Final answer:
The Anti-Federalists argued that without a Bill of Rights, the Constitution would allow the national government too much power, potentially leading to abuse. This concern arose after experiencing a weak government under the Articles of Confederation, which had significant limitations that hindered effective governance and demonstrated the need for a stronger federal system.
Step-by-step explanation:
One of the main arguments put forth by the Anti-Federalists was that the Constitution lacked a Bill of Rights and the national government could abuse its power. The Anti-Federalists were concerned about the potential for a centralized power to become too strong, and without a Bill of Rights, they feared that individual liberties would not be adequately protected. This concern was in part a reaction to the perceived weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation, which had created a government that was too weak to effectively address the issues of the new nation, such as regulating commerce, raising an army, and paying down the national debt.
Under the Articles of Confederation, the state governments held most of the power, and the national government faced numerous limitations. These constraints included the inability to tax, control commerce, or provide for a national defense, culminating in events like Shays's Rebellion that highlighted the need for a stronger federal government. Determined not to repeat the oppression experienced under British rule, the Founders were initially cautious, leading to the confederation's limited powers. However, the shortcomings of this arrangement soon became apparent, driving the need for constitutional reform:
- Creating a stronger federal government to address the nation's challenges.
- Balancing this power with the independence and authority of the states.
- Protecting individual rights and preventing governmental abuses.