that the people themselves did not explicitly reserve.
"But in delegating foederal powers," Wilson
said, congressional authority comes "not from
tacit implication, but from the positive grant." As a result, in the state systems, "everything which is not reserved, is given: but in the latter [the
federal government], the reverse of the proposition prevails, and every
thing which is not given, is reserved. The distinction being recognized,
will furnish an answer to those who think the omission of a bill of rights,
a defect in the proposed constitution: for it would have been superfluous
and absurd, to have stipulated with a foederal body of our own creation,
that we should enjoy those privileges, of which we are not divested either
by the intention or the act that has brought that body into existence."
In other words, it was ridiculous for the Constitution to guarantee
rights that Congress had no power to violate, and the federal government had only those limited and expressly stated powers granted it by the Constitution. Wilson went further and said that including a bill of rights
might be dangerous, because if such a bill said that Congress could not
infringe the freedom of the press, it would imply that Congress might
have had implicit power to do so, and that it might have the power to
restrict other unenumerated rights.
Turning to the claim that the Constitution was intended to "annihilate"
the state governments, Wilson said this was impossible, given that state
legislatures were to choose the senators, the people of the several states
were to elect the representatives, and electors selected in a fashion chosen by each state legislature were to choose the president.
Other Federalists affirmed Wilson's analysis. In Massachusetts,
William Cushing-another future Supreme Court justice-said much the
same (that the federal government would have only the powers it was
"expressly granted" through the Constitution) in a speech written for his
state's ratification convention. In South Carolina, ratification opponents worried that
the proposed constitution might threaten the
institution of slavery. But General Charles
Cotesworth Pinckney, a Philadelphia Convention delegate and future Federalist presidential nominee, assured his fellow
Carolinians that "it is admitted, on all
hands, that the general government has no
powers but what are expressly granted by
the constitution, and that all rights not
expressed were reserved by the several
states."
Pennsylvania and South Carolina Federalists achieved crushing victories in those states'
ratification conventions. In Massachusetts, Federalists needed to persuade popular governor John Hancock to support
ratification. To do so, they promised that they would ask the first federal Congress to amend the Constitution to include a bill of rights. (Even with that
concession, Massachusetts approved the Constitution by only a narrow margin.)
Federalists and
Anti-Federalists
The Federalists generally were not federalist, but nationalist.
Anti-Federalists (they were actually federalist, and they called themselves Republicans) were not opposed to strengthening
the federal government; they merely
wanted to amend the Constitution before
ratifying it.
The pivotal state, however, was the largest, most populous state: Virginia. Virginia had provided far more than its share of leaders to the Revolution, the Philadelphia Convention had been presided over by George
Washington, and James Madison had provided the template for much of
the Convention's discussion. Once the Convention finished its work, Virginians Edmund Randolph and George Mason became the initial leaders
of the Anti-Federalist campaign.
If Virginia (which still included West Virginia and Kentucky) did not
ratify the Constitution, the new Union would be cut in half. Perhaps more
important, a Republican victory in Virginia would prevent George Washington from serving as the first president-and
Larry Niven, Nancy Kress, Mercedes Lackey, Ken Liu, Brad R. Torgersen, C. L. Moore, Tina Gower