Reasons for adverting to state conventions for ratification: A. State legislatures had always opposed amendments to the Articles of Confederation. B. The politicians of the state legislatures would oppose the establishment of higher dignitaries over them, and would refuse to give up their privileges under the Articles, of which they would be divested by the Constitution. C. By concentrating the attention upon the election of delegates to the state conventions, men would be selected who would be more favorably disposed to the Constitution. D. Popular ratification through conventions popularly elected would give more strength and support to the Constitution. E. A legislature might rescind its action, whereas a Convention, meeting temporarily, would dissolve or adjourn. F. The bicameral character of the state legislatures would tend to delay legislation. Moreover, state conventions would not be burdened with ordinary state legislation, and would have all the advantages of a special body. G. So complete a change in the government as compared with the Articles of Confederation justified as completely a different method of ratification. III. The amending process. The early state constitutions made no provision for amendment. The Articles were to be amended by the submission by Congress of a proposal and its unanimous ratification by the states. The Virginia plan proposed that some means should be provided that amendments might be made without the intervention of Congress. Pinckney thought the perfection of the instrument did away with the necessity of ratification. The Committee of Detail proposed that on petition of two-thirds of the state legislatures, the Congress should call a convention. Hamilton is responsible for the present plan, with the aid of Madison. The advocates of the small states wanted the states to initiate amendments. The nationalists favored the other system. This explains the different methods. How is the Constitution amended? Four methods are authorized by the Constitution: A. Proposal by two-thirds of both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures. B. Proposal by two-thirds of both houses of Congress, and ratification by three-fourths of the states in conventions, called for that purpose. C. Proposal by a national convention called by Congress at the request of two-thirds of the state legislatures, and ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures. D. Proposal by a national convention called by Congress at the request of two-thirds of the state legislatures, and ratification by three-fourths of the states in conventions called for that purpose. Either method of proposal may be followed by either method of ratification. READING BORGEAUD.-Adoption and Amendment of Constitutions. CURTIS.-Constitutional History of the United States, Vol. I, Chaps. XX and XXXII. CHAPTER XVII THE CONTEST OVER RATIFICATION I. Transmittal to Congress. The instrument was sent to the Congress of the Confederation on September 17, 1787, with the request that it be submitted to the conventions of the states through the state legislatures. It was therefore an indirect process -from the Convention to the Congress; from the Congress to the state legislatures; from the state legislatures to the people; from the people to the conventions. On September 28, the Congress under the Articles of Confederation, then meeting in New York, voted to refer the proposition to the states for ratification. II. Objections advanced to the ratification of the Constitution. A. There was no Bill of Rights included in the Constitution. B. The supporters of the states and their rights were upheld by such men as Patrick Henry. C. The small agricultural interests and the pioneering element thought that the commercial interests had been unduly favored. D. The state legislatures resented the divesting of their privileges. E. The people interested in paper money opposed the sections of the Constitution relating to this subject. F. Many opposed it because the delegates had violated their instructions in the kind of the instrument offered and the method of ratification proposed. III. Ratification by the States. A. New York. In this state, suffrage requirements were entirely swept away and delegates were elected to the convention under manhood suffrage. Under the instructions to the delegates, it appeared that 23 favored ratification, and 41 were opposed. The leading proponents were Hamilton and Jay, of Federalist fame, while the opposition was led by Governor Clinton, Lansing, and Yates. The Federalist had already exercised a profound influence, and now it was turned to good account in New York. Eight states had ratified, and the Virginia and New Hampshire conventions were in session when the New York convention met. After the Federalists and anti-Federalists had engaged in heated arguments, the instrument was ratified by a majority of three votes, 30-27. B. Massachusetts. The towns elected delegates on Oc- C. Virginia. The Constitution was opposed chiefly by On Lee, and James Monroe. It had the distinguished D. Pennsylvania. Here, the battle was bitter. On the morning of September 28, when the Congress voted to submit the instrument to the states, the Federalists in the state legislature at Philadelphia proposed the election of delegates to the state convention at once. The opposition claimed that the Constitution had not yet come before them. On the next day, the news of submission by Congress reached Philadelphia. Those opposed to the Constitution attempted to stay away, but were forced by a mob to attend, and the call for the convention was issued. There were about 75,000 taxpayers in Pennsylvania, but only about 13,000 votes were cast for delegates, due to ignorance of the election, indifference, or oppositon. Opposition to the Convention came mainly from the in |