Page 186 - American Stories, A History of the United States

meeting from the streets. In New York, Hamilton threatened upstate Antifederalists that
New York City would secede from the state unless the state ratified the Constitution. 6.1
In these battles, the Antifederalists articulated a political philosophy that had pop-
ular appeal. Like the extreme republicans who drafted the first state constitutions, the
Antifederalists were suspicious of political power. They warned that public officials, 6.2
however selected, would scheme to expand their authority.
Preserving individual liberty required constant vigilance. The larger the repub-
lic, the greater the opportunity for political corruption. Local voters could not know 6.3
what their representatives in a distant national capital were doing. The government
the Constitution outlined invited precisely the kinds of problems that Montesquieu
had described in The Spirit of the Laws: “In so extensive a republic,” one Antifederalist 6.4
declared, “the great officers of government would soon become above the control of
the people, and abuse their power.”
Antifederalists demanded direct, personal contact with their representatives.
Elected officials should reflect the character of their constituents as closely as possible.
It seemed unlikely that in large congressional districts, the people could preserve such
close ties with their representatives. According to the Antifederalists, the Constitution
favored persons wealthy enough to have forged a reputation that extended beyond a
single community. Samuel Chase told the members of the Maryland ratifying conven-
tion that under the new system, “the distance between the people and their representa-
tives will be so great that there is no probability of a farmer or planter being chosen . . .
only the gentry, the rich, and the well-born will be elected.”
Federalist speakers mocked their opponents’ localist perspective. The Constitution
deserved general support precisely because it ensured that future Americans would be
represented by “natural aristocrats,” individuals possessing greater insights, skills, and
training than did the ordinary citizen. These talented leaders could discern the entire
population’s interests. They were not tied to the selfish needs of local communities.
“The little demagogue of a petty parish or county will find his importance annihi-
lated [under the Constitution] and his intrigues useless,” predicted Charles Cotesworth
Pinckney, a South Carolina Federalist.
Historians have generally accepted the Federalist critique. It would be a mistake,
however, to see the Antifederalists as “losers” or as persons who could not comprehend
social and economic change. Although their rhetoric echoed an older moral view of
political culture, they accepted more easily than did many Federalists a liberal mar-
ketplace in which ordinary citizens competed as equals with the rich and well-born.
They believed the public good was best served by allowing individuals like themselves
to pursue their own private interests. They had been doing that on the local level dur-
ing the 1780s and resented the imposition of elite controls over their affairs. Although
the Antifederalists lost the battle over ratification, their ideas about political economy
found many champions in the age of Andrew Jackson.
Many different types of people supported the Constitution. Historians have been
unable to discover sharp correlations between wealth and occupation on the one hand
and attitudes toward the proposed system of central government on the other. In gen-
eral, Federalists lived in more commercialized areas than did their opponents. In the
cities, artisans as well as merchants called for ratification. Farmers who were only mar-
ginally involved in commercial agriculture frequently voted Antifederalist.
Despite passionate pleas from Patrick Henry and other Antifederalists, most
state conventions quickly adopted the Constitution. Delaware acted first (December
7, 1787). Within eight months of the Philadelphia meeting, eight of the nine states
required to launch the government had ratified the document. The contests in Virginia
(June 1788) and New York (July 1788) generated bitter debate, but they too joined the
Union, leaving only North Carolina and Rhode Island outside the United States. Even-
tually (November 21, 1789, and May 29, 1790), even these states ratified the Constitu-
tion. Still, the vote had been close. The Constitution was ratified in New York by a tally
of 30 to 27, in Massachusetts by 187 to 168, and in Virginia by 89 to 79. A few votes in
key states could have defeated the new government. (See Map 6.3.)
153