📜 Classic historical debates · Advanced · Historical debate

Historical question (1787–88): Should the states ratify the proposed Constitution?

After the Constitutional Convention, Americans argued for months in newspapers and state conventions about whether to adopt the new Constitution. The Federalists won, but the Anti-Federalists won the Bill of Rights.

Background

In September 1787 the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia proposed a new Constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation, under which the national government could not tax, regulate trade between states, or enforce its decisions well. The Constitution would take effect once nine state conventions ratified it. [1]

Supporters, called Federalists, made their case in essays such as The Federalist, written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay under the name Publius. Opponents, the Anti-Federalists, wrote under names like Brutus, Cato and the Federal Farmer, warning that the new government would be too powerful and too distant from the people, and that the Constitution lacked a bill of rights. New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify in June 1788. Several states ratified while recommending amendments, and the First Congress proposed the Bill of Rights in 1789; it was ratified in 1791. [1][2]

Key terms

Articles of Confederation
The first U.S. constitution (in effect from 1781), which created a weak national government.
Ratification
Formal approval; here, by state conventions.
Extended republic
Madison’s argument in Federalist No. 10 that a large republic can better control factions.
Supremacy Clause
The Constitution’s rule that federal law is the supreme law of the land.
Bill of Rights
The first ten amendments, ratified in 1791.

Both sides at their strongest

Each argument is written the way its best advocates would make it, followed by the strongest answer from the other side. Use them to build your case and to prepare for the other one.

Federalists (ratify)

The Articles had failed; the Constitution creates an effective government with safeguards against abuse.

  1. A1 The Articles of Confederation had failed.

    Why Without power to tax or regulate commerce, Congress couldn’t pay its debts, defend the country or stop states from fighting over trade.

    Evidence Unpaid war debts, trade disputes among states, and Shays’ Rebellion (1786–87) as described in The Federalist.

    Best answer Anti-Federalists answered that the Articles could be amended to fix specific problems without creating a powerful new government.

  2. A2 Separated powers and checks prevent tyranny.

    Why Dividing power among three branches, each able to check the others, keeps any one from becoming dangerous.

    Evidence The Federalist, especially Madison’s essays on checks and balances.

    Best answer Anti-Federalists replied that the Senate and presidency could combine into an aristocracy, and that checks among officials don’t protect against all of them together.

  3. A3 A large republic controls faction better.

    Why In a large country, many interests make it hard for any one faction to form an oppressive majority.

    Evidence Madison, Federalist No. 10.

    Best answer Brutus argued that free republics had historically been small, and a distant government couldn’t truly represent so many people.

  4. A4 The federal government’s powers are listed and limited.

    Why The Constitution grants specific powers; what isn’t granted isn’t given, so a bill of rights isn’t needed and could even suggest the government had powers it lacked.

    Evidence Hamilton’s arguments in The Federalist (No. 84) against adding a bill of rights.

    Best answer Anti-Federalists pointed to the Necessary and Proper and Supremacy Clauses, which they said could expand federal power without limit.

Anti-Federalists (oppose or amend first)

The Constitution concentrates too much power far from the people and lacks a bill of rights.

  1. N1 The new government would swallow the states.

    Why Broad clauses like Necessary and Proper and the Supremacy Clause, plus federal power to tax, could let the national government override the states and grow without limit.

    Evidence Brutus I (October 1787) and other Anti-Federalist essays.

    Best answer Federalists answered that the federal government had only listed powers, and the states kept all others.

  2. N2 A government over a huge country can’t represent the people.

    Why With few representatives for many people, Congress would be dominated by the wealthy and distant from ordinary citizens.

    Evidence Brutus and the Federal Farmer on representation in a large republic.

    Best answer Madison replied in Federalist No. 10 that a larger republic would choose better representatives and resist factions.

  3. N3 Liberty needs a written bill of rights.

    Why Without explicit protections for speech, religion, jury trial and against unreasonable searches, a powerful government could violate them.

    Evidence State conventions’ recommended amendments; Anti-Federalist essays.

    Best answer Federalists replied that listing some rights might imply others weren’t protected, though Madison later led the effort to add the Bill of Rights.

  4. N4 Standing armies and federal taxing power threaten freedom.

    Why A national government able to raise armies in peacetime and tax directly could enforce its will against the people.

    Evidence Anti-Federalist writings on armies and taxation.

    Best answer Federalists argued that a nation needs the power to defend itself and pay its debts, and that elected representatives control both.

Strawman or steelman?

A strawman is a weak copy of the other side’s view, easy to knock down and unfair to the people who hold it. A steelman is that view at its strongest. Answer the steelman, and you’ve answered the real argument. (More on steelmanning.)

Federalists (ratify)

Strawman “The Federalists wanted a king.”

Why it’s unfair Federalists argued for an elected, limited government with separated powers.

Steelman The Articles had failed; the Constitution creates an effective but limited government whose separated powers and extended republic guard against tyranny.

Anti-Federalists (oppose or amend first)

Strawman “The Anti-Federalists wanted no national government at all.”

Why it’s unfair Most wanted a stronger union than the Articles provided, but with more limits and a bill of rights.

Steelman Broad clauses and distant representation threatened the states and the people’s liberty; a bill of rights and narrower powers were needed before ratifying.

Weak arguments to avoid

Federalists (ratify)

  • “Everyone important supported the Constitution, so it must be right.” An appeal to authority; prominent figures such as Patrick Henry and George Mason opposed it.

Anti-Federalists (oppose or amend first)

  • “The Constitution was illegal, so it should be ignored.” A procedural complaint (the Convention exceeded its instructions) that doesn’t answer the arguments about the government’s design.

Questions for cross-examination

Ask the Federalists (ratify)

  1. What stops Congress from using the Necessary and Proper Clause to expand its powers?
  2. Why not add a bill of rights now?
  3. How many people will each representative represent?

Ask the Anti-Federalists (oppose or amend first)

  1. How would you pay the war debts under the Articles?
  2. Can the Articles be amended without every state agreeing?
  3. What does Federalist No. 10 say about large republics?

Reading on both sides

Read at least one source from each side before you debate. Look up each source’s author and publisher too: who wrote it is part of the evidence.

Background and overviews

Mostly Federalists (ratify)

Mostly Anti-Federalists (oppose or amend first)

Study this debate

Sources for the background

  1. Anti-Federalist Papers, Wikipedia. Accessed 2026-10-25.
  2. Brutus Letters from the Federalist-Antifederalist Debates, Teaching American History. Accessed 2026-10-25.

This page presents a historical debate for study. Updated 2026-10-25.

@teddyrookbook GitHub