Arguments Against Ratification

Our great nation grew quickly from infancy to a thriving teen. Our forefathers believed that if the now thirteen states wanted to fully develop into a great nation, they had to join together in a central government with singular ideas and laws – thus the birth of the constitution. Once the Constitution of the United States was written in 1787 at the Philadelphia convention, the next step was ratification. Ratification is the formal process, outlined in Article VII, which required that nine of the thirteen states agree to adopt the Constitution before it could go into effect.
Regarding ratification, people could be found in two distinct groups – federalists (those that supported the ratification) and anti-federalists. The anti-federalists were the group that stood in the way of ratifying the constitution. One reason they were refusing to ratify was the fear of an overpowering government. Having just fled the chains of an overpowering government, the anti-federalists believed that the constitution would take the power away from the state local governments.
As a federalist during the ratification process, I would have argued for the constitution and the false claim that it would create an overpowering government. The constitution contained many safeguards.
Wilson stated, “it is neither extraordinary nor unexpected that the constitution offered to your consideration should meet with opposition. It is the nature of man to pursue his own interest in preference to the public good.” Their opposition and educated arguments ensured that everything that needed to be included in the constitution was included. We now know that the Federalists prevailed, and the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1788, and went into effect in 1789. In his speech Wilson concluded that he was “bold to assert that it is the best form of government which has ever been offered to the