to give up power to a national government. Instead, they called for special ratifying conventions in each state. Ratification by 9 of the 13 states enacted the new government. But at the time, only 6 of 13 states reported a pro-Constitution majority.
STAAR Review #3- Constitution 1 Flashcards
Study with Quizlet and memorize flashcards containing terms like Name given to the first ten original amendments to the US Constitution that protect individual freedoms, a set of essays written in support of the ratification of the Constitution, People who argued against the ratification of the Constitution and more.
2.4 The Ratification of the Constitution
Article VII, the final article of the Constitution, required that before the Constitution could become law and a new government could form, the document...
In total, 85 Federalist Papers were written to support ratification of
81 likes, 2 comments. "In total, 85 Federalist Papers were written to support ratification of the new Constitution, but we all know who the real MVP was…"
The Anti-Federalists and their important role during the Ratification
The Anti-Federalists and their important role during the Ratification fight. On this day in 1787, the debate over the newly written Constitution began in the press after an anonymous writer in the New York Journal warned citizens that the document was not all that it seemed. "This form of government is handed to you by the recommendations of ...
#EndBadGovernance: Demanding for details not re-writing constitution
The Police headquarters on Sunday clarified that contrary to the allegation against the Inspector General of Police, by Rights Activist, Deji Adeyanju that asking groups and organizers of the ...
With Biden Out, What Happens Next? Here's What We Know
With Biden Out, What Happens Next? Here's What We Know. Democrats are gaming out scenarios, some of them more likely than others. One thing is clear: Kamala Harris has the inside lane.

Federalist Papers

Articles of Confederation

A New Constitution

The Rise of Publius

Who Wrote the Federalist Papers?

Federalist Papers Summary

'Federalist 10'

'Federalist 51'

Impact of the Federalist Papers

HISTORY Vault: The American Revolution

Sign up for Inside History

U.S. Constitution.net

Federalist Papers and the Constitution

Background and Purpose of the Federalist Papers

Key Arguments in the Federalist Papers

Analysis of Federalist 10 and Federalist 51

Impact and Legacy of the Federalist Papers

Library of Congress

Creating the United States Convention and Ratification

Philadelphia, Birthplace of the Constitution

The Virginia Plan

William Paterson Defends New Jersey Plan

The New Jersey Plan

Madison Responds to Paterson’s New Jersey Plan

Pennsylvania State House in Philadelphia

Convention Rejects Franklin’s Proposed Daily Prayer

Franklin Soothes Anger

“Great Compromise” Saves the Convention

Committee of Detail

Report of the Committee of Style

Washington’s Frustrations at the Convention

Opposition to the Constitution

“Monarchy or a Republic?”

Early Optimism of the Acceptance of New Constitution

Jefferson’s Concern about Method of Electing President

Conflict in Ratification of the Constitution

Madison Defends Constitution

The Federalist Papers

James Madison Defends the Constitution

Alexander Hamilton Defends the New Constitution

Federal Constitution Ratified by Virginia

New York Parade to Support the New Federal Constitution

Connect with the Library

Subscribe & Comment

Download & Play

The Federalist Papers

Opposition to the Bill of Rights

Plan Your Visit

George Washington

Preservation

Washington Library

Estate Hours

Federalist Papers

The Federalist No. 1: Annotated

Weekly Newsletter

Get Our Newsletter

The Enduring Drive-In Theater

Geishas for Enlightened Motherhood

Support JSTOR Daily

US government and civics

Ratification of the US Constitution: lesson overview

Key documents to know

The Ratification of the Constitution

THE RATIFICATION PROCESS

INSIDER PERSPECTIVE

THE RATIFICATION CAMPAIGN

LINK TO LEARNING

FINDING A MIDDLE GROUND

CHAPTER REVIEW

Share This Book

Essay: The Ratification Debate

Related Content

The Ratification Debate

Federalist Essays in Historic Newspapers

Newspapers & Current Periodicals : Ask a Librarian

The Constitution: How Did it Happen?

Washington as Statesman at the Constitutional Convention, 1856

The Constitutional Convention

Writing the Constitution

Ratification