I am arguing for the Anti-federalists because they weren’t completely against federalism and were against having a strong central government. They wanted more power in the hands of the states and along with that the bill of rights was introduced.
The Federalist supported the constitution and felt that there were no issues with it and had the constitution ratified immediately. They also supported a strong central government. “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”. "A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of…show more content… Hey strictly wanted more power in the hands of the states. Some Anti-Federalist believed that “As long as we can preserve our unalienable rights, we are in safety”. They believed this because few were interested in the Bill of Rights and what it offered and others were totally against the Constitution. They favored the New Jersey Plan because it provided them with they wanted which was more power in the hands of the states. "It is the opinion of the greatest writers, that a very extensive country cannot be governed on democratical principles, on any other plan, than a confederation of a number of small republics, possessing all the powers of internal government, but united in the management of their foreign and general