the debate between the federalists and antifederalists over the ratification of the constitution.

Student’s name
Institutional affiliation
Date
The Ratification Debate
The ratification debate held in the summer of 1787 in a constitutional convention in Philadelphia had a sole purpose of revising articles of confederation. However, the discussion resulted in the formation of the entirely new constitution as many compromises made in a bid to appease local factions characterized the proceedings. The main themes dominating the ratification debate included the constitutions parliamentary system, three-fifths compromise and the bill of rights which brought up the element of robust and weak governments (“Federalists And Antifederalists” N.p).
Delegates from different states attended the convention. Since the articles gave one vote equally to all the state in Congress, the issue of representation among the different states almost threatened to end the conference. The small states were in support of equal representation while the populous state wanted a proportional representation. This conflict resulted in the formation of the “Great Compromise” that formed both the equal representation house and the proportional representation house. The three-fifths compromise was based on the representation of the slaves in the Congress. The southern and northern states agreed that three-fifths of the slaves would be allowed to participate in representation activities that involved allocation of taxes and Congress representation.
For the constitution to come into effect, it had to be ratified by nine states which led to a long and challenging fight.

The Federalists favored the ratification pointing out the weaknesses of the articles while the anti-federalists opposed it through offering support to the House of Representatives. The federalist’s papers were drafted for the New York state, and they supported the provisions of the constitution. Further, the Federalists were in support for the current protections provided by the constitution indicating that the bill of rights was of less importance. Contrary, anti-federalists attacked the constitution over the lack of a bill of rights. They argued that this factor would lead to powerful national governments that were dangerous. However, the federalist argument eventually persuaded many anti-Federalists (“Federalists And Antifederalists” N.p).

Works cited
“Federalists And Antifederalists”. Boundless Political Science. N.p., 2016. Web. 20 Nov. 2016.