Issues debated in the New York constitution ratification convention

 

Introduction

In June the year 1788, politicians met in New York in a convention to discuss ratification of the constitution of the United States. The convention was dominated by both federalist and anti-federalists who both had a different perspective on what was good for New York. The federalists felt that there was no need to rectify anything in the constitution because they believed that the constitution as it stood at that time only limited the government but not the people. However, the anti-federalists felt that the constitution was giving much power to the central government and without a bill of rights the government would oppress the people. Alexander Hamilton and Robert R. Livingston were the key federalist speakers while Melancton Smith was the most profound speaker of the anti-federalists. Issues such as source of corruption, the constitutions effect on the on the state and representation in congress were debated. These topics were argued out and both federalist and anti-federalists expressed their opinion and view on those topics.

Melancton Smith spoke on how the congress was unfairly represented ,he argued that those elected to represent people should know the distresses of those they represent having gone through same distresses and they should have the interest of the people in mind and in heart .He emphasized that the knowledge required to represent the people should not be the one acquired by getting refined education, that is gotten by men who have the leisure to do so .The knowledge should be acquired by experiencing the same struggles as those they serve, thus making those in the middle class more qualified compared to men in the superior class(Hamilton, Madison & Jay, 2009).  He was emphasizing that when the number of representatives is increased people’s confidence in the government will increase since all social classes will be well represented.

Smith went further and emphasized that for one to exercise the power of taxing others one requires more than the simple understanding of the taxing system. It calls for the capability to understand the ability of the people and how the burden of the tax imposed will affect people of different classes. He argued if the constitution was ratified the number of congress members would increase and thus favoring all people from different social classes since the congress was full of famous, wealthy people who were able to command attention and get votes to congress since a mere middle class man could not afford to get votes since the coverage area was too wide for him to be noticed (Hamilton, Madison & Jay, 2009).

Melancton Smith also felt that if the middle class were elected into congress. They would employ time to serve the people well since he viewed them as people with less temptations and people inclined by habits. Unlike Those in the upper class who do not feel the inconveniences that arise from small amount of wages and payments and do not struggle to acquire property. According to him these rich men feel that they are to be shown more respect, they fancy themselves since they feel as if they have a right to everything and all of them possess the same feelings and motives (Kennedy, & Bailey, 2010). He gave enough reasons why the number of congress seats should be increased so as to give those in the middle class a chance to represent the people since he believed they would do great job at representing people compared to those wealthy men who are given the duty to represent people and do not know the struggles of those people.

Hamilton who was federalist opposed the suggestion to increase the seats in congress by trying to convince the politicians that the confidence of the people will not be increased by having many representations but would only be gained by a good administration. He used the example of Rome where the people were represented by ten tribunes and despite how small this body was it was able to govern Rome properly since the people had placed their confidence in them. He continued his argument by proposing that small bodies are more likely to achieve prosperity which is due to wise thinking and a vigorous execution and large bodies are not likely to achieve this (Hamilton, Henry, Jay, Madison, & Bryan, 2017). This clearly asserts that the federalists did not feel any need to add the number of representatives in the congress.

Hamilton continued to oppose the increase of representatives by suggesting that it wasn’t necessary and could not mean that the people will be served better than before. He says that the opinion to increase representation in the congress was founded on an assumption that all community needed to be represented in the house of congress. He viewed this idea as absurd since it was under the observation of a few men compared to the number of people at the convention. He argued that those in the upper class were wrongly judged. He further argued that all men are gentlemen and that the aristocracy does not exist as smith had suggested (Siemers, 2003). He closes his argument by arguing that the vices of the wealthy are more likely to favor the posterity of the state compared to the vices of those from other social classes.

