When the U.S. constitution was made it there was a long debate over the ratification of the constitution. There were two sides in the debate, the Federalists, who were supporter of the new constitution, and were better, organized than their opponents, and the Federalists had the support of the most respected men in America, George Washington, and Benjamin Franklin. The other side of the debate was the Antifederalists, who opposed ratification; although they weren’t as organized as the Federalists they did have some dedicated supporters. One major argument used by the supporters’ side in the debates over the ratification of the U.S. constitution is that there would be disorder without a strong central government. By 1787, most people were not happy with the articles of confederation. The farmers came to be debtors: and revolts like Shays’ rebellion where happening. The Federalists argued that without a strong central government, more rebellions like Shays’ rebellion would occur. So they looked to the constitution to create a national government capable of maintaining order. According to document 1, in which the Massachusetts sentinel wrote that the United States needed to adopt the constitution to make a more efficient federal government, to help the farmers, and protect the American name and character. Also according to document 3, in which a letter written by George Washington to John Jay, where Washington agreed with Jay that the articles of confederation had to be corrected. Also Washington suggested that America needed a stronger, national government. In the end, the Federalists won but not without strong debates and arguments from the Antifederalists. One major argument used by the supporters’ side in the debates over the ratification of the U.S. Constitution is that there would be disorder without a strong central government. The documents supporting my answer were document 1, and document 3.