Artur Sotskov FRQ 11.

2 Shortly after meting to talk about how to change the Articles of Confederation, the founding fathers realized they need a completely new Constitution. From the first draft, the people known as Anti-Federalist apposed the new Constitution. Their reasoning included: lack of bill of rights, and no protection of state right, loss of state power, the ability of the central government to control army, and the ability of the central government being able to control taxes. Foremost where the concerns involving the lack of any form of a bill of rights. This seemed like a step back to the Anti-Federalist, not monitoring how people where treated. This was often times the point that made them unwilling to agree to any form of Constitution. Another major point was the lack of any legislator protecting state rights. Anti-Federalist wanted the states to hold more power, and the Constitution placed more power in the hands of the central government. Anti-Federalist feared centralized power and the loss of state powers, states' rights, and the autonomy to the federal government under the Constitution. Anti-Federalist believed that the government was a contract between equals and not a step toward strong central government, and that at the heart of the revolution was the protection of liberties and state powers. With none of this being mentioned, they felt that they where not fighting for the right cause anymore. Some other Anti-Federalist expressed fear regarding the powers of the government. They had control of the army, witch reminded them a lot of the quartering acts. They also feared that allowing the government control of taxation will result in a British like way of life. They where fed up with one very powerful government, they did not want another one. They also disliked the judicial branch because of experiences preceding the revolution, such as parliament. The Anti-Federalist were concerned about about larger states dominating small states. Some Anti-Federalists felt that large republican form of government, or a republic of republics, could not work. They where also concerned that members of Congress, representing so many persons in each districts, would tend to be limited to wealthy people because they are the only ones who could afford it, causing oligarchy. Lots of Anti-Federalists maintained that the ratification of the Constitution was illegal, for some excuse to not vote yes on it. Their reasoning was that because the existing Articles of Confederation. They viewed as just a amendment, not a whole new thing. They also wanted the line We the States instead of We the People. Even more, they where concerned that such a small number (65 in the House and 26 in the Senate) would rule the entire population, and how few people it would take to conduct national affairs. All the and many more issues cause the Constitution to be passed with not full support. In my personal opinion, I agree with the Federalist.