In the space provided, propose an argument for or against the ratification of the u. s. constitution in 1789. establish yourself as a federalist or anti-federalist and give evidence supporting your argument. your argument should address the views of the opposing side, as well.

Led by Alexander Hamilton, albeit secretly at first, the Federalists were the first political party of the United States. They supported the Constitution, and attempted to convince the States to ratify the document. Hamilton, along with John Jay and James Madison, anonymously published a series of essays known as the Federalist Papers under the pseudonym "Publius."

Both Hamilton and Madison argued that the Constitution didn't need a Bill of Rights, that it would create a "parchment barrier" that limited the rights of the people, as opposed to protecting them. However, they eventually made the concession and announced a willingness to take up the matter of the series of amendments which would become the Bill of Rights. Without this compromise, the Constitution may never have been ratified by the States.

Surprisingly enough, it was Federalist James Madison who eventually presented the Bill of Rights to Congress despite his former stance on the issue.

If I were a federalist I would be all in for the constitution. Federalists favour states unity under one central government, in this case our federal government. There's more order that way. The states can have their own laws while still abiding by the central government laws, and it keeps everything organized. Federalists would argue in support of the US constitution since it would unify all states under one government, making it easier to regulate trade between states, and keep order within the whole country, opposed to having several states that do their own thing. In order to build a strong country, everyone needs to be on the same page, therefore the US constitution must be drafted and that states must be unified. 

what are the options?