The Constitution?

Question

Why did Anti-Federalists believe that the design of the constitution was insufficient to protect individual rights and, in fact, would lead to violations of rights by the new national government?

Answer 1

Because the Constitution itself doesn't protect individual rights.....hence the reason for the Bill of Rights!

You can thank George Mason and his persistence for that!

They based the Bill of Rights on George Mason's Virginia Declaration of Rights.

Answer 2

The first Anti-Federalist movement formed in reaction to the Federalist movement of the 1780s. It opposed the creation of a stronger national government under the Constitution and sought to leave the government under the Articles of Confederation intact.
The second Anti-Federalist movement formed in reaction to Alexander Hamilton's aggressive fiscal policies of George Washington's first administration. This movement is sometimes called the Anti-Administration "Party", and it would coalesce into one of the nation's first two true political parties, the Democratic-Republican Party of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison (not to be confused with the modern Republican Party).
During the period of debate over the ratification of the Constitution, numerous independent local speeches and articles were published all across the country. Initially, many of the articles in opposition were written under pseudonyms, such as "Brutus", "Centinel", and "Federal Farmer". Eventually, famous revolutionary figures such as Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson came out publicly against the Constitution. They argued that the strong national government proposed by the Federalists was a threat to the rights of individuals and that the President would become a king. They objected to the federal court system created by the proposed constitution. This produced a phenomenal body of political writing; the best and most influential of these articles and speeches were gathered by historians into a collection known as the Anti-Federalist Papers in allusion to the Federalist Papers.

In every state the opposition to the Constitution was strong, and in two states — North Carolina and Rhode Island — it prevented ratification until the definite establishment of the new government practically forced their adhesion. Individualism was the strongest element of opposition; the necessity, or at least the desirability, of a bill of rights was almost universally felt. In Rhode Island resistance against the Constitution was so strong that civil war almost broke out on July 4, 1788, when anti-federalists led by Judge William West marched into Providence with over 1,000 armed protesters.

The Anti-Federalists were able to play upon these feelings in the ratification convention in Massachusetts. By this point, five of the states had ratified the Constitution with relative ease, but the Massachusetts convention was far more bitter and contentious. Finally, after long debate, a compromise (known as the "Massachusetts compromise") was reached: Massachusetts would ratify the Constitution, but include in the ratifying instrument a recommendation that the Constitution be amended with a bill of rights. (The Federalists contended that a conditional ratification would be void, so the recommendation was the strongest support that the ratifying convention could give to a bill of rights short of rejecting the Constitution.)

Four of the next five states to ratify, including New Hampshire, Virginia, and New York, included similar language in their ratification instruments. As a result, once the Constitution became operative in 1789, Congress sent a set of twelve amendments to the states. Ten of these amendments were immediately ratified and became known as the Bill of Rights. Thus, while the Anti-Federalists were unsuccessful in their quest to prevent the adoption of the Constitution, their efforts were not totally in vain. This cemented the Anti-Federalists as among the founding fathers of the United States.

Answer 3

The Constitution when originally written did not have the bill of rights amendments included. the Anti-Federalists feared that the Federal government would take away individuals rights that were granted in State constitutions as well as the rights of sovereignty of the States themselves.

Answer 4

Not an answer but an interjection. If the asker can figure out a way to give points to each of the answers, especially cub cowboy do it! I don't care if he is writing it from any single source or many it is one of best general overviews overall of the Federalist , anti- federalist controversys I have seen in a long time.
Kudos to the first four answers!

Answer 5

Do happen to be participating in We The People tomorrow morning? Good Luck!