On the issue of the source of corruption bot the federalists and anti-federalists believed that corruption arose due to people’s pursuit of power and fame. Although they differed because the federalists believed that those seeking government office did not do so for personal gain but did so to serve. The anti-federalists believed that the constitution gave the wealthy with ambitions for power and fame the opportunity to be corrupt in pursuit for more wealth, fame and power. Robert R. Livingston who came from one of the most influential and wealthy families of New York rose in defense of the federalists. He says the rich are as honest as any other class in the society. According to him the rich are less likely to be corrupt since they are not likely to be self-centered unlike men from other social classes. He says that the concerns of the poor are more self-centered while the concerns of the rich are of others and this would nor result into corruption (Hamilton, Madison & Jay, 2009). Therefore the federalists did not see the need to ratify the constitution on the basis of corruption.

Hamilton went further in proving that the constitution does not give the rich the reins to commit corruption. He says that the highest offices cannot be held by those in the middle class since they are ignorant men. When competing for such offices the poor and ignorant will envy the rich and successful competitor. He further says that the rich do not enjoy the suffrage of the poor and all people are aristocrats since aristocracy is not measured in wealth but by merit. He furthers his argument on asking who will represent people since the anti-federalists opposes the rich, learned on wise on the basis that they are aristocrats. He urges the people not to choose the aristocrats but people who they have confidence in. He questions how they will form a government composed of all classes (Payan, 2004). He clearly opposes the opinion of the federalist on the source of corruption.

Melancton Smith defends his argument by saying Hamilton was distorting his ideas in the name of explaining them, he complains that Hamilton is trying to make him look like an enemy of the rich which was not true. He explained that he was trying to argue that people from all social classes have something that influence them. He argued that it is not true that the poor are not concerned about the distresses of others because they know how it feels to be in distress unlike the rich who have not experienced distress. He argues that the rich are more ambitious than the poor in pursuit of more success and wealth. He says that it is true that those less fortunate will put in genuine effort to acquire wealth but he will not harm his country and fellow countrymen by using corruption to attain his ambitions (Payan, 2004). 

The other debated topic in the Ney York constitution ratification convention was the effect the constitution would have on the powers of the state government. The federalists believed that the constitution would give power to federal government thus allowing it to operate independently and giving it power to carry out activities such as taxation and international relationship. Anti-federalist felt that the constitution was giving too much power to the federal union thus making them prone to corruption. Melancton Smith argued that the anti-federalists feared that the nation was too large and therefore the national government would not be able to respond to the concerns of citizens’ made on local basis. He also expressed their concern on the absence of bills of rights that were not present in the original text of the constitution. They wanted to be guaranteed protection of liberties such as freedom of speech and right to trial (Vile, 2006). The federalists were in support of a government that was dominated by one group that would safe guard and protect the people and the state.

Conclusion

There was no hidden motive since both the federalist and the anti-federalists were looking out for the people and the state in the way they felt most fit. Although the difference in social classes is well visible since the federalists are described as people who came from wealthy and influential families an example being one of the key speakers in the convention, Alexander Hamilton who came from an influential background. They are described as aristocrats by the anti federalists who come from the middle class. Despite the difference in opinion and the bitter debate between the federalist and the anti-federalist the constitution was ratified and the anti-federalists agreed to support the amendments since their concern such as including a bill of rights in the new constitution was one of the amendments.

 

 

Hamilton, A., Henry, P., Jay, J., Madison, J., & bryan, S. (2017). Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist:   The Great Debate (Complete Articles & Essays in One Volume): Words that Traced the         Path of the Nation--Founding Fathers' Political and Philosophical Debate, Their          Opinions and Arguments about the Constitution. Frankfurt am Main: Madison & Adams

Siemers, D. J. (2003). The antifederalists: Men of great faith and forbearance. Lanham:   Rowman & Littlefield.

Payan, G. (2004). The federalists and anti-federalists: How and why political parties were           formed in young America. New York: Rosen Pub. Group.

Hamilton, A., Madison, J., & Jay, J. (2009). The Federalist papers. Chicago, IL: American Bar    Association.

Kennedy, D. M., & Bailey, T. A. (2010). The American spirit: United States history as seen by             contemporaries: To 1877. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Vile, J. R. (2006). A companion to the United States Constitution and its amendments. Westport (Conn.: Praeger.