Ratification of the Constitution: The Significance of Article VII

We can all agree that the ratification of the U.S. Constitution was a pivotal moment in American history.

Understanding the role that Article VII played in this process sheds light on how the Framers ensured states could freely consider the proposed Constitution while also securing its ultimate adoption.

In this article, we'll explore what Article VII said, the context surrounding its inclusion, the timeline of ratification it set forth, and its enduring influence over amending the Constitution today.

Deciphering Article VII and the Ratification of the US Constitution

Understanding the Role of Article VII in Constitutional Ratification

Article VII of the United States Constitution outlines the ratification process for the Constitution. Specifically, it states that the Constitution would go into effect once ratified by nine of the thirteen original states. This established the parameters for replacing the Articles of Confederation with the new Constitution. Article VII played a pivotal role by setting the terms for adopting the foundational governing document of the country.

The Historical Context of Article VII

Article VII was drafted during the Constitutional Convention of 1787. There was intense debate between Federalists, who supported ratification, and Anti-Federalists who opposed it. States were concerned about losing power under a centralized government. Article VII aimed to ease these concerns by giving states authority in ratifying or rejecting the new Constitution. This helped secure buy-in during a turbulent political climate.

Mapping the Ratification Timeline

Ratification of the Constitution took over two years. Delaware was the first state to ratify on December 7, 1787, with New Hampshire becoming the ninth state on June 21, 1788, meeting the threshold to enact Article VII. Key steps in between included ratification by Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Virginia. Resistance in states like New York was overcome by the Federalist Papers, advocating ratification. Rhode Island was the last state to ratify the Constitution in 1790.

The Framers’ Vision: Article VII’s Purpose and Goals

Article VII was intended to transition governmental power peacefully from the ineffective Articles of Confederation to a new, stable central government under the Constitution. Requiring nine states prevented regional factions from dominating the process. While not all states were initially supportive, Article VII offered a viable political mechanism to unify the nation under a shared Constitution.

Why was Article VII important in the ratification of the Constitution?

Article VII was crucial in the ratification of the Constitution as it established the threshold for adoption of the new governing document.

Specifically, Article VII stated:

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

This meant that 9 out of the 13 states would need to approve the Constitution through state ratifying conventions for it to officially replace the Articles of Confederation.

Some key reasons why Article VII was important:

It set a reasonable threshold for ratification that gave the Constitution legitimacy while accounting for opposition. Requiring unanimous support would have likely doomed the ratification effort.
It shifted power to state ratifying conventions instead of state legislatures. This helped Federalists make their case more directly to the people.
It brought finality to the ratification process once 9 states had approved. This prevented prolonged debate that could have jeopardized adoption.

Overall, Article VII played a pivotal role by establishing clear stipulations for the Constitution to be enacted. This provided focus and urgency during the contentious ratification debate.

What did Article 7 say about the ratification of the Constitution?

Article VII of the United States Constitution outlines the ratification process for the Constitution. Specifically, it states:

"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."

This established that once 9 of the 13 states at the time ratified the Constitution, it would go into effect between those 9 states.

The inclusion of Article VII was important for ensuring the Constitution would be ratified. The Framers knew that unanimous consent of all the states was unlikely. By specifying that only 9 states needed to ratify, the Framers made adoption of the Constitution more feasible.

Article VII gave clear instructions on the ratification requirements. This helped pave the way for the state ratifying conventions. Once Delaware became the first state to ratify on December 7, 1787, the ratification momentum began. By June 21, 1788, New Hampshire became the critical 9th state to ratify.

So in summary, Article VII explicitly stated the terms of Constitutional ratification. It lowered the threshold from unanimous consent to 9 states. This compromise was key to ensuring eventual ratification and establishment of the Constitution.

What was the significance of the ratification of the Constitution?

The ratification of the Constitution was significant because it established the United States as an independent nation under a new system of government. Here are some key points regarding its significance:

The ratification process allowed each state to debate and approve the Constitution, giving it legitimacy as the supreme law of the land. Fierce debates occurred in state ratifying conventions.
Approval by 9 of the 13 states was required for ratification. This threshold was reached in 1788, marking the adoption of the Constitution.
Ratification replaced the inadequate Articles of Confederation with a new constitution aimed at creating a stronger federal government and unified nation.
It allowed for the peaceful transfer of power and established procedures for future constitutional amendments through Article V.
The ratification compromise between Federalists and Anti-Federalists led to the quick adoption of the Bill of Rights, fulfilling a key demand of Constitution critics.

So in summary, the ratification established the Constitution as the foundation of America's legal system and set the stage for representative governance bound by the principles and framework laid out in the document. It marked a pivotal step in the formation of the United States.

Why were some states opposed to ratifying passing the Constitution as presented in articles 1 7?

