Chapter 29 4. Two types of opposition

On September 17, the meeting also passed two documents.One was the Resolution of the Federal Constitutional Convention presented to George Washington, the president of the convention.Signatures are the eleven states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Hamilton, New York.This was so because the New York delegation had no voting rights after Yates and Lansing withdrew.Hamilton cannot represent his state, only himself.Another document was a letter to the Congress of the Confederacy from George Washington, president of the Straight Conference.In the letter, written by Goweno Morris and signed "with the unanimous consent of the Constitutional Convention," Washington said that we now have the honor of presenting to the Congress of the Confederation what we believe to be the most recommendable text of the Constitution, which it may not expect Every State fully and completely agrees, but we hope and believe that, with few exceptions, they are within reasonable expectations.It is our warmest hope that this Constitution will promote the perpetual welfare of our so dear country, and secure her liberty and happiness.

This letter is necessary.After all, the Philadelphia Conference was convened in accordance with the resolution of the Congress of the Confederation on February 21, and an account must be given to the Congress of the Confederation.However, many people have no idea about the attitude of the Confederate Congress, because the Philadelphia Conference has gone too far.The resolution of the Congress of the Confederation at that time was only to make some amendments to the Articles of Confederation. Who would have thought that they would start from scratch, come up with a federal constitution, and change the Confederation into a Federation.

Thankfully, on August 28, 1787, the Congress of the Confederation (then President Arthur St. Clair of Pennsylvania, 1/3 of the delegates were delegates to the Constitutional Convention) passed a resolution dismissing the accusations that the Constitutional Convention and the Confederation Congress had overstepped their powers. The motion, agreed to submit the constitution to the state congresses, and the process of ratifying the constitution was officially launched. Of course, a new round of struggle will begin. On October 4, Mason made his objections public in an article published in the Philadelphia Post. On the 10th, Randolph stated the reasons for his refusal in the Virginia House of Representatives. On the 18th, Gerry made the same statement in Massachusetts.Their purpose is to preemptively win over the people and delay the ratification of the constitution.

Those who support the constitution are not to be outdone. On October 21, Hamilton published a paper in the name of "The Federalist" to refute the opposition.In the following year, Hamilton, Madison, and John Jay (then the Confederate Foreign Minister and later the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) published a total of 85 papers defending the Constitution, which were published together in 1788 .This is the famous "Federalist Papers".Perhaps it is for this reason that the faction of Hamilton, Madison, and Jay is usually called the "Federalists" (Federalists), and the opposition is called "Anti-federalists" (Anti-federalists).But we have to make it clear that the party mentioned here is not the same as the party we usually understand.It is a political faction, not a political organization. It has neither party membership procedures nor party membership registration.It is not so much a party (Party), as it is a faction (Faction), so Federalists and Anti-federalists are also translated as federalists and anti-federalists.

In fact, this statement is not accurate.Because the so-called federalists were originally nationalists.Later, it compromised with the Confederates and became Federalism.Anti-federalism is actually not "anti-federal", but "anti-constitutional", to be precise, it is against the constitution formulated by the Philadelphia Conference.There are also two opinions against it. Some think that it is enough to amend the "Articles of Confederation", while others advocate another set.We should not confuse these opponents just because they all sang against Hamilton and Madison.

There are three main reasons for opposing the ratification of the Philadelphia Constitution: the overreach of the Constitutional Convention, the lack of a Bill of Rights, and the danger to the existence of the states.Obviously, not everyone holds all three views at the same time.Those who are dissatisfied with the lack of a Bill of Rights in the Constitution are some "civil rightsists"; those who think that the Constitution endangers the existence of states are some "confederalists".The latter were mainly those who later walked out in protest, the "Four King Kong" of Yates, Lansing, Mercer, and Luther Martin, and their allies.In their view, although everyone is "American", they are not in the same country.Each state is its own "motherland", and China is nothing more than a "multinational alliance", or in other words, "one nation, many countries, one alliance".Their political ideal is self-reliance, a small country with few people, that is, a small country, weak government, non-monarchy, and self-constitution, which is somewhat similar to the Greek city-state system. On June 6, Sherman said at the Constitutional Convention that many things were better left in the hands of the state governments.People living in a small state are happier than those living in a large state.Bang should probably be as small as Rhode Island.If it is too big, the government will be beyond its reach.Ellsworth also said on June 30 that the national government should only share national security, but what he wants is the happiness of the state.Every citizen's happiness can only be found in his state, and only in his own state can he hope for it.His happiness depends on the existence of the state, just like a newborn baby needs its mother to feed it.Sherman and Aylesworth were representatives of Connecticut, not the most state-minded people, and they both ultimately supported the Constitution.Even if their thoughts are like this, others can imagine.

