This form of government quickly showed itself to be impractical and ineffective. Among other shortcomings, the Articles of Confederation left the national government too weak to enforce the Treaty of Paris, too weak to prevent the British government from dumping onto American shores boatloads of criminals, and too weak to prevent individual states from forming their own separate foreign policies, outside of the united policies, with regard to other nations. It was too weak to solve the economic crisis caused by the large amount of debt from the war; the ripple effects of the debt through the economy triggered Shays’ Rebellion, a movement which represented farmers who were losing land and property to debt collectors.
In early 1787, Congress called for a convention to revise the Articles of Confederation. That convention began in May and ended in September of that year.
The new text produced by the convention did a bit more than “revise” the Articles of Confederation, as historian Ron Chernow writes:
For all its gore and mayhem, the American Revolution had unified the thirteen states, binding them into a hopeful, if still restive, nation. The aftermath of the Constitutional Convention, by contrast, turned ugly and divisive, polarizing the populace. Four days after Hamilton affixed his signature to the Constitution, The Daily Advertiser gave New Yorkers their first glimpse of it, and many blanched in amazement. This charter went far beyond Congress’s instructions to rework the Articles of Confederation: it brought forth a brand-new government. The old confederation had simply gone up in smoke. Marinus Willett, once a stalwart of the Sons of Liberty and now New York’s sheriff, echoed the consternation among Governor Clinton’s entourage when he lambasted the new Constitution as “a monster with open mouth and monstrous teeth ready to devour all before it.”
The Americans, having only recently gained their freedom by fighting against a powerful central government, were sensitive to any plan of government which seemed to establish another powerful central government. Why had they rebelled against the King and Parliament of Britain, if they were simply proceeding to re-enslave themselves to the same type of tyranny?
Was this new Constitution, produced by the convention in Philadelphia, establishing an undemocratic absolutism over the Americans? Or was it really, as the delegates to that convention claimed, given power for the purpose of protecting American freedom?
Those who supported the new text were called Federalists, and those who opposed the ratification of it were called the Anti-Federalists.
There was a large segment of the American public which opposed the new Constitution. In order to persuade them to accept, and then support, this Constitution, carefully-worded justifications and explanations would be needed to gain the public’s approval. An important piece of this marketing effort, perhaps the decisive piece, was a writing project known as the The Federalist Papers.
This project consisted of a series of essays published over a period of months in various newspapers. There were a total of 85 essays, written by three authors: Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. Hamilton wrote 51 of the essays, and organized the project. The first essay was released in October 1787, and the last one in August 1788. They were released together in book form in 1788.
Because Hamilton wrote a majority of the essays which together did a majority of the persuading, it is plausible to argue that he was the key factor in persuading the American public to cause their legislators to ratify the Constitution. If James Madison is often called the “Father of the Constitution” because he was influential in drafting the text, then perhaps Alexander Hamilton should be called the “Midwife of the Constitution” because he ushered it into the world.
The Federalist Papers seem to have effected a significant change in public opinion. Between December 1787 and May 1790, all thirteen states ratified the text.
In July 1788, New York became the eleventh state to ratify, and it was clear that it was only a matter of time until the Constitution would indeed be the operating system for a new government. The public, once largely skeptical, had in the meantime become enthusiastic about the Constitution, and about the man who sold it to the public, Alexander Hamilton.
Ron Chernow describes the celebration in New York City. People lauded Hamilton and cheered on the ratification of the Constitution:
The parade apotheosized the hero of the hour, the man who had snatched victory from the antifederalist majority. So exuberant was the lionization of Alexander Hamilton that admirers wanted to rechristen the city “Hamiltoniana.” It was one of the few times in his life that Hamilton basked in the warmth of public adulation. Sail makers waved a flag depicting a laurel-wreathed Hamilton bearing the Constitution while an allegorical figure representing Fame blew a trumpet in the air. This paled before the grandest tribute of all to Hamilton. Gliding down Broadway, pulled by ten horses, was a miniature frigate, twenty-seven feet long, baptized the “Federal Ship Hamilton.” The model ship rose above all other floats “with flowing sheets and full sails[,]... the canvas waves dashing against her sides” and concealing the carriage wheels moving the ship, noted one observer. The cart men fluttered banners that proclaimed, “Behold the federal ship of fame / The Hamilton we call her name; / To every craft she gives employ; / Sure cartmen have their share of joy.” When the Hamilton arrived near the Battery, it was received by congressmen standing outside Bayard’s Tavern. To represent the transition from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution, the ship changed pilots amid a deafening cannonade. The parade marked the zenith of the federalist alliance with city artisans. Hamilton had never courted the masses, and never again was he to enjoy their favor to this extent. Riding high on the crest of the new Constitution, Hamilton and the federalists held undisputed sway in the city.
More than two centuries later, the questions posed by the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists remain. Is the Constitution a system which will maximize and protect individual freedom, political liberty, and economic liberty? Or is it an oppressive system which tyrannizes people by taxing them and regulating them? Of course, the Constitution as a system is only one part of the answer to those questions. The other part is the character of the people who serve in the various elected and appointed offices created by the Constitution, and the degree to which they act in accord with the text.
