In the first case, representation in Congress, Melancton Smith was Anti-Federalists member chief objections to the constitution was that the house representatives were not representative enough. Smith believed, “Representatives should be a true picture of the people…while it embraces the men of the first class, it should admit those of the middling class of life” (page 2). I think Anti-Federalists was worrying about the lower-class, such as the middle-class farmer (Yeoman) will hardly ever be chosen. According to the Anti-Federalists’ arguments, when the number of representatives is small, it means the representatives is not enough to serve the government, and there will be a competitive for only rich people because …show more content…
Melancton Smith states, “We have no reason to hold our state governments in contempt, or to suppose them incapable of acting wisely…The state constitutions should be the guardians of our domestic rights and interests, and should be both the support and the check of the federal government” (page 9). The Anti-Federal worrying about the reducing the benefits of the state government while the federal government was taking interests over state governments. However, Federal very supports this system because they believed this could help both sides of state and federal governments to cooperation together, and developing in various fields. Alexander Hamilton said in his speech, “Gentlemen ought not, then, to presume that the advocates of this Constitution are influenced by ambitious views. The suspicion, sir, is unjust; the charge is uncharitable” (page 10). Hamilton was angry when the Anti-Federalists said that Federalists only interested in rank and power, but as Hamilton’s opinion that the federal government will be ruined if they against the interests of the people. Whereas the Anti-Federalists insist assume, the country is infested because of the government taking people’s