AP United States Government and Politics

## Learning Outcomes

- Explain why ratification debates focused on power as much as on government structure
- Compare Federalist and Anti-Federalist views of national power, state power, and liberty
- Understand how Federalist No. 10, Federalist No. 51, Federalist No. 84, and Brutus No. 1 frame these debates
- Identify why the Bill of Rights became politically necessary during ratification
- Recall the importance of state ratifying conventions and the Massachusetts Compromise
- Apply the ratification debate to later arguments about federalism and individual rights on the AP exam

## AP United States Government and Politics Syllabus

For the AP United States Government and Politics, you are expected to understand ongoing debates over power during ratification, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

![Ratification debates comparing Federalist and Anti-Federalist positions on national authority, state sovereignty, liberty, and a Bill of Rights.](https://static.pastpaperhero.com/images/ap-us-government-and-politics-ratification-of-the-us-constitution-ongoing-debates-over-power_00.png)

_Federalist and Anti-Federalist arguments during constitutional ratification are organized around national power, state authority, and protections for individual rights._

- Know that the Constitution required ratification by **9 of the 13 states** under **Article VII**
- Identify the main disagreements between **Federalists** and **Anti-Federalists**
- Explain how ratification debates centered on the balance between national power, state power, and liberty
- Understand the arguments in **Federalist No. 10**, **Federalist No. 51**, **Federalist No. 84**, and **Brutus No. 1**
- Know why many Anti-Federalists demanded a **Bill of Rights**
- Understand the role of **state ratifying conventions** rather than state legislatures
- Explain the significance of the **Massachusetts Compromise**
- Recognise that the ratification debate created lasting disputes over **federalism** and individual rights

## Test Your Knowledge

_Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, look more closely at that area during your revision._

1. Why did some Americans support a stronger national government in 1787 while others feared it?
2. What did Federalist No. 10 argue about factions and the large republic?
3. Why did Anti-Federalists believe the Constitution threatened liberty?
4. What was the Massachusetts Compromise?
5. Why was the Bill of Rights added after ratification rather than included in the original Constitution?

## Introduction

The ratification of the U.S. Constitution was not a simple yes-or-no decision. It was a national argument about **power**: who should hold it, how much of it the national government should have, and what protections ordinary citizens would have against abuse. The Constitution had been drafted in **1787**, but it still had to win approval from the states. That approval was difficult because Americans agreed that the Articles of Confederation had serious weaknesses, but they disagreed sharply about the cure.

For the AP exam, this matters because the ratification debate set up arguments that still shape U.S. politics. Questions about federal power, state authority, individual liberty, and the danger of concentrated government did not end when the Constitution was ratified. They became permanent features of American government.

> **Key Term: ratification**
> Formal approval of the Constitution by the states. Under Article VII, the Constitution would take effect when 9 of the 13 states ratified it.

### Why ratification became a debate over power

The Constitution was written because many leaders believed the **Articles of Confederation** created a government too weak to govern effectively. Congress could not tax directly, struggled to regulate interstate commerce, and had limited ability to respond to economic disorder or unrest. Events such as **Shays’ Rebellion** convinced many elites and officeholders that a stronger national government was necessary.

But "stronger" did not mean the same thing to everyone. That is the central point students must grasp. The debate was not simply between people who liked government and people who disliked it. Both sides said they wanted **liberty** and **republican government**. The disagreement was about how liberty would best be protected.

Federalists argued this chain of reasoning:

1. The Articles had failed because the national government was too weak.
2. A weak government cannot maintain order, regulate trade, raise revenue, or defend the nation well.
3. Disorder and weakness can threaten liberty just as much as tyranny can.
4. Therefore, the new Constitution needed a stronger national government.
5. That stronger government would still be limited by structure: separation of powers, checks and balances, and federalism.

Anti-Federalists argued a different chain:

1. The Revolution had been fought against distant, concentrated power.
2. The Constitution created a more powerful national government than many Americans had ever accepted.
3. Broad national powers would likely grow over time.
4. State governments, being closer to the people, were safer defenders of liberty.
5. Therefore, the Constitution needed stronger protections for rights and tighter limits on national authority.
   > **Key Term: federalism**
   > The constitutional division of power between the national government and the states.