The Anti-Federalists opposed the ratification of the Constitution as originally proposed because they were concerned that the strong central government outlined lacked sufficient checks and balances to protect individual liberties.

Specifically, the Anti-Federalists worried that:

The Constitution did not contain a bill of rights, which would explicitly protect freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly, and other individual rights from government overreach.
The broad powers of the federal government could lead to tyranny and oppression, as there were insufficient checks on executive, legislative, and judicial authority.
The consolidated federal power could subsume state sovereignty, with state governments losing much of their authority.

To address these concerns, the Anti-Federalists advocated for major revisions to the Constitution before ratification, pushing for explicit protections of individual liberties and state powers. They spearheaded the call for a bill of rights.

Key Anti-Federalist figures included George Mason, Patrick Henry, and Richard Henry Lee. To build opposition, they wrote essays under pseudonyms and gave impassioned speeches warning of the dangers of the Constitution as drafted in 1787. For example, Mason and Henry were instrumental in initially blocking ratification at the Virginia Ratifying Convention.

Ultimately, the Anti-Federalists did not fully succeed in blocking ratification, but their efforts led to the adoption of the Bill of Rights not long after. This addressed some of their worries about safeguarding individual liberties under the new centralized government.

The Constitutional Convention and the Path to Ratification

The Philadelphia Convention: Drafting the Constitution

The Constitutional Convention, also known as the Philadelphia Convention, convened in Philadelphia in 1787 with the goal of revising the Articles of Confederation to address issues with the decentralized Confederation government. Delegates from 12 states participated. The Virginia Plan, introduced by Edmund Randolph and James Madison, proposed a strong national government with three branches - legislative, executive, and judicial. It faced opposition from states seeking to retain power under the New Jersey Plan. As a compromise, Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth proposed the Connecticut Compromise to establish a bicameral legislature, with representation by population in the House and equal representation for states in the Senate. These compromises allowed for the drafting of the Constitution to move forward.

Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists: The Ratification Debate

Following the Convention, the drafted Constitution faced intense opposition from Anti-Federalists who favored state sovereignty over centralized federal power. Leading Federalists Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay published a series of essays, the Federalist Papers, arguing that the balance of power in the Constitution would protect against tyranny. Anti-Federalists responded with the Anti-Federalist Papers opposing ratification. The publications defined the central dispute - whether the Constitution adequately protected liberties or unduly expanded federal power.

The Role of State Ratifying Conventions in Approving the Constitution

As drafted at the Philadelphia Convention, the Constitution would take effect after being ratified by 9 of the 13 states. To consider ratification, each state held ratifying conventions with delegate elections. Five states (Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut) ratified by early 1788. But the Constitution remained contentious. After John Hancock proposed the Massachusetts Compromise, Massachusetts narrowly voted to ratify, followed by Maryland and South Carolina. New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify, ensuring the Constitution's enactment. Virginia and New York followed after heated convention debates. North Carolina refused to ratify until the addition of the Bill of Rights.

Key Compromises Facilitating Ratification

To assuage Anti-Federalist sentiments during the ratification process, Federalists promised prompt consideration of amendments safeguarding individual liberties after ratification. This concession resulted in the adoption of the Bill of Rights shortly after ratification. Without compromises balancing federalist and anti-federalist concerns, achieved through arduous negotiation from the Philadelphia Convention through the state ratifying conventions, the ratification and ultimate success of the unprecedented Constitution would likely not have been possible.

Ratification Milestones and State-Specific Dynamics

Delaware: The First State to Ratify the Constitution

Delaware holds the distinction of being the first state to ratify the Constitution on December 7, 1787. As a small state, Delaware supported the Connecticut Compromise, which established equal representation for all states in the Senate. The state also benefited economically from the Constitution's bans on state tariffs and export taxes.

Delaware's ratification lent early legitimacy to the Constitution and encouraged other states to consider ratification more seriously. The state overcame anti-Federalist opposition and narrowly voted to ratify 30-27. Delaware set an important precedent and showed the Constitution could be ratified even over significant dissent.

The Virginia Ratifying Convention and the Birth of the Bill of Rights

Virginia was seen as a crucial state in the ratification process due to its size and prominence. At the Virginia Ratifying convention in 1788, anti-Federalists presented numerous objections and proposed amendments to the Constitution.

In response, James Madison pledged to pass amendments to address these concerns after ratification. This compromise helped Virginia ratify 89-79, making it the 10th state to do so. Virginia’s ratification ensured the Constitution’s enactment. It also directly led to Madison’s introduction of the Bill of Rights amendments in the First Congress.

New Hampshire: Securing the Necessary Majority

On June 21, 1788, New Hampshire became the 9th state to ratify the Constitution, securing the majority of states needed under Article VII. This was a major milestone, as it ensured the Constitution would go into effect among the ratifying states.

