Which argument would an Anti-Federalists?

Which argument would an Anti-Federalists?

Explanation: Concerning the Constitutional Convention in 1787, an Anti-Federalist would argue that the constitution lacked protection for INDIVIDUAL LIBERTIES.

Which argument would an Anti-Federalist say?

Anti-Federalists argued that the Constitution gave too much power to the federal government, while taking too much power away from state and local governments. Many felt that the federal government would be too far removed to represent the average citizen.

Why did the Anti-federalists oppose the ratification of the Constitution?

The Anti-Federalists opposed the ratification of the 1787 U.S. Constitution because they feared that the new national government would be too powerful and thus threaten individual liberties, given the absence of a bill of rights. Their opposition was an important factor leading to the adoption of the First Amendment and…

How did the ratification debate lead to disagreements over the Constitution?

The ratification debate led to disagreements between the Federalists, who wanted to ratify the Constitution, and Anti-Federalists, who opposed the document. The latter believed that the new system imposed by the Constitution failed to protect the individual rights of citizens and threatened liberties.

How did the Federalists feel about the Bill of Rights?

The Federalists felt that this addition wasn’t necessary, because they believed that the Constitution as it stood only limited the government not the people. The Anti- Federalists claimed the Constitution gave the central government too much power, and without a Bill of Rights the people would be at risk of oppression.

Who wrote articles against the ratification of the Constitution?

Many of the Anti-Federalists wrote articles against the ratification under pseudonyms such as Centinel, Brutus and Federal Farmer. Some of them came forward publicly against the ratification, an example being Patrick Henry.