Essay on the Ratification of the United States Constitution in Virginia

The decision to ratify the Articles of Confederation after a successful revolutionary war was an important decision in the birth of the future united states. Even though the union was at this point just a loose association with the individual states retaining most of their autonomy, it enabled the founding fathers of the union the chance to see some of the benefits that could be accrued by a closer union (Solberg, Kaminski and Saladino 123). The states used this as a chance to test the viability of their union and to foresee some of the problems that would face the union. As Thurgood Marshall asserted in his address at the Bicentennial celebrations for the United States Constitution in 1987, the Constitution that the union adopted to replace the articles of confederation was tainted with fundamental flaws.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

The constitution was an affront to humanity, and Marshall views every word in the document that purported to support equality as an ironic touch. For each of the individual states, the decision to ratify this constitution was historic and would continue to affect them and they descend fats for posterity (Solberg, Kaminski and Saladino 123). There were several dissenting voices and various points of contention as exemplified in the spirited debates on some of the states. This paper aims to explore the ratification decision from the people of Virginias perspective (Mason 310). This document will explore the legal system the Virginians had under the Articles of Confederation, how this experience would differ to or be similar to the legal system that the United States Constitution was proposing if the state of Virginia ratified it. We will examine the arguments from both those who supported or rejected the constitution, and the possible consequences had Virginia started out as a Republic in 1882 ("Declaration On Human Rights" 102). Finally, this paper will include the authors opinions regarding the ratification decision for the state of Virginal more than two centuries ago and the results of that decision from then to now.

The Virginia Declaration of Rights which was made by George Marshall in 1776 is an astute legal document that embodies the system of government that the Virginians had chosen for themselves and with which they were comfortable. The document by itself was a continuous effort at the fair government and administration of people even for the eighteenth century ("Declaration On Human Rights" 102). The document asserts that all men are created equal, and are entitled to the unalienable rights to life, liberty and the right to seek happiness. While by themselves these were fundamentally progressive concepts, the circumstances under which they were legislated, in an environment which tolerated slavery and the subjugation of fellow humans by brute force and subjecting them to bondage, the intention and the meaning of those profound words becomes unclear, and the depth of the Virginians commitments comes into question (Mason 310). As Thurgood Marshall Comments in his speech above, The constitution which was later drafted was conceived in a similar environment and the precepts therein are not an accurate picture of the actual reasoning of the original framers.

The people of Virginia had already set upon themselves a government and were relatively prosperous. Their declaration of rights proclaimed and provided a free environment that allowed each to pursue their highest potential (Solberg, Kaminski and Saladino 123). Would the benefits that their semi-autonomy had been outweighed by the decision to ratify the United States Constitution and make it their law? For the men faced with this decision those two hundred years ago, the question posed to them a fundamental dilemma that forced them to choose between attempting to craft a perfect state alone or joining a union larger than themselves and casting their lot with others in the union. As this decision was about that first sacrifice of autonomy, it also did require compromise after compromise to become actualized (Mason 310). The northern states had to cede some of their moral principles to secure the commercial success of their states while helping perpetuate; by law, the primary source of wealth for the southern states. Virginia would lose the identity she had carved for herself during the Revolutionary war and was not lacking in such talent as to make them at least moderately successful as a sovereign state (Clark, "United States Diplomatic Negotiations under the Articles of Confederation"). However, the people of Virginia had formed a government that was not allowed to have a standing army, and this left the people reliant on a militia only in times of war.

Some of the Virgins preferred less government; some preferred more government control over day to day life. For both of this camps, the decision of whether to ratify this United States Constitution was significant as the system of government that the constitution proposed determined whether any of the camps would achieve their objectives. The other fundamental question that convened the People of Virginia was the role that states would play in this new government (Solberg, Kaminski and Saladino 123). Would he states continue to operate in some way or where the states be eventually rendered powerless and obsolete thus exposing the citizens to an all-powerful centralize government? As exemplified by the Declaration of Rights drafted by George Mason, the people of Virginia demanded a government that was accountable and responsible for them, and which they had an option to change or amend as often as they wished ("Declaration On Human Rights" 102). Would the New Constitution continue to guarantee these rights or would these basic principles be blurred as the founders compromised to achieve the Union? The heated debate in the state assembly of Virginia is just one example of the many shows of optimism and confidence in the Union and those who believed that the states were better equipped and suited to guard the peoples rights and achieve prosperity (Trombetas 256). These conflicting viewpoints formed the basis for the debate between these two parties and eventually the decision to cede the autonomy of the state of Virginia to the greater Union and therefore help in forming the United States as we know it today.

