Because the federalists wanted the constitution and the anti-Federalists didn't, because the anti-Federalists wanted a smaller government and were afraid the Constitution would take away their freedom.
No, they believed that the Constitution would take away the rights Americans had fought for against Great Britain. That the Constitution would create a strong central government, ignore the will of the states and people, and favor the wealthy over the common people. Antifederalists preferred a local government close to the people. 1.
The anti federalists criticized the constitution because they felt that it would give too much power to the federal government and take away the rights of the states and local government branches. The anti federalists argued that the constitution provided for a centralized form of government rather than a federal government form.
Answer on E2020:The Federalists created a system of checks and balances in the government. This system limited the power of the various branches of government so that one branch could not take all the power and become tyrannical. Each branch was also able to 'check' the powers of the other branches, so that no branch could act alone.
The goal was to inform the people who were criticizing the new form of government, which was instated within the Constitution. They were mainly disapproving of the strong central government that the Founders wanted to place; they felt that it would take away their liberty. However, as stated in the Federalist Papers it was key to have this type of government in order to prevent tyranny and ruin within it. The intention of the papers was to inform the people of the system that was being instated and how it functioned.
Propaganda
Propaganda
Federalists wanted the constitution. They supported Federalism (if you couldn't already tell from their label). Antifederalists opposed the Federalist views. They believed that the constitution took to much power from the states and thought it did not guarantee people's rights.
Federalists were for a strong federal government and didn't think that the Bill of Rights is necessary for the government to run without corruption. Anti-federalists thought that the Constitution didn't properly protect their rights like a Bill of Rights would do. However, in the end the Federalists let the anti-federalists have the Bill of Rights.
sorry i dont know im a dumb butt
Because the federalists wanted the constitution and the anti-Federalists didn't, because the anti-Federalists wanted a smaller government and were afraid the Constitution would take away their freedom.
bob joe nad fred and dredckdeicd
Propaganda
The anti-federalists believed that the Constitution would take away critical powers from the states, and warned that without a Bill of Rights the government might also take away the rights of the people that were just won in the Revolution.
sorry i dont know im a dumb butt
No, they believed that the Constitution would take away the rights Americans had fought for against Great Britain. That the Constitution would create a strong central government, ignore the will of the states and people, and favor the wealthy over the common people. Antifederalists preferred a local government close to the people. 1.
The anti-federalists did not criticize America's new constitution as much as were opposed to it. They were opposed to the concept of central, federal governance; instead they believed that each of state needed to be be strong because they are a bit suspicious about concentrating all the power into one, central government. They were concerned that the Constitution was mostly crafted by the upper-class and thus would minimize the influence of the common people and the poor.The anti-federalists were the first to raise the concern that the lack a Bill of Rights would take away the people’s right to freedom of speech and religion; however their concerns were reduced with the inclusion of the Bill of Rights.