Connecticut’s path to ratification was decidedly more smooth than some of the other States. While there would be debate, and the final vote would not be unanimous, the entire process reflected the character of Connecticut in a way perhaps no other process had. Certainly not the Revolution, which at one point during the Convention, had seen a delegate accuse Connecticut of being less than whole hearted in her efforts to support the Patriot cause.
Overshadowing Connecticut’s debate, the Federalist Papers turn away from the subject of the problems with the Confederacy and the ills that face the nation and the need for union, to the more detailed arguments as to why certain provisions in the proposed Constitution are so important and, consequentially, beneficial to the nation.
The Anti-Federalists naturally turn to those same provisions as dangers to the liberties of the people.
So who is right? Can both sides be? How can something, like a standing army, be both a danger and a necessity?