Ratification of the newly created Constitution was not a sure thing. There was a real concern that the document granted too much power to the federal government and would ultimately lead to aristocratic tyranny.

Sensing the struggle that lay ahead, the framers wisely stated that the Constitution need only be approved by nine out of thirteen states. They also stipulated that the states would not vote on ratification through their state legislatures — which the Founders feared would have great misgivings about the new central government — but rather through a special elective convention. Were it not for these two crucial provisions, the Constitution might not have been ratified at all.

Federalists and Antifederalists

Opinions regarding the Constitution were divided into two camps: The Federalists and antifederalists. The Federalists believed in a strong central government that shared powers with the states, and therefore they supported the Constitution. The antifederalists were suspicious of this new central government and preferred direct democracy and local rule. In the fall of 1787, each side began publishing essays in support of its position, and today these writings represent some of the most important (and most studied) discussions on American government and political theory.

The Federalists were led by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, who together wrote The Federalist Papers. Two essays in particular — James Madison's Federalist No. 10 and Federalist No. 51 — are cited as the most persuasive in support of the Constitution, and are mandatory reading in college history classes around the country. The antifederalists were led by patriots such as Patrick Henry, John Hancock, George Mason, future president James Monroe, and Revolutionary War hero Sam Adams. Even Thomas Jefferson had misgivings about a Constitution that didn't include a Bill of Rights. The antifederalists rebutted the Federalist Papers with their own set of essays published under the pseudonyms Montezuma and Philadelphiensis.