Question

citing text evidence how does the primary source support what the text states about the federalists and anti - federalists? type your response here. the anti - federalists strongest argument, however, was that the constitution lacked a bill of rights and, therefore, failed to protect citizens from their own government. the convention had, in fact, considered adding a list of peoples rights. in their discussions, they concluded logically that it was not necessary to have a bill of rights, reasoning that the constitution did not authorize the government to violate the rights of the people. this was not good enough for the anti - federalists, who warned that without a bill of rights the strong national government might take away the rights that were won in the revolution. they demanded that the new constitution clearly guarantee the peoples freedoms. one of the strongest opponents of the constitution was patrick henry, the passionate delegate from virginia. he voiced his position eloquently: the necessity of a bill of rights appears to me to be greater in this government than ever it was in any government before... all rights not expressly and unequivocally reserved to the people are impliedly and incidentally relinquished to rulers... if you intend to reserve your unalienable rights, you must have the most express stipulation; for if the people do not think it necessary to reserve them, they will be supposed to be given up.

Explanation:

The text shows that Anti - Federalists argued the Constitution lacked a bill of rights to protect citizens' rights. Patrick Henry, a delegate from Virginia, was a strong opponent of the Constitution as it did not guarantee people's rights clearly. Federalists failed to convince them that the government would not violate rights without a bill of rights.

Answer:

The text supports the Anti - Federalists' argument that the Constitution lacked a bill of rights to protect citizens' rights. The Anti - Federalists, like Patrick Henry, were concerned that the new government might take away rights without a bill of rights, as the Constitution did not clearly guarantee people's rights.