This actually has cultural and historical origins.The word country originally has two in English, one is nation and the other is country. Nation emphasizes political unity, that is, concepts such as all people, land, and sovereignty under one government. Country emphasizes a naturally formed area, which is equivalent to the motherland, homeland, and homeland.Obviously, the state is the country of Americans, and the United States is their nation.For most Americans who don't care about politics and just want to live in peace, the country where they were born and raised is kind, and the country that is far away and out of reach, and the "National Government" ", it is strange.We know that the United States at that time was still a barren continent, without airplanes, trains, and highways, and no one knew what the "central government" was like.They also don't understand, since they already have their own country and their state is their country, why do they need to create another nation and destroy their country?This is a fairly common psychology, and there are no shortage of feudalists.

The situation with civil rights activists was different. According to civil rights, the most important thing in the world is the rights of citizens.A country is a good country if the rights of its citizens are fully guaranteed.If her government can protect the rights of citizens well, it is a good government, and its inefficiency is the second.Of course, the government should be effective, but the rights of citizens cannot be sacrificed for the sake of efficiency.If efficiency and civil rights are two things that cannot be had at the same time, then what should be sacrificed is efficiency.Because, as the Declaration of Independence says, all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable (transferable) rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.To secure these rights men have instituted governments among themselves.This is clear: the government was created to protect these rights.If it cannot be guaranteed, what should it do?

The same goes for the Constitution.If a constitution, when it authorizes the government, doesn't say a word about guaranteeing the rights of citizens, what kind of shit constitution is this?That's why Mason is going against it.Mason's criticism and rejection of the draft constitution was almost comprehensive.The House of Representatives has no representative substance, the senators are not elected representatives, the federal judiciary has too much power, the power of the parliament has a wide range of meanings, the president has no constitutional adviser, and the vice president is both unnecessary and dangerous.But the opinion with which he was most widely sympathetic was that the Federal Constitution contained no provisions declaring civil rights, freedom of speech and the press, or the preservation of jury trials in civil cases.The rights of the people are not guaranteed, and they cannot even enjoy the benefits of customary law.Such a constitution is really terrible.

It is not surprising that Mason blamed the Constitution in this way, since he was the "father of the Bill of Rights," just as Madison was the "father of the Federal Constitution." In 1776, Mason participated in the formulation of the Virginia Constitution and drafted the "Bill of Rights of Citizens", making the Virginia Constitution the only one with a Bill of Rights among the original 13 constitutions.In the last few days of the Constitutional Convention, to be precise, on September 12, Mason proposed to the conference a motion to increase civil rights programs, and he could refer to the bills of rights of various states. Drafting is not difficult and can be done in a few hours.Mason's motion was seconded by Gerry, but opposed by Sherman (you can see that civil rights are not the same as civil rights).Sherman said there was no need, because every state had a bill of rights, which was not abolished by this constitution, as long as it continued to be in force.Mason said I'm afraid not, the Constitution is the supreme law, higher than the declarations of rights of the states.Without the Bill of Rights in the Constitution, civil rights cannot be guaranteed.As a result of the vote, except for Massachusetts, which was not present and New York, which had no voting rights, all the other 10 states opposed it, and Mason's motion was rejected.

It now appears that this was a mistake.This is not because the constitutional representatives do not pay attention to civil rights, let alone they oppose the bill of rights, but in their view, the most urgent task is to build a country, make a constitution, and authorize.As for other issues, we have to talk about them later.What's more, the meeting has been going on for a long time, and everyone is very tired and a little impatient.Besides, Sherman's point of view is not without merit.According to the concepts of democracy and the rule of law, the government cannot do anything that is not authorized by the people and the constitution.Since the Federal Constitution does not authorize the government to violate civil rights, it cannot be violated.On the contrary, if one enumerates the individual rights that should be guaranteed, it may give people an excuse: everything that is not listed is something that the government can do, wouldn't it be worse? However, in Mason's view, this is an unforgivable mistake.Both he and Randolph firmly believed that the result of implementing this constitution must be tyranny. On September 15, Mason said that this constitution was written without knowing what the people thought.We cannot just say to the people: Take it or have nothing.The constitution has become what it is now, which is really beyond words.I don't agree here, and I won't support it when I go back to Virginia; I don't sign here, and I won't vote for it when I go back.He meant the same thing as Randolph: Am I to sell a program that is bound to end in tyranny? It cannot be said that the opinions of the opposition are unreasonable.The problem is that the wheel of history does not turn according to people's subjective wishes.While anti-Federalists protested loudly, the process of ratification of the Constitution was advancing steadily.