Debating the
Constitution

The debate over the Constitution produced some of the most enduring writings of American political philosophy. When the Philadelphia convention of 1787 concluded with the drafting of a new constitution, the document’s supporters—known as Federalists—had to make their case to representatives of the people in each state in order to obtain support for ratification. By June 1787 the necessary nine states had ratified, but Antifederalist sentiment remained strong in two of the most important states, Virginia and New York. Antifederalists cited the potential dangers of centralized power, the problems of a republican government in such a large and diverse nation, and the need for a Bill of Rights to protect the citizens from powerful centralized authorities. They found themselves on the defensive from the start. In New York prominent Federalists James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton—writing anonymously under the pseudonym Publius—published a series of eighty-five essays, collectively known as The Federalist Papers. They countered the criticisms of the Antifederalists and illuminated the ways in which the new constitution would, in their view, both correct the shortcomings of the Articles of Confederation and enhance American liberty. New York ratified the Constitution on July 26, 1788, one month after Virginia had done the same. By May 1790 even the most reluctant state, Rhode Island, had ratified.

The following documents illuminate the debate over the Constitution in New York, which featured the Federalist “Publius” squaring off against the Antifederalists “Cato” and “Brutus”—pseudonyms appropriated from Roman statesmen. As you examine these sources, consider what was new about the government proposed in the Constitution, as well as the circumstances that brought this debate to the forefront of American political discourse.