Historians have long described the differences between Federalists and Antifederalists, often attributing the latter’s failure to their inability to offer a single viable alternative to the proposed Constitution. Yet, from a broader perspective, many Antifederalists joined with their Federalist opponents in admiring much of the proposed Constitution. Antifederalists primarily objected to the absence of key provisions, such as a bill of rights and a guarantee that those powers not specifically delegated to Congress should be reserved to the states. They also raised concerns about the ambiguity of key provisions, such as the necessary and proper clause. At the same time, nearly every Federalist took issue with some parts of the Constitution.
Still, they largely agreed with George Washington’s assessment of the debate in the Constitutional Convention expressed in his 17 September 1787 letter to the president of the Confederation Congress covering the Constitution. “In all our deliberations on this subject,” Washington wrote, “we kept steadily in our view, that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our Union, in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national existence. This important consideration, seriously and deeply impressed on our minds, led each State in the Convention to be less rigid on points of inferior magnitude, than might have been otherwise expected; and thus the Constitution, which we now present, is the result of a spirit of amity, and of that mutual deference and concession which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensible.”
Washington did not expect the Constitution to “meet the full and entire approbation of every State.” He cautioned that if any single state’s interests had been given priority, the consequences might have been particularly disagreeable or injurious to others.” However, believing the document contained “as few exceptions as could reasonably have been expected, the delegates” hoped and expected it would “promote the lasting welfare of that country so dear to us all, and secure her freedom and happiness.”
Among the thirty-nine delegates who signed the Constitution on the last day of the Convention, the two most disappointed with the proposed Constitution were Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. Hamilton had expressed “a more correct view of his ideas” in a day-long speech on 18 June, outlining a strong national government far beyond what the Convention ultimately approved. Madison, meanwhile, saw many of his key proposals repeatedly rejected by the Convention, including a congressional veto power over all state laws and a council of revision that could reject any bill passed by Congress.
A discouraged Madison delayed for six weeks after the Convention adjourned before he could bring himself to explain his disappointment in a revealing letter to Thomas Jefferson, then serving as U.S. minister to France. Ironically, despite their serious misgivings, Hamilton and Madison became staunch supporters of the Constitution, allying with each other in advocating ratification because they felt that the Constitution was far superior to the Articles of Confederation and because of the unlikelihood that a better constitution could be obtained. In an undated manuscript found in his papers, Hamilton speculated on the consequences if the Constitution were rejected. He feared it might lead to the dissolution of the Union, the creation of separate confederacies, or even the establishment of a monarchy—perhaps even reconciliation within the British empire. Alternatively, if the Constitution was adopted, George Washington would probably be elected President which would “ensure a wise choice of men to administer the government and a good administration. A good administration will conciliate the confidence and affection of the people and perhaps enable the government to acquire more consistency than the proposed constitution seems to promise for so great a Country—It may then triumph altogether over the state governments and reduce them to an entire subordination, dividing the large states into smaller districts. The organs of the general government may also acquire additional strength.”
With the adoption of the Constitution, Washington was unanimously elected as the country’s first President, and both Hamilton and Madison immediately became his closest political advisors. Washington’s election, along with Congress’ proposal of twelve amendments to the Constitution (which included a bill of rights), effectively quelled most of the remaining opposition to the Constitution. In the eyes of many Americans, the Constitution soon took on the aura of a sacred document.
Yet, this early unity was short-lived. By the 1790s, American politics had become a political battlefield, with two new nationally-organized political parties emerging and each promoting a distinct interpretation of the Constitution. As Secretary of the Treasury, Hamilton introduced bold economic proposals that ignited fierce debates over the nature and limits of federal authority. These proposals became the primary catalyst for the formation of the nation’s first political parties. And, ironically, it was Hamilton and Madison, the two close allies during the ratification struggle, who became the leaders of these opposing political parties.
One of the first battles in interpreting the Constitution centered on the implied power of Congress in establishing a national bank. During the ratification debate, both Madison and Hamilton had insisted that the new federal government would have only those powers specifically delegated to it in the Constitution. Yet their later disagreement over the bank’s constitutionality would come to embody the deepening divide between the emerging political parties.
On 8 June 1789, Madison delivered a lengthy speech in the U.S. House of Representatives proposing a series of amendments to the Constitution ending with what became the Tenth Amendment limiting Congress to delegated powers with all other powers being reserved to the states. This principle would later shape his opposition to the bank.
