This fundamental law was «establish[ed] and ordain[ed]» by the people of the United States according to the preamble of the constitution; it thus follows that the people are sovereign....
This action, a compromise engineered by Federalist members, disposed of the argument that the convention had exceeded its mandate; in the tacit opinion of Congress, the Constitution was validly before the people.
In the last article, we examined the methods of popular dissent in the American colonies with the case studies of the North Carolina Regulation and the New Hampshire Grants. Popular dissent in the American colonies during the 18th century was expressed in several ways from passive resistance to riot. At times groups organized as Regulation movements that included citizens from several different social classes who shared a common goal to end the overreach or corruption in local government. These Regulators usually perceived the courts and magistrates as part of the problem and argued that traditional avenues of legal redress were unavailable or blatantly biased against them. Regulators often first organized to generate group petitions. But if government officials failed to respond the Regulators compelled those officials to listen through disruptions such as organized demonstrations and shutting down the courts. These actions were often accomplished by utilizing the organization of local militia groups. But this use of the militia structure and militiamen made Regulation movements often appear more like armed insurrections; instead of regulating government critics argued Regulators were threatening its very stability. Throughout this process, Regulators struggled to maintain popular legitimacy for their extralegal actions. But escalations in violence and the use of arms often undermined public support and eliminated any leniency or consideration by officials. After this type of escalation the North Carolina Regulation was crushed. Conversely, the settlers of the New Hampshire Grants, led by leaders like Ethan Allen, gained a new foothold by legitimizing their cause under the popular rhetoric that inspired the American Revolution.
Ten years before the Constitutional Convention, Washington’s presidency, or the three branches of government; the Articles of Confederation were created.
Several debated over the ratification of the U.S.
Though American history has experienced many developments over the years, it is the firm belief of the author that these five developments were instrumental in propelling thirteen loosely associated colonies into the path of what would develop into the United States of America....
[tags: ratification of the constitution]
There are many things required to reach a status of Statesman including: Pursuit of the public good, Practical wisdom, political skills, opportunity, and good fortune.
Constitution Ratification Debates
But the Boston elite and government denounced both the Regulation and their use of the militia as rebellion and anarchy. Those who opposed the Regulation promoted the idea of a “commonwealth” government that placed public interests over private ones. For example, the stabilization of the state economy and the reestablishment of good credit nationally and internationally outweighed the immediate needs of farmers who wanted to renege on their debts. Political leaders were especially disturbed by the passive action of militia who, even if they did not participate in the rebellion, refused to muster to stop the "banditti" who threatened government. The Militia Act aimed to correct this behavior by threatening a range of punishments from a court martial for militiamen who refused to muster to the death penalty for officers who actively participated in the rebellion. But beyond the debates over the appropriate role of the militia, critics also questioned the validity of regulation. They argued shutting down the courts was extralegal and had no place in a government that offered political representation. Once citizens had voted, they should trust their elected officials, obey their laws, and only express their dissent through the electoral process and the courts rather than through mob violence.