The Federalists were trying to bring about a major political change and were insisting that this change was essential. To justify the Constitution, it had to be proved that conditions were desperate and that extensive alterations in the government were imperative. Accordingly, they insisted that a serious commercial depression existed, that the credit of the United States and of the several states was endangered, that property rights were in jeopardy, that the states were disunited and weak, and that if the country were to become prosperous, respected, respectable, and safe, the Articles must be replaced by the Constitution.

The prospect that creditors could sue in the federal courts and recover claims in real money was particularly pleasing to creditors at a time when the collection of debts was exceptionally difficult. Creditors had encountered difficulties in collecting debts, threatened as they were with installment and tender laws, paper money, and even rebellion. The Constitution was, Federalists hoped, calculated to make men honest.

To the Antifederalists, there was no need for so drastic a cure as the Constitution. The Antifederalists believed that the Constitution created too strong a government. It was not so much any particular power which proved the danger, but the combination of control over taxation and the army together with the judicial powers. The Antifederalist wished to retain the Articles and to strengthen the Confederation.

While the Antifederalists denied that the Articles of Confederation had completely failed, they nonetheless admitted the need for reform. Nearly every individual who dealt with the problem believed that changes were necessary. The Antifederalists found themselves in a dilemma: at once accepting the necessity of change and denying the changes suggested, fearing to grant powers so great as those demanded by the Constitution, yet fearful of a total rejection. The Antifederalists were forced on the defensive, if not ratification, then what?