On September 17, 1787, 39 the Constitution of the United States was signed by 39 delegates. Three delegates-George Mason and Edmond Randolph from Virginia and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts did not sign because they felt that the constitution did not provide adequate protection of individual and state rights. They believed that a Bill of Rights was necessary before they could agree. 

 

The next step was to have the constitution ratified and copies of the new document were sent to the states for that purpose. A great debate ensued throughout the country. Both sides published articles in papers throughout the colonies to make their case.

​

The Anti-Federalists mostly opposed the constitution, believing that it did not protect individual rights and would allow the federal government to encroach on the rights of the individual states. They pointed to tyranny they faced from Great Britain before that caused the American Revolution. They worried that the new constitution would give the new government too much power.  

​

Mason, Randolph and Gerry were joined by other Anti-Federalists. Patrick Henry was a vocal and publicly recognized while other Anti-Federalists wrote persuasive articles under pseudo names such as Cato (likely George Clinton), Brutus (either Melancton Smith, John Williams or  Robert Yates) Centennial (Samuel Bryan) and the Federal Farmer (possibly Richard Henry Lee or Mercy Otis Warren). Others who were Leary about the new constitution included Samuel Adams and John Hancock. 

​

The Federalists supported the constitution. They assured citizens that the Constitution was not only full of checks and balances, but also very specific on what the federal government could and could not do. They pointed to the Articles of Confederation that they had lived under since declaring their independence and pointed out that without a stronger central government the union could not survive. 

​

Three men, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay collectively wrote the Federalists' position under the name Publius. Joining the effort were others such as Paul Revere who organized a pro-ratification group in Boston.

​

Ratification Conventions were held and the debate thickened. The Anti-Federalists were less united in their reasons against the document, but they all agreed that the constitution without a "Bill of Rights" was unacceptable. They argued that unless a list of sacred rights was included the federal government would eventually take rights from the people.

 

James Madison and other Federalists argued that the Constitution itself put limits on the authority of the national government and kept them from assuming powers that were not specifically spelled out in the constitution. They argued that a Bill of Rights was not only unnecessary, but could inadvertently give future generations the false  impression that it was the federal government (not God) that gave rights. By making a list of unalienable rights, they argued, they ran the risk of government believing that they could give or take-away rights as they pleased. 

​

Eventually George Washington offered a compromise. If the states would ratify the Constitution as it was, he and other Federalists would promise to take their suggestions for amendments in the first session of Congress. Two overseas ministers Thomas Jefferson (minister to France) and John Adams (minister to England) heard of the compromise, they dropped their previous hesitations and heartily endorsed ratification. Adams wrote that the Constitution was "the greatest single effort of national deliberation that the world has ever seen" (Letter from John Adams to William Stephens Smith, 26 December 1787). 

​

By June 21, 1788 nine of the states ratified making the Constitution the law of the Land.  

​

​

​

t didn't do enough to keep the federal government out of the affairs of the individual or the states. 

​

  

​

The