A common mistake is to say Federalists wanted unlimited central power. They did not. They wanted a **stronger** national government, not an unchecked one. Their claim was that constitutional structure would keep power under control.

Another mistake is to describe Anti-Federalists as simply obstructive. Many accepted the need for reform but believed the proposed Constitution went too far without clear safeguards.

> **Key Term: Anti-Federalists**
> Opponents of ratification who feared the Constitution gave too much power to the national government and did not sufficiently protect liberty.
>
> **Test Tip:** In source questions, do not reduce this debate to “big government versus small government.” Stronger answers frame it as **effective government versus protection of liberty**, or **national power versus state power**.

### Federalist arguments: why more power could protect liberty

Federalist arguments are best understood through the required documents, especially **Federalist No. 10**, **Federalist No. 51**, and **Federalist No. 84**.

In **Federalist No. 10**, **James Madison** argued that factions are inevitable. People have different economic interests, religious beliefs, and political goals. You cannot remove the causes of faction without destroying liberty, which would be worse than the disease. So government must control the **effects** of faction.

> **Key Term: faction**
> A group united by a common interest or passion that may act against the rights of others or the common good.

Madison’s key move was to argue that a **large republic** is safer than a small one. At first this seems odd. Anti-Federalists thought a large republic would be unmanageable. Madison said the opposite: in a large republic there are so many different interests that no single faction is likely to dominate. More variety means more competition among interests, which reduces the chance that one majority faction will oppress everyone else.

This is important for AP comparison questions. Madison was not praising faction. He was arguing that a large republic makes faction less dangerous.

In **Federalist No. 51**, Madison explained why the Constitution’s design could restrain power. Separation of powers and checks and balances would make "ambition counteract ambition." Each branch would defend its own authority. The national government would also be divided from the states in a "compound republic." That means power is checked in two directions:

- branch against branch
- national government against state governments

This was the Federalist answer to the fear of tyranny. Their point was structural: liberty does not depend only on good leaders. It depends on institutions that prevent any one part of government from becoming too strong.

> **Key Term: checks and balances**
> A constitutional system in which each branch of government can limit the powers of the others.

In **Federalist No. 84**, **Alexander Hamilton** argued that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary. His reasoning was technical and constitutional. The federal government was one of **delegated powers** only. If a power was not given, it was not possessed. So why list rights against powers the government did not have in the first place?

Hamilton also worried that listing some rights might imply that any rights not listed were unprotected. In theory, this was a strong argument. In politics, it was much weaker.

> **Key Term: delegated powers**
> Powers specifically granted to the national government in the Constitution.

Here is the distinction students often miss: Hamilton’s argument in Federalist No. 84 was not "rights do not matter." It was "the Constitution already limits federal power enough that a Bill of Rights is not needed."

### Anti-Federalist arguments: why national power threatened liberty

The best required Anti-Federalist text is **Brutus No. 1**. Brutus argued that the proposed Constitution would create a national government too powerful to remain truly republican. His concern was not only the powers listed in the Constitution, but the way those powers might expand.

Three areas mattered especially:

- the **Necessary and Proper Clause**
- the **Supremacy Clause**
- the federal judiciary

Brutus feared that the Necessary and Proper Clause would let Congress stretch its authority beyond clearly listed powers. He feared that the Supremacy Clause would make national law override state law so completely that the states would lose meaningful independence. He also feared the federal courts would interpret national power broadly and state power narrowly, pushing authority steadily upward.

> **Key Term: Supremacy Clause**
> The constitutional principle that the Constitution and federal laws made under it are the supreme law of the land.

This argument became one of the most lasting themes in American politics: even if the Constitution appears to limit federal power on paper, institutions may interpret those powers broadly in practice.

Anti-Federalists also worried about distance and representation. In a large republic, representatives might become too remote from ordinary people. Small republics, they argued, are more likely to preserve accountability because representatives know local conditions better.

They also worried about a standing army, presidential power, and national taxation. To them, the memory of British rule was recent. A powerful president could begin to resemble a monarch. A powerful central government with broad taxing power could begin to dominate the states.

