Final answer:
As a Federalist in 1787, I would argue for a strong centralized government for national defense and economic growth, citing the views of Federalist leaders James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, while acknowledging the Anti-Federalist concerns addressed by the Bill of Rights and the Tenth Amendment.
Step-by-step explanation:
As a citizen in 1787, one might argue for the Constitution as a Federalist, asserting that a strong centralized government is necessary for the nation to thrive. Famous Federalists include James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, who with John Jay, wrote the Federalist Papers advocating for ratification.
In contrast, notable Anti-Federalists such as Patrick Henry and George Mason contended that the Constitution gave too much power to the national government and lacked a bill of rights to protect individual liberties.
As a Federalist, one might defend their position by highlighting the need for national defense and economic stability, which a fragmented confederacy of states cannot provide.
A central government could maintain a national currency and a consistent foreign policy, which are crucial for business and diplomatic relations.
Moreover, the inclusion of the Tenth Amendment and the later addition of the Bill of Rights were responses to concerns about federal overreach, ensuring that rights were protected and the powers not delegated to the federal government were reserved to the states or the people.