158-162). In opposition to the Constitution, Samuel Bryan questions the ability of the proposed government to rule such a vast territory. He states that the extensive country "cannot be governed on democratical principles, on any other plan, than a confederation of a number of small republics, possessing all the powers of internal government, but united in the management of their foreign and general concerns." Additionally, he claims that since the government spans such a vast territory the citizens remote from the local government are at a disadvantage because they do not receive the comforts of that government. The number of representatives appears to be too few to both express the request and wants of local Americans or to prevent corruption (Retrieving the American Past, p.150-151).
In the Virginia debate for ratification, the Anti-federalist explained their concerns for ratification. They claim that prior to the Philadelphia Convention, the country was in a state of tranquility. Following the proposal of an alternate form of the government, a sense of uneasiness and fear entered the minds of citizens. They were in fear for one wrong step and the republic will be lost forever. If the new government does not live up to the expectations of the people, they will be disappointed for they will then lose their liberty and tyranny will arise. The Federalist respond to this view by questioning the idea that prior to the drafting of the new Constitution the nation was at a state of easy. Henry claims that the former government was completely inadequate to the purposes of its institutions. The commerce was decayed, the finances destroyed and private and public credit destroyed. He argues that if the public mind was at ease, it was not a result of being in a happy and admirable situation (Retrieving the American Past, p.143-146).
Following adoption of the Constitution, several issues that arose in the process of ratification resurfaced during the Jefferson administration.