Most of all, Anti-Federalists objected to the absence of a Bill of Rights. Structural protections were not enough for them. They wanted explicit written guarantees.

This is why the Bill of Rights became the central political issue in ratification. Even though some Federalists claimed it was unnecessary, many state-level debates showed that it was practically necessary.

> **Test Tip:** If asked to compare Brutus No. 1 with Federalist No. 10 or 51, focus on their different assumptions. Federalists trusted constitutional structure to control power. Anti-Federalists doubted structure alone was enough.

### Ratification, compromise, and the lasting debate

The Constitution was not sent to ordinary state legislatures for approval. It went to special **state ratifying conventions**. This mattered because it appealed directly to **popular sovereignty**. Ratification would come from conventions representing the people, not just existing state governments that might be hostile to losing power.

> **Key Term: popular sovereignty**
> The principle that government derives its authority from the people.

Ratification was not easy. In key states such as **Massachusetts**, **Virginia**, and **New York**, support was close and contested. The vote totals show how divided opinion remained:

- **Massachusetts:** **187–168**
- **Virginia:** **89–79**
- **New York:** **30–27**

These close votes prove that the Constitution did not win by overwhelming consensus.

The practical breakthrough came with the **Massachusetts Compromise** in **February 1788**. Massachusetts ratified the Constitution but also recommended amendments. This was not ratify-later-if-amended. It was ratify now, amend later. That formula gave hesitant delegates a way to support the Constitution without giving up demands for rights protections.

> **Key Term: Massachusetts Compromise**
> The ratification strategy of approving the Constitution while recommending amendments, helping build support for a later Bill of Rights.

This model influenced other states and built momentum. Under **Article VII**, the Constitution took effect once **9 of the 13 states** ratified it. **New Hampshire** became the ninth state on **June 21, 1788**. Even so, ratification by **Virginia** and **New York** soon after remained politically vital because they were large and influential states.

The path to the Bill of Rights then became clear:

- Federalists promised amendments to secure ratification
- state conventions recommended protections
- Congress proposed amendments in **1789**
- **10** of those were ratified in **1791** as the **Bill of Rights**

This is one of the best examples in AP Gov of a side "losing" the main fight but still reshaping the outcome. Anti-Federalists lost ratification, but their pressure changed the Constitution’s development.

The lasting debate over power did not end there. It continued through later disputes over federalism, implied powers, civil liberties, and the role of the courts. The ratification struggle created the language and logic later Americans used whenever they argued over how much power Washington should have and how liberty should be protected.

> **Test Tip:** For FRQs and argument essays, a strong line of reasoning is: **ratification settled the adoption of the Constitution, but not the dispute over power**. That dispute continued through federalism debates and the Bill of Rights.

## Key Point Checklist

_This article has covered the following key knowledge points:_

- The Constitution required ratification by **9 of the 13 states** under **Article VII**
- Ratification debates focused on national power, state power, and the protection of liberty
- Federalists supported ratification because they believed the Articles of Confederation created a government that was too weak
- Anti-Federalists feared the Constitution created a national government too powerful to remain safely republican
- **Federalist No. 10** argued that a large republic could better control the effects of faction
- **Federalist No. 51** argued that separation of powers, checks and balances, and federalism would protect liberty
- **Federalist No. 84** argued that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary because the federal government had only delegated powers
- **Brutus No. 1** warned that the Necessary and Proper Clause, Supremacy Clause, and federal judiciary would expand national power
- Ratification occurred through **state ratifying conventions**, not ordinary state legislatures
- The **Massachusetts Compromise** paired ratification with recommended amendments
- The Constitution was ratified after **New Hampshire** became the ninth state on **June 21, 1788**
- The **Bill of Rights** was proposed in **1789** and ratified in **1791** in response to Anti-Federalist pressure

## Key Terms and Concepts

- ratification
- federalism
- Anti-Federalists
- faction
- checks and balances
- delegated powers
- Supremacy Clause
- popular sovereignty
- Massachusetts Compromise


Ratification of the U.S. Constitution - Ongoing debates over power