Hamilton's Short-Sighted Argument

Congress proposed the Bill of Rights in 1789 to convince the States to abide by the federal Constitution.  The States had been reluctant to give up power to the federal government because they had traditionally functioned with under the leadership and laws of their own governments.  In order to gain support from each individual State, the founding fathers (such as Benjamin Franklin and James Madison) wrote a list of protections that included specific acknowledgements of citizens’ and States’ rights, rather than leaving all power to the federal government.  The proposed compromise was the creation of a federalist government, a structure where power was shared between States and a national government.

            When the Congress proposed writing the Bill of Rights, Alexander Hamilton argued harshly against it. He complained that the entitlements that the Bill of Rights described were already given in the Constitution.  For example, Article IV of the Constitution said that “each State must honor the laws and authority of other States, as well as the rights of their citizens.” This section explains the rights of States concerning the treatment of their citizens.  

I believe that Alexander Hamilton’s argument that there was no need for an additional Bill of Rights was made with good intentions, but may not have been best for the country in the long run. He did not want to establish a code of laws that promised States and citizens very specific rights that the government could not violate (not necessarily that Hamilton had the intention of violating natural rights) because it was important to provide the federal government with power and flexibility in order to make decisions.  He most likely believed that the Bill of Rights impinged on the federal government’s ability to make appropriate decisions for the good of the country because of the additional constraints that it posed.

            Hamilton’s argument was logical at the time.  Following the War of Independence, the government was attempting to establish a national identity among the States and prove its ability to govern the country. However, I believe that Hamilton’s argument was made without taking into account the possible negative consequences of a government with too much power.  Even though the founding fathers were highly focused on guaranteeing liberty, and would not have imagined violating citizens’ rights, they could not be held accountable for the actions of future leaders.  Not ratifying the Bill of Rights, as Hamilton wanted, may have led to a system of leadership similar to the one colonists had fought to disassociate themselves from.  The colonists fought the revolution in the first place because they felt that their government was impinging on their rights as citizens to have representation in government.  So wouldn’t giving power to a federal government without strict limits on how to treat citizens have the potential to undo everything that the colonists dreamed of?

            Furthermore, the Bill of Rights was vital in bringing together the historically separate States under a national government. Besides promising each citizen certain specific rights, the Bill of Rights explicitly said that States had the right to make laws concerning anything that the federal government was not in charge of. For example, the tenth amendment explained that any “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively.” This ensured that States still had power and the ability to govern their citizens even though there was a federal government. It is possible that without the creation of the Bill of Rights, there would be no federal government with the power to govern the whole country.

            Alexander Hamilton did not want the Constitution to be ratified because he felt that in order for the federal government to be most effective, it needed to have fewer constraints.  To him, the Constitution sufficiently described the guidelines that the government had to follow and therefore there was no need for an additional Bill of Rights. Though Hamilton may have had positive intentions for arguing against the ratification of the Bill of Rights, I believe that he did not realize the possible repercussions of a government with too much power. I believe that it was the right decision to ratify the Bill of Rights because it helped create national unity and ensured the protection of citizens’ rights. The Bill of Rights went into affect in 1791 and has been the basis for protecting the rights of citizens and States ever since.