In February 1791, anticipating the possibility of vetoing the bank bill, President Washington asked Madison to draft a letter to Congress explaining such a veto. Madison’s 21 February draft stipulated that the bank bill was unconstitutional “because it is an essential principle of the Government that powers not delegated by the Constitution cannot be rightfully exercised; because the power proposed by the Bill to be exercised is not expressly delegated; and because I cannot satisfy myself that it results from any express power by fair and safe rules of implication.”
To better inform his decision, Washington also asked Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson and Hamilton for their written opinions on the bank. Jefferson agreed with Madison’s recommendation of a veto, while Hamilton strongly disagreed. Hamilton’s opinion, dated 23 February, defended Congress’ implied powers stating that the “general principle . . . inherent in the very definition of Government and essential to every step of the progress to be made by that of the United States; namely—that every power vested in a Government is in its nature sovereign, and includes by force of the term, a right to employ all the means requisite, and fairly applicable to the attainment of the ends of such power; and which are not precluded by restrictions & exceptions specified in the constitution; or not immoral, or not contrary to the essential ends of political society.”
Partisan politics escalated throughout the 1790s, fueled not only by disputes over Hamilton’s economic proposals but also by foreign relations problems with Great Britain and the European wars emanating from the French Revolution. Throughout his two terms as President, Washington generally followed Hamilton’s advice in interpreting the Constitution which effectively solidified the influence of the Federalist vision. Even after resigning from public office in January 1795, Hamilton continued to lead the Federalist cause from behind the scenes. Although President John Adams distanced himself from Hamilton, partisan politics continued to divide the country, culminating in the Alien and Sedition laws of 1798. Vice President Thomas Jefferson cautioned patience foreseeing the end of “the reign of witches” and the restoration of the “true principles” of America’s government.
In anticipating the forthcoming election of 1800, Jefferson professed his “political faith” to Elbridge Gerry in January 1799.
“I do then with sincere zeal wish an inviolable preservation of our present federal constitution, according to the true sense in which it was adopted by the states, that in which it was advocated by its friends, & not that which its enemies apprehended, who therefore became its enemies: and I am opposed to the monarchising its features by the forms of its administration, with a view to conciliate a first transition to a President & Senate for life, & from that to a hereditary tenure of these offices, & thus to worm out the elective principle. I am for preserving to the states the powers not yielded by them to the Union, & to the legislature of the Union its constitutional share in the division of powers: and I am not for transferring all the powers of the states to the general government, & all those of that government to the Executive branch. I am for a government rigorously frugal & simple, applying all the possible savings of the public revenue to the discharge of the national debt: and not for a multiplication of officers & salaries merely to make partizans, & for increasing, by every device, the public debt, on the principle of its being a public blessing. I am for relying, for internal defence, on our militia solely till actual invasion, and for such a naval force only as may protect our coasts and harbours from such depredations as we have experienced: and not for a standing army in time of peace which may overawe the public sentiment; nor for a navy which by its own expences and the eternal wars in which it will implicate us, will grind us with public burthens, & sink us under them. I am for free commerce with all nations, political connection with none, & little or no diplomatic establishment: and I am not for linking ourselves, by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe, entering that field of slaughter to preserve their balance, or joining in the confederacy of kings to war against the principles of liberty. I am for freedom of religion, & against all maneuvres to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another: for freedom of the press, & against all violations of the constitution to silence by force & not by reason the complaints or criticisms, just or unjust, of our citizens against the conduct of their agents. and I am for encouraging the progress of science in all its branches; and not for raising a hue and cry against the sacred name of philosophy, for awing the human mind, by stories of rawhead & bloody bones, to a distrust of its own vision & to repose implicitly on that of others; to go backwards instead of forwards to look for improvement, to believe that government, religion, morality & every other science were in the highest perfection in ages of the darkest ignorance, and that nothing can ever be devised more perfect than what was established by our forefathers. . . . these my friend are my principles; they are unquestionably the principles of the great body of our fellow citizens.”
According to Jefferson, the election of 1800 marked a restoration of “the principles of our government as that of 76.” For the next sixty years, the federal government would largely interpret the Constitution in a manner consistent with what many Antifederalists had advocated during the ratification debate in 1787–1789. After a decade in which they believed the Constitution had been misinterpreted, Antifederalists and their intellectual heirs, the Democratic-Republican Party, rejoiced that their constitutional interpretation that emphasized limited federal power, states’ rights, and strict adherence to the Constitution’s original delegation of authority would now prevail.