The most formidable argument is that if divided into various separate unions (a confederacy of states) then it is only easier for there to be more `elite' people who act as if the King of Britain. The Americans had just finished their wars with the French, Indians, and the British and were not about ready to revert to their historical ways. Instead, they cautiously tread onwards making sure that their new Constitution is approved by all of the states.

The author relates Shayism to Toryism because they both lead to slavery, poverty, and misery. The author asserts that the position of being against the constitution is such Shayism or Toryism and by writing the article hopes to refute most of those points of view.

The rich would be favorable because they would be able to pay the debts of the union (the new instrument). The rich would also be favored since they would be able to fund those with similar viewpoints as their own.

The poor would be unfavorable because they would not be able to support politicians with similar views as their own. This means that the rich would get more say in government than the poor. This is an economical gap in the political representivity of the United States.

That of the judicial system crushing those in the individual states and communities. Mason criticizes that the Vice President as head of the Senate is a bad idea. In general, Mason points out that most of the rights of the states are stripped away in that they must submit to the supreme law of the land.

The South would not be given enough representation in terms of navigation and trade laws. He points out that the South is the main agricultural production region of the newly forming United States and thus could be horridly effected by laws that are only mildly beneficial to the Northern and Middle states.

Mason comments that all executive acts should be passed through the House of Representatives. This would be a good precaution to have, however, we have a (mostly functional) filtering system through the judicial system

Jefferson belittles the reports of anarchy as propaganda from Britain that has taken its effect on the American peoples. He says that Shay's Rebellion in Massachusetts was because of ignorance and not wickedness or any sort of evil.

Jefferson did not condone periodic rebellions. He thought them essential the establishment of liberty and a functional government. He points out that the public can never be completely informed of all events and will not always have the right theories or understandings of events and the world itself. Jefferson supported the idea of periodic rebellions, though perhaps for himself he would not have two in his lifetime.

Amos Singletary feared taxation itself. He thinks that the Americans rebelled from Britain because the British parliament was taxing the colonies. This is in opposition to the view that the colonists were trying to attain a sort of representation in the British parliament in the first place.

Singletary completely anticipates the same thesis on his own—he fears that the Founding Fathers will only be thinking of their own gains and not of all of the people in drafting the words of the constitution. Already powers have been given to this new fictional government and soon, Singletary fears, the government will expand beyond traditional resource-organization into a power-hungry monster.

Samuel Nasson was against unnecessary standing armies for a number of reasons. The first he presents is that of people being unable to pay their taxes. For if people cannot pay their taxes then a standing army would be able to come in and “change their mind” (to put it bluntly- force them to pay up). His next argument is that standing armies have always been a problem in other countries throughout the world and throughout every point in history. Finally, he states that if the need for an army becomes great, that Americans could form a militia anyway to defend for the good of the United States.