Antifederalist saw the Constitution as a way for the Federalist to gain more control over the states. This was seen as the opposite for the Federalist Party because they just wanted to create a central government that was strong enough to run the whole country. The Antifederalist Party was totally against the ratification because they were afraid that the national government would become too powerful and take advantage of their power. The Federalist Party was for the Constitution because they saw it as a way for the people to get more involved in the government since the most powerful branch would be directly linked to the people. Lastly, the Antifederalists saw the Constitution as a way to take the power of the states away while the Federalists interpreted the Constitution as a way for the states and the national government to have similar powers that still allow the national government to handle national affairs rather than having the states do it.
It is probably more nearly correct to state that the Northern states offered more fertile soil for industrialization to grow and prosper than the South. The comments above about slavery are misstated. The Southern economy was indeed agrarian and dependent upon slave labor; however the reason for this is was that the economy in that portion of the country consisted of large scale plantations of staple crops, primarily cotton. It is manifestly incorrect to state...
I think it would be option C. John Roebling
Hoped this helped. :)
I would say that these ideas most likely appealed to so many people because t<span>hey promised a way for people to end worldly suffering.
People were sick of seeing other people, including themselves, suffer every single day in this rotten world, which is why they wanted to seek help somehow. They managed to find it in Buddhism, which recommended walking down the rightful path in order to end suffering and pain.
</span>