So what were the major argument for the ratification of the Constitution in Virginia? The supporters of the Constitution as it was proposed were called federalists, after the system of government that the new system was proposing (Trombetas 256). The Federalists argued that the constitution was best suited to protect the rights and liberty of the people. The Federalists felt that the problems that were plaguing the nascent states in the 1780s and 1780s arose from the weak articles of the constitution which bound the states rather loosely and did little to regulate commerce, trade and other aspects of life which were mostly left ("Declaration On Human Rights" 102). Though they called themselves Federalists, the appropriate term for them would have been Nationalists as nationalism and not federalism was their proposed system, of government.

The primary challenge that the Federalists faced was the uphill task of convincing the people who had just won their freedom from colonialism through a revolutionary war that democracy needed to be constrained for a stronger centralized government. Some of the prominent federalists in this era included George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, arguably some of the most popular figures in the states in that period.

The Federalists felt that while the Articles of Confederation had been sufficient to get the states through war, they were an insufficient form of government and could not reasonably sustain the states for a longer time (Clark, "United States Diplomatic Negotiations Under The Articles Of Confederation"). The Federalists felt that it was not the individual state governments but rather the united front and effort that the States presented during the war that had helped them to win the war (Silverman, 80). In Virginia, while the Federalists felt that the State Government had contributed positively to the people, a robust government underneath the new constitution was better suited to harness the potential of the states. The Federalists, therefore, argued for a closer union with the more powerful federal government.

On the other hand, the Antifederalists were a lesser organized but broadly affiliated group that was opposed to the proposed new constitution. The Antifederalists were of the sentiment that the powers of the people were better off vested in lesser powerful governments closer to them than in a strong centralized government which they felt portended corruption and abuse of state power and resources (Clark, "United States Diplomatic Negotiations Under The Articles Of Confederation"). Having just conquered and overcome what they saw as the tyranny of British colonial use, the Antifederalists were wary of a government that had the potential to seize more and more power from the states, therefore, replicating such tyranny.

To the Antifederalists, the three branches of government as proposed in the Constitution went against their core belief of restraining government power ("Rewriting The United States Constitution: An Examination Of Proposals From Reconstruction To The Present," 29). To them, the fact that the presidency had the power to veto a decision made by the peoples representatives in the legislature was an affront to the principles of democracy.

To the people of Virginia, antifederalism meant that they could maintain their system of government and liberties as it was (Silverman, 80). Proffering a weaker government in times of peace was an understandable position for them at this period, however, the realistic chances of that government being able to sustain itself stably were slim. Therefore, even though it was a decision that compromised some of the fundamental principles of their legal system, the people of Virginia ultimately adopted and ratified the United States Constitution.

Works Cited

Clark, Joshua. "United States Diplomatic Negotiations Under The Articles Of Confederation". The Eagle Feather (2013): n. pag. Web.

"Declaration On Human Rights". Human Rights Quarterly 9.1 (1987): 102. Web.

Mason, Robert C. "George Mason Of Virginia". The William and Mary Quarterly 27.4 (1919): 310. Web.

"Rewriting The United States Constitution: An Examination Of Proposals From Reconstruction To The Present". Choice Reviews Online 29.03 (1991): 29-1782-29-1782. Web.

Silverman, Arnold B. "United States Patent And Trademark Office InterviewsKill Or Cure?". JOM 55.12 (2003): 80-80. Web.

Solberg, Winton U., John P. Kaminski, and Gaspare J. Saladino. "The Documentary History Of The Ratification Of The Constitution. Volumes VIII, IX, And X. Ratification Of The Constitution By The States: Virginia [1-3].". The Journal of Southern History 61.1 (1995): 123. Web.

Trombetas, Thomas P. "The American Declaration Of Independence Of 1776 And The Constitution Of 1789: A Case Of Their Indirect Impact On The Greek Constitutional Order During The War Of Independence". Epithewrhsh Koinwnikwn Ereynwn 24.24 (1975): 256. Web.