The Use of Ad Hominem Attacks During the Ratification Debates

Like any period in American History, national debates often do not always remain an exercise in reasoned discourse. The ratification debates were no exception. The deliberations were philosophical at times considering the nature of the union. At other times Federalists and Antifederalists, the debates were reasoned discourse over provisions of the Constitution. Still another facet of the ratifications debates was the use of ad hominem attacks.

Antifederalist essayist Philadelphiensis, consistently masterful in art of verbal attacks, claimed Federalists were doing the bidding of the “prince of darkness” urging good citizens to “quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.”

Not to be outdone, Federalists also engaged in demonizing the critics of the Constitution. Cassius boldly asserted that one Massachusetts Antifederalist’s writings were a “degradation to reason, incoherent, nonsensical, absurd, ignorant, and knavish” adding citizens should not be led astray by “designing numbheads.”

We have selected some samples from the hundreds of examples from The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution illustrating how both sides of the debate were not immune from descending into hyperbole and ad hominem attacks of their opponents.

Ad Hominem Attacks on Antifederalists

Ad Hominem Attacks on Federalists