I support the Anti-Federalists, because they did not disapprove of federalism, and all that they wanted to do was make improvements. Anti-Federalism worked on being able to put more power into the state’s hands, by giving the state governments more control. Just as the Anti-Federalist have confidence in the Constitution, I agree with them. However, when the Bill of Rights was later on added it became very crucial and mandatory. The Bill of Rights is a huge role in our personal rights that we have everyday. People who supported the Constitution as it was, and insisted on having a fast approval became known as "federal men" or Federalists. Being a Federalists also meant that you were giving a strong support towards having a strong centralized
…show more content…
Federalists encouraged to take away some powers from the states and give more power to the national government. "If we are to be one Nation in any respect, it clearly ought to be in respect to other Nations". They wanted to have a short government control use. However, if the government was very limited then there would be no Bill of Rights. The Federalists were extremely blind to the fact that there could have been advancements made to the Constitution. Federalism did not allow citizens to voice their own opinions. "To have submitted it to the legislative discretion of the States, would have been improper for the same reason; and for the additional reason that it would have rendered too dependent on the State governments that branch of the federal government which ought to be dependent on the people alone." All in all, I agree with Anti-Federalism because they wish to have a powerful and separate state governments, instead of a powerful centralized governments. They were afraid of a powerful leader who would be ruled by a king or tyrant, which gave the Anti-Federalist the confidence in the Bill of Rights, since it needed to be added to the Constitution to guard the citizen’s rights thus allowing citizens more opportunities to voice their own opinions and protecting the citizens against government. Also, they felt that a government that takes away individual freedoms is not worth
Federalists encouraged to take away some powers from the states and give more power to the national government. "If we are to be one Nation in any respect, it clearly ought to be in respect to other Nations". They wanted to have a short government control use. However, if the government was very limited then there would be no Bill of Rights. The Federalists were extremely blind to the fact that there could have been advancements made to the Constitution. Federalism did not allow citizens to voice their own opinions. "To have submitted it to the legislative discretion of the States, would have been improper for the same reason; and for the additional reason that it would have rendered too dependent on the State governments that branch of the federal government which ought to be dependent on the people alone." All in all, I agree with Anti-Federalism because they wish to have a powerful and separate state governments, instead of a powerful centralized governments. They were afraid of a powerful leader who would be ruled by a king or tyrant, which gave the Anti-Federalist the confidence in the Bill of Rights, since it needed to be added to the Constitution to guard the citizen’s rights thus allowing citizens more opportunities to voice their own opinions and protecting the citizens against government. Also, they felt that a government that takes away individual freedoms is not worth