Introduction

The year is 1787, only four years after the United States signed the Treaty of Paris which ended British jurisdiction over the American colonies. Between 1783 and 1787 the states were governed under the articles of confederation, which were ratified in 1781. This document created a Congress of the Confederation, but no president, no courts, and no power to tax. The federal government was extremely weak with little authority. Under the Articles, Congress did have some real powers: it could make war and peace, conduct foreign affairs, coin and borrow money, manage relations with Native nations, and settle disputes between states. But every major action needed the consent of nine states, and enforcement depended entirely on those same states choosing to cooperate. Congress could “request” troops or money, but states could, and often did, ignore those requests. States taxed each other’s goods, issued their own currencies, and pursued their own trade policies which caused interstate rivalries to flourish. 

 

Many members of the Congress believed the articles needed amendments and some of those members were even more radical and believed the articles of confederation needed to be replaced entirely with a new document. These beliefs were held even during the ratification of the articles of confederation but had no urgency until one event in 1786.

 

The Spark of Change: Shay’s Rebellion

During the summer of 1786, a Massachusetts farmer, Captain Daniel Shays, who was a Revolutionary War veteran, led other farmers in an uprising against state taxes that he believed were high, imprisonment for debt, and lack of paper money. The rebellion stopped the collection of taxes and closed debtors’ courts. It ended when in January of 1787 Shays and his followers tried to seize weapons from the Springfield armor but the state militia was able to break the rebellion instead. The rebellion showed that the current national government was too weak to act, even when armed insurgents tried to shut down courts and seize a federal arsenal. That failure convinced many leaders that the Articles of Confederation had to be replaced, not merely revised.

 

Revolutionary Ideas

Many do not know, but a second revolution happened in the United States not too long after the American Revolution. This revolution, however, was not violent but instead was a political revolution that took place in Philadelphia in the year of 1787. There delegates from twelve states met to address the failures of the Articles of Confederation (Rhode Island chose not to send delegates as they did not trust the other states). What they were officially tasked with was simple. They were to revise the Articles to make the existing system work better. But once they gathered, it became clear that the Articles were beyond repair. The national government could not tax, could not regulate commerce, could not enforce its own laws, and could not resolve disputes between states. The country was drifting toward economic instability and political fragmentation. Rather than patching the old framework, the delegates made the unprecedented decision to replace it entirely.

 

What makes this moment even more revolutionary is that the delegates’ actions were technically illegal under the Articles of Confederation. The Articles required unanimous consent from all thirteen states to amend the existing system, and they did not authorize the creation of a new constitution. The Convention ignored both requirements. They drafted a completely new governing document and then changed the ratification rules so that the Constitution would take effect once nine states approved it. This meant the delegates bypassed the legal procedures of the government they were supposed to be revising. In effect, they overthrew the existing constitutional order through political action rather than armed conflict.

 

Battling for Ratification 

After 17 weeks of debate, the Philadelphia convention approved a draft of the new Constitution to submit to the states for ratification. Only nine states of the thirteen needed to vote in favor for the constitution to be ratified. Each state would hold popularly elected conventions to debate and vote on this proposed constitution. The debates went on for almost a year until June of 1788. During this time, two major groups were formed. Federalists supported the Constitution and were called federalists because of the stronger federal government. Anti-federalists, on the other hand, rejected the new constitution and feared a stronger federal government. Both parties authored many writings according to their respective beliefs.

 

The Federalist Papers

Federalists knew that New York was a state that would likely reject the constitution. 2 out of the 3 delegates to the constitutional convention from New York rejected it, the only one approving it being Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton launched a barrage of political essays and arguments on the public under the pseudonym Publius in an attempt to convince the public to favor the Constitution. He wrote these essays in conjunction with John Jay and James Madison as well. The Federalist Papers can be split many ways by author or other variables but the most obvious split is the first 22 articles are mostly about the problems with the Articles of Confederation and the remaining 63 are about the advantages of the constitution. They were published serially in New York City newspapers, because Hamilton’s entire strategy depended on influencing New York’s public opinion during the ratification fight. 

 

Who are these Men?

Alexander Hamilton: He was born in the West Indies and came to the colonies to study at King’s College. There he became a supporter of the revolutionary cause and became an aid to George Washington and was a part of the Continental congress. Hamilton wrote 51 of the Federalist papers.

 

John Jay: He was a conservative lawyer and a leading patriot. Prior to the Federalist papers he was the minister to Spain (1780-1782) and signed the Treaty of Paris in 1783. Jay wrote 5 of the Federalist papers.

 

James Madison: Often labeled as the “father of the constitution,” he was one of the most adamant defenders of the Constitution including orally at the Constitutional Convention. James Madison defended the Constitution more than any other delegate at the Constitutional Convention. James Madison wrote 29 of the Federalist papers

 

Going Forward

This article is an introduction to a new series of articles that will analyze both the Federalist and Anti Federalist papers. The writings will be analyzed in a new article every so often before ending in a conclusion that summarizes the effects of these documents and the history after them.