Lessons for Canadians: Ratification of the American Constitution

Canadian Review of American Studies Volume 23, Number 4, 1993, pp. 121-137 121 Lessons for Canadians: Ratification of the American Constitution Stephen E. Patterson Michael Allen Gillespie and Michael Lienesch, eds. Ratifying the Constitution . Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. 1989. John P. Kaminski and Gaspare J. Saladino, eds. Ratification of the Constitution by the States: Virginia. The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution Series, Volumes 8-9. Madison: State Historical Society of Wisconsin. 1988-90. "I must confess I see many objections to the Constitution submitted to the Conventions of the States," wrote Joseph Jones of Richmond, Virginia, in the fall of 1787 shortly after the famous meeting in Philadelphia which created the present federal constitution of the United States. His greatest concern was the proposed Senate in which he feared "the State Spirit" would be preserved "as they are to have equal numbers and equal votes" (cited in Kaminski and Saladino 1981, 508-10). Jones was only one of the hundreds of Americans who reacted critically to the new federal arrangement and who participated in what was to become the most democratically comprehensive and wide-ranging constitutional debate in history up to that time. Ironically, the originators of the constitution-making process were wary of democracy, perceiving it as one of the weaknesses in the system they sought to change. These critics of the original American constitution, the Articles of Confederation, were largelyfrom the political and economic 122 Canadian Review of American Studies elite, and they called themselves federalists while labelling those who clung to the articles, antifederalists. Strictly speaking, the federalists were nationalists who believed that only a more centralized system could resolve the numerous problems of the young republic. Both sides were represented among the fifty-five delegates chosen by the legislatures of twelve of the thirteen states to meet in Philadelphia, but it was the federalists who dominated . Instead of revising the articles, they insisted on bringing in a completely new system. Despite their expressed fear of democracy, the framers of the constitution found it a force too persistent to be ignored; indeed, there were already democratic features in what they were doing and they created more. For instance, while they chose to draft the new constitution in secret meetings , free from the scrutiny and criticism of the people, they functioned as a modified constituent assembly, reflecting a variety of viewpoints from the several states, and, when they had completed the document, they threw open the ratification process to all who were interested. They called on every state to hold free elections to choose delegates to state-ratifying conventions . The elections in effect setved a double purpose, allowing first for popular discussion of the pros and cons and, like a referendum, a statement of popular opinion; and secondly, permitting the selection of delegates who could reflect local attitudes at the state conventions and who, in some cases, were tied by instructions to seek certain amendments or to vote one way or the other. The state conventions were constituent assemblies in the purest sense; delegates debated and voted, usually clause by clause; and when nine of the thirteen conventions had ratified, the new constitution could take effect. By June 1788,the required nine had done so despite deep divisions in Massachusetts a:q.dNew Hampshire; Virginia and New York soon followed after bitter controversy; and only North Carolina and Rhode Island resisted until, under pressure from the others, they finally capitulated in 1789 and 1790 respectively. Despite the passing of over two hundred years, the American ratification experience may well have some pertinent meaning for Canadians, fresh from the referendum debate of 1992.In many ways, the American example offers striking parallels. For Canadians willing to see them, it may also teach some valuable lessons. Beyond both parallels and lessons, there are StephenE. PattersonI 123 also those clear linkages which have tied Canadian and American histories together since the eighteenth century. For example, not only are several significant ideas in Canadian constitutionalism rooted in the period of the American Revolution, but there were also severalimportant American constitutional decisions which Canadians later copied directly, not the least of which was the idea of a...