Last week, I wrote about the reality that those who drafted and supported the Constitution — including the writers of the Federalist Papers — were on the “big government” side of the 18th-century debate.
In the column, I noted that assertion would be shocking to many readers. The reaction was even stronger than anticipated so it seems prudent this week to expand upon and clarify those comments.
As I wrote earlier this year, my perspective on the topic is far from neutral — I have long revered the Constitution and the wisdom behind it. And I am thankful that the great document includes some important constraints upon the federal government.
However, most of the constraints we think of today were not originally a part of the Constitution. Opponents of the Constitution — the anti-Federalists — were deeply concerned about the lack of clearly specified limits.
Consider Patrick Henry, of “give me liberty or give me death” fame. He feared the Constitution would put us on the path to monarchy: “Your president may easily become king.” Worried that basic human rights would either be insecure or lost under the Constitution, Henry considered the effort “a revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain.”
Henry was far from alone in his concerns. Although it’s hard to imagine today, opposition to the Constitution was so strong that its passage was far from a sure thing. While the anti-Federalists expressed many concerns about the plan for a new central government, the biggest complaint was that it lacked a Bill of Rights.
That failing created serious opposition when the Constitution was submitted to the states for ratification. A few states quickly signed on, but the effort was in danger of stalling out well short of the needed approvals. In Massachusetts, a compromise was reached — those who supported the Constitution agreed to also support a Bill of Rights. In exchange, some of the anti-Federalists supported ratification. Even with that concession, the Constitution was narrowly approved by the Bay State delegates, 187-168.
Other states were also close calls and many followed the Massachusetts example. In Henry’s home state of Virginia, James Madison led the fight for ratification. Henry took the opposite side. When all was said and done, the delegates approved the Constitution by just an 89-79 margin. The high level of discomfort with the document was highlighted when the state selected its first two U.S. senators — both had opposed ratification.
By the time the Constitution was approved, five states coupled their ratification with the call for a Bill of Rights.
As a result, in the very first Congress of the new government, 17 proposed Amendments were approved by the House of Representatives. Twelve of them were also approved by the Senate and submitted to the states for ratification.
Three-and-a-half years after the Constitution took effect, 10 amendments were ratified by the states and became known as the Bill of Rights.
These amendments confirmed that the government had no authority to infringe upon the natural rights of every American. The rights to freedom of religion, speech and peaceable assembly were protected. Also included was freedom of the press, the right to jury trials, protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to bear arms and more.
For many Americans today, the expression of these basic rights is the essence of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights is the reason so many believe that the Constitution was created to place limits on government. Those of us who live in the 21st century must be forever grateful to the anti-Federalists for insisting on such protections.
Ultimately, it was the tug of war between Federalists and anti-Federalists that gave our government the balance it needed.
Ultimately, it was the tug of war between Federalists and anti-Federalists that gave our government the balance it needed. The Federalists wanted a more powerful government constrained by a system of checks and balances. The anti-Federalists were more concerned with protecting individual rights rather than creating an energetic government.
The blending of these views was reflected in the behavior of both Patrick Henry and James Madison. Henry opposed the Constitution but supported the new government after the Bill of Rights was added. Madison had drafted the original Constitution and initially saw no need for a Bill of Rights. Eventually, however he wrote the amendments himself.
So, as I said last week, the drafters of the Constitution were the big government advocates of their era. But they were far from ideological zealots. They knew that the survival of the Constitution depended upon building broad support for it. Adding the Bill of Rights was a crucial step in building that support.
Scott Rasmussen is an American political analyst and editor-at-large for Ballotpedia. He is the author of “The Sun is Still Rising: Politics Has Failed But America Will Not.”