Criticisms of the Constitution and their Legitimacy

The United States Constitution has received much criticism, both before and after its ratification in 1789. A wide array of thinkers from across the ages of the republic have offered criticisms about the nature, scope, and even fine details of the Constitution, sometimes providing solutions they think better themselves. Truly, however, two major schools of criticisms arise: those condemning the implications of having a document like the Constitution supreme over the nation, and those condemning specific parts and clauses of the document itself. Both criticisms based on the view that the Constitution is pro-slavery and those arguing against the nationalist nature of the document are unfounded.
One major criticism of the details of the Constitution stems from its inclusion of slavery. William Lloyd Garrison, a Massachusetts abolitionist and writer of The Liberator, argued that the Constitution was in fact written as a pro-slavery document. Citing the three-fifths clause, Garrison contested that the Constitution was invalid from its origin, since the initial compromise put aside morals and humanities for the sake of politics (385). Garrison argued that the founders were “sinful,” “weak,” and “trampled beneath their feet their own… Declaration, that all men are created equal” in proclaiming slavery legal and including it in the Constitution (385). In Garrison’s view, including slavery in the Constitution directly contradicted the rights to life, liberty, and property it promised. Since Garrison opined that the Constitution itself was invalid, he offered to his readers that a Union with slavery was not worth preserving, for if the South were to secede, it would be a weak government that could be easily overthrown by slaves, su...

... middle of paper ...

...cies compared to a government of smaller scope, allowing representatives to deliberate on policy initiatives and make a sound decision (Caesar 85). Third, the moral and religious homogeneity for which the Antifederalists argued is in fact unnecessary to maintain the republic. A government under the Constitution, they argued, should regulate conduct and not “directly [mold] character” (Caesar 85). The arguments made by the Federalists successfully discounted the validity of those made by the Antifederalists.
Both the Antifederalists and those interpreting the Constitution as promoting slavery were ultimately unfounded in their criticisms of the document that has successfully governed the American republic for hundreds of years. While both types of criticism of the Constitution may have been well developed, neither truly offered a condemnation with outright merit.