New Hampshire’s location next to Massachusetts, which had recently ratified with recommended amendments, added context to its decision. Economic uncertainty and trade considerations were factors. After heated debate, New Hampshire ratified 57-47. This success paved the way for Virginia and New York’s subsequent ratification.

Rhode Island’s Reluctance: The Last to Ratify

Rhode Island faced economic turmoil under the Articles of Confederation and opposed the Constitution. The state rejected ratification in March 1788 by popular referendum. It took over a year of national pressure for Rhode Island to finally ratify the Constitution by two votes on May 29, 1790.

Rhode Island’s resistance demonstrated the Constitution’s divisiveness. However, all 13 states eventually ratified, reflecting compromise efforts by the Federalists. Rhode Island secured protections for states’ rights by being the last holdout. Its ratification in 1790 completed the union and demonstrated the success of the ratification process overall.

Article V and the Amendment Process: Ensuring a Living Constitution

This section will explain how Article V provides a structured yet flexible approach for amending the Constitution, building upon the foundation set by Article VII.

The Mechanics of Amending the Constitution: Article V Explained

Article V of the Constitution outlines two methods for proposing amendments, as well as two methods for ratifying proposed amendments.

The first method for proposing amendments requires two-thirds approval by both the House of Representatives and the Senate. The second method requires two-thirds of state legislatures to call for a national convention to propose amendments. Regardless of the proposal method, amendments must then be ratified by three-fourths of state legislatures or state conventions.

This process balances federal and state interests, while providing flexibility for the Constitution to adapt when societal changes necessitate amendments. At the same time, the high thresholds for proposal and ratification aim to ensure continuity and stability in the governing framework.

Historical Amendments: From the Bill of Rights to the Reconstruction Amendments

Some of the most significant amendments made to the Constitution include the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments) and the Reconstruction Amendments (the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments).

The Bill of Rights enumerates key individual rights and limits on federal power. These amendments helped overcome Anti-Federalist objections during the ratification of the original Constitution.

The Reconstruction Amendments abolished slavery, granted citizenship and equal protection under the law regardless of race, and prohibited racial discrimination in voting rights. These monumental changes emerged from the Civil War and the end of slavery.

Unratified Amendments: The Complexities of Changing the Constitution

While 27 amendments have been ratified, over 11,000 amendment proposals have failed to achieve ratification. This highlights the intentionally high bar set by Article V for altering the nation's founding document.

For example, the Equal Rights Amendment aimed to constitutionally protect gender equality but expired in 1982 after only 35 of the required 38 states ratified it. This example shows how partisan and ideological divisions can hinder amendment efforts, even when substantial support exists.

The Interplay Between Articles V and VII in Constitutional Evolution

Article VII established the vital precedent of ratification by nine states in order for the Constitution to take legal effect. This set the stage for Article V, which maintains the principle of substantial consensus among states for ratification.

At the same time, Article V outlines more flexible methods for future evolution through amendments, as compared to Article VII's focus on ratifying the original document.

The high thresholds in both articles aim to ensure amendments reflect supermajority support, rather than partisan interests of simple majority factions. This preserves constitutional integrity while providing avenues for needed changes.

Conclusion: The Enduring Impact of Article VII on American Democracy

Reflecting on Article VII's Role in Ratifying the Constitution

Article VII was critical in facilitating the ratification of the United States Constitution. By stipulating that only 9 out of the 13 states needed to ratify the new Constitution for it to take effect, Article VII set a lower bar for replacement of the Articles of Confederation. This made adoption of the Constitution more feasible despite Anti-Federalist opposition. The ratification timeline was also left open-ended, allowing the ratification process to play out over several years until the Constitution finally took effect in 1789. Overall, Article VII created a practical mechanism for transforming the Constitutional Convention's proposals into binding law.

Article VII's Legacy in the American Political System

Beyond just enabling ratification, Article VII also promoted buy-in and legitimacy for the Constitution across all 13 states. By giving each state a voice through ratifying conventions, it brought stability and unity to the young republic. This participatory process allowed amendments to be made through the Massachusetts Compromise as well, demonstrating the Constitution's flexibility. The continuity between Article VII then and Article V now for making amendments underscores this ongoing adaptability. So in many ways, Article VII made the Constitution durable and self-sustaining even 230+ years later.

The Future of Constitutional Amendments and Article VII's Influence

While the era of wholesale replacement of the Constitution has passed, Article V still allows for changes through amendments. The deliberative yet attainable process for making amendments resembles Article VII in giving states a voice while allowing progress. Just as Article VII enabled the Constitution to come into force in the 1780s, its legacy continues to guide and guard formal changes to the nation’s supreme law. This measured, collaborative approach protects the stability of America’s legal bedrock.