Final answer:
The Anti-Federalists argued that a strong central government could become oppressive without a Bill of Rights to protect individual liberties. They feared the Constitution gave too much power to the federal government at the cost of states' rights, a concern that seems somewhat prescient given the federal government's growth in scope since then. Their defeat led to the compromise of incorporating the Bill of Rights.
Step-by-step explanation:
The best evidence and arguments from the Anti-Federalists, can be understood by reviewing their critique of the proposed Constitution in documents such as Brutus No. 1. A core assertion was that a large centralized government would be prone to become oppressive and distance itself from the people's needs. They believed that including a Bill of Rights was essential to safeguard individual liberties against potential government overreach. The Anti-Federalist Brutus argued the proposed Constitution granted too much power to the federal government at the expense of states' rights and individual freedoms, stating that such centralized power should be restrained, similar to the limits placed on state governments.
These arguments highlight the Anti-Federalists' concerns regarding the potential for a strong central government to infringe upon the rights and liberties of citizens. Historical developments since the Constitution's ratification seem to support their concerns with the federal government's role having significantly expanded beyond its original scope, thereby hinting at the prescience of their warnings.
Ultimately, while the Anti-Federalists' predictions of federal expansion were accurate, their defeat in the ratification process led to their proposals and concerns being partially addressed through the subsequent adoption of the Bill of Rights, affirming some of their arguments.