Why did Gerry, Randolph, and Mason refuse to sign the Constitution?
Ironically, Randolph later refused to sign the Constitution at the end of the Convention. He refused to sign it in part because he believed his constituents in Virginia would disapprove of the Constitution. He argued that the people in the states, through their representatives, should have the “full opportunity” to propose amendments to the Constitution. However, during the ratification battle in his home state of Virginia, Randolph fought for its adoption.
Gerry and Mason, key contributors throughout the summer, refused to sign the Constitution in part because it lacked a Bill of Rights. Gerry said that its major failure was in failing to provide for a bill of rights. He later wrote: “There is no security in the proferred system, either for the rights of conscience or the liberty of the Press.” For his part, a few days earlier, Mason said: “I would sooner chop off my right hand than put it to the Constitution.”
George Mason IV, shown here, wrote the Bill of Rights with James Madison. Mason had, along with Edmund Randolph and Elbridge Gerry, opposed signing the Constitution with these assured rights for citizens.
Mason honestly believed that the system of constitutional government would produce either a “monarchy or a corrupt oppressive aristocracy.” He also felt the “Constitution has been formed without the knowledge or idea of the people.” Mason believed the delegates had exceeded their authority by secretly creating a powerful national government that would take away the powers of the states.
What did the new Constitution say about slavery?
The new Constitution did not directly address the slavery problem, probably because many of the members knew other members—particularly from the more agrarian, Southern states—would not be willing to compromise on the measure. However, the vast majority of the delegates did not want to dissolve the Union over slavery.
The issue of slavery was closely tied to the question of congressional representation. The Southern states wanted to count slaves in their population numbers because they would obtain more seats in the House of Representatives. The Northern states did not want to count slaves for purposes of legislative representation, since slaves would not vote or pay taxes. The Northern states also did not want the Southern states to obtain more power than they had.
The delegates eventually agreed to tie taxation to representation and to count slaves as three-fifths of a person. Some historians contend the Convention agreed to this compromise over slavery and representation in exchange for the exclusion of slavery in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787.
The Northern and Southern delegates bargained over the issues of slavery and trade well into August. On August 24, the Committee of Eleven issued a report that contained four provisions: (1) Congress could not prohibit the exportation of slaves until 1800; (2) Congress could tax imported slaves; (3) Exports could not be taxed; and (4) Congress could pass navigation acts by simple majority. The Northern states, which depended on commerce, wanted Congress to pass laws regulating trade.
The Constitution would extend the date to allow the importation of slaves until 1808. The Constitution also contained a clause, called the Fugitive Slave Clause, which allowed Southerners to go into northern states to recover runaway slaves. Unfortunately, the fugitive slave clause enabled the capture of free blacks in northern territory by southern slaveowners.
Thus, the Constitution approved of slavery—if somewhat less than enthusiastically—by counting slaves for the population of states for representative purposes. It also protected the African slave trade for twenty years and guaranteed that masters could recover their runaway slaves. Because of its approval of slavery, famed abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison famously burned a copy of the Constitution, calling it a “covenant with death and an agreement with Hell.” However, not all members of the Convention approved of slavery. Gouvernour Morris famously referred to it as “the curse of Heaven on the states” that sanction it.
James Madison spoke about the Constitution and slavery at the Virginia ratification convention. Madison said: “The southern states would not have entered into the union of America without the temporary possession of that trade.” However, Madison pointed out that under the Articles of Confederation, the slave trade could have continued forever. At least under the new Constitution, the importation of slaves would end in twenty years.
Also, the Constitution never uses the words “slave” or “slavery.”
After the Constitution was signed, what happened during the ratification process?
Article VII of the Constitution provides: “The ratification of the conventions of nine states shall be sufficient for the establishment of the Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.” This meant that the “real fight” did not come on the convention floor. It came in the states over whether to ratify the Constitution. Many merchants, manufacturers, and big plantation owners in the South favored the Constitution. They knew the new Constitution would help protect their business interests.
But many small farmers did not want to sacrifice their individual freedom and become dependent on businesspeople. The battle over ratification became a great issue of the day. It captured the headlines and much space in the newspapers. Pamphlets were printed on each side. In September, Congress directed the state legislatures to call ratification conventions to vote on the new document. Under the ratification process, the state legislatures would vote to call special conventions. Delegates—often the state legislators themselves—would vote at the conventions.
What were the principal objections of the Anti-Federalists to the Constitution?
The Anti-Federalists were particularly concerned with the so-called “necessary and proper” clause of the new Constitution. Article I, Section 18 provided Congress with the power to “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper” for executing its powers vested in the Constitution. Other Anti-Federalists were concerned with the supremacy clause in Article I. Many Anti-Federalists viewed this clause as wiping out the powers of state governments.
Many Anti-Federalists also argued that the Constitution gave too much power to the president. Some feared that the president and the Senate would unite to become similar to the King of England and the upper house of the English Parliament, the House of Lords. The King of England and the House of Lords represented aristocrats, the upper class of society, and tended to ignore the interests of regular people.
The ratification process was not easy. Political leaders were divided. Supporters of the new Constitution with its strong central government called themselves Federalists. Opponents of the Constitution were called Anti-Federalists. Many of them opposed the Constitution because it failed to provide for a bill of rights and gave too much power to the federal government at the expense of state governments.
What were The Federalist Papers, and what was their importance?
The Federalist Papers were a series of anonymous essays that galvanized much popular support for the Constitution during the ratification struggle. In the most populous states of New York and Virginia, the Anti-Federalists fought hard. After the Philadelphia Convention, James Madison co-wrote a series of articles with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay that became known as The Federalist Papers. These