Final answer:
The Anti-Federalists demanded protections for individual rights in the Constitution to prevent a strong central government from infringing on individual liberties. The inclusion of a Bill of Rights was seen as crucial for outlining these protections, ensuring the states' powers remained significant, and serving as a check against government overreach.
Step-by-step explanation:
Why Anti-Federalists Demanded Protection for Individual Rights
The Anti-Federalists argued that the Constitution of 1787 needed to include a Bill of Rights because they feared the potential for a powerful centralized government to infringe on individual liberties. They contended that without explicit protections, citizens' rights would be vulnerable to government abuse. The elastic clause of Article I, Section 8, they believed, could allow Congress to legislate far beyond the powers originally intended. Leaders like George Mason and Patrick Henry stressed that civil liberties must be clearly defined and protected to prevent the emergence of a tyrannical government. Their demands led to the promise of a Bill of Rights to accompany the ratified Constitution.
It's significant to note that the Anti-Federalists were largely concerned with maintaining strong state sovereignty and feared a diminution of their power through the establishment of a strong central government. They were skeptical of the ability of a large federal republic to understand and protect the diverse interests of its citizens, and believed that listing individual rights would act as a check against potential governmental overreach.
In essence, the Anti-Federalists were champions of a margin of safety for the governed against the governors. Their insistence on a Bill of Rights proved prophetic, as the national government's powers expanded over time, validating their concerns about the breadth of federal authority.