The question that reigned over all discussions regarding the ratification of the Constitution was whether or not it upheld the premise of liberty. Those who were concerned that the form of government dictated by the Constitution would overlook civil liberties were known as the Anti-Federalists. They voiced many criticisms regarding the Constitution's design of government and claimed that the only way to assure liberty was by creating a small republic. James Madison, a Federalist and a fierce proponent of the Constitution, responded to their concerns in the Federalist Papers, reassuring the Anti-Federalists that the form of government laid down by the Constitution was not only the best, but the only way to preserve the rights of the people. It is evident that although the intention of both the Anti-Federalists and of Madison was to protect the rights of the people and although they both agreed on a republican form of government, they drastically disagreed as to any further details in regard to which form of republican government would best accomplish their common objective.
The Anti-Federalists believed that a small republic was essential in order to ensure that the ruler be close to the people so that the people would be able to impede the ruler if necessary. In response, Madison pointed out the danger of the government being in close proximity to the people because the government would be easily influenced by the transient passions of the people, which would create complete disorder. Madison further supported his argument by pointing out that just as there was a need to prevent against the corruption of public officials, as the Anti-Federalists acknowledged, there was an equal need to recognize the possibility that the people will be corrupted by self-interest, and therefore the government must be distant from the people so as not to be corrupted in turn. In a government designed by the Anti-Federalists, which would have been a small republic, a large chance existed for the corruption of representatives as well.