What would you like to do?
Answer: Because they could see the problem with allowing a privately owned bank to control the financial system in America. And they knew that it would result with the banks becoming very powerful and dictating the decisions that the Government would make. They may have also foreseen that the banks would began to loan money without gold to back, resulting in devaluing the US dollar. That would also mean that if they were ever to stop loaning money and call the notes in they would own a large portion of American businesses and homes.
18 people found this useful
Was this answer useful?
Thanks for the feedback!
The anti federalists werent against the constitution, they were with it.
They were against the Constitution because it took power away from the states and gave it to the people.
The Anti-Federalists were against adoption of the Constitution Which of these was the result of the Anti-Federalist movement?
Ten amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, were adopted to protect the rights of individuals.
Because he s a strong federalist
The Anti Federalist wanted a state bank due to the fact that they were against the National Bank. They believed that the state should have the power to the bank, and by …having a National Bank, the National govermenet would be gaining to much power.
the anti federalists had 4 major objections to the constitution what were they??? The Anti-Federalists thought that the constitution would give the national government too muc…h power at the expense of the state governments. They also thought that the necessary and proper clause was too general. Another argument that the Anti-Federalists made was that throughout history, the only places where republican governments worked had been in small communities and that free government requires the active participation of the people. One other reason is that the constitution does not include a bill of rights and they thought a bill of rights is necessary to protect people against the power of the national government.
They wanted a strong Bank, because if they had this that would show some lyabilitie and which case a bigger population. I mean who wouldn't want the satifaction of knowing the…re money is safe and they are in a safe place for thereselfs and if the have a family there family as well. I mean if you think about it its only common sense grounds. Jaden
They weren't against the adoption of the Constitution per say, they were in favor of adding a Bill of Rights. Anti-Federalists believed that a country could not be governe…d by an all-powerful central government, it needed to have amendments.
the believed in promoted economic growth <novanet>
because the president could easily become king
The Anti-Federalists opposed the new U.S. Constitution for numerous reasons. They distrusted large, powerful national governments and believed liberty could only be protected …in small republics in which the rulers were closely checked by the public. They believed a large nation could best be governed by a confederation, with local governments having the most control. A strong national government would be distant from the people and not capable of protecting the rights of the citizens. They also favored the addition of a Bill of Rights to protect the citizens from the national government. Federalists favored a strong national government with supreme power over state governments. Leaving too much power in the hands of the states would only create another confederacy type of government with little power to act. The rights of citizens would be protected from the government via legislation, the courts, and the Bill of Rights. Federalists distrusted the masses to select the best candidates so they made only the House of Representatives directly elected by the people. Checks and Balances within the Constitution would make sure no one branch became too powerful. The President would have control over the military, necessary for national defense, but could not violate the laws. The Secretary of War would advise the President. The national government needed the power to tax and enforce the laws, or the ills of the Articles would hamper the development, agriculture and industry, of the new nation.
Articles of Confederation and Shay's Rebellion Even though they didn't like the constitution, they didn't have a solution for their problem. you could use Thomas… Hobbs and say that people in general are self interested there are a lot more you just have to look it up.
There are a couple of important perspectives when discussing the Bill of Rights in reference to the Federalists (Washington/Hamilton/Jay/Madison, et al.) and the anti-Federali…sts (George Mason, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, George Clinton, et al.). Thomas Jefferson was in Paris the whole time the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights were considered, though he ended up leading the anti-Federalist party within a couple of years of his return to the States. Back in 1776 when the states declared independence, they each set up a state constitution and most included a bill of rights. The anti-Federalists were anti-U.S. Constitution because they believed in strong state's rights and a weak central government...therefore the Articles of Confederation were sufficient to their ends. In part, the lack of a Bill of Rights was a reason to delay ratification of the U.S. Constitution. They were trying to call for a second Constitutional Convention before any ratification could proceed. The Federalists had their hands full in trying to get the U.S. Constitution ratified, so they felt the Constitution should be ratified and then amend it with a bill of rights. The two big states leaders in Virginia and New York were determined to defeat the Constitution. Another Federalist position was: All rights not defined in the Constitution then remain with the states and the people. They were concerned that if you start naming these rights, then it worked in reverse - that you would only have the rights that were listed...it was solved when Amendment #9 was added: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Also, Amendment #10 was included: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. This addressed the concerns of the Federalists and the anti-Federalists. It was adopted by the U.S. Congress in 1789 and sent to the states for ratification which was ratified by the states in 1791.