As looking through both Anti-Federalists and Federalist, the Anti-Federalists point of view seems to be more appealing. As a Anti-Federalist, there is a strong need to amend the Constituion with a Bill of Rights. Our states need as much rights as they need. A bill of rights needs to be set with the Constitution, because if there are rights, then people will be happy
There are many differences between Federalists and Anti-Federalists. One such example would be the government. The Federalists agrue about having a central government, while the Anti-Federalists feel a central government will only cause anarchy. This is a quote from Federalists No. 39:”It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans and claim for their government the honorable title of republic.” The meaning of this is probably meant that Federalists were unsure of human nature and government must resist the passion of the public.
Another reason is that Anti-Federalists wanted to amend the Consitution with a Bill of Rights. the first version of the federal government was quite weak. A mojr purpos of the Constitution was to grant more power to the federal government. The anti-federalists wanted assurances that this new and more powerful government wouldn’t be out of control. Quote from “A Farmer” January 11, 1788: Rouse up, my friends, a matter of infinite importance is before you on the carpet, soon to be decided in your convention: The New Constitution. Seize the happy moment. Secure to yourselves and your posterity the jewel Liberty, which has cost you so much blood and treasure, by a well regulated Bill of Rights, from the encroachments of men in power.”
Federalist believe that a Bill of Rights is completely unnecessary and danger. Quote:”It has been several times truly remarked, that bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was Magna Carta, obtained by the Barons, sword in hand, from king John … It is evident, therefore, that according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain everything, they have no need of particular reservations.” How is having a Bill of Rights dangerous? If states and individual people have individuals right the Bill of Rights, then more people would agree, but Federalists think only more trouble will come.
Being a Federalists isn’t something anyone wants to waste their time doing. If one wants a central government with no Bill of rights, fine by them. The people need a strong person to follow if rights are to be in the Constitution and states need strong protection for their rights.