The antifederalists opposed the ratification of the constitution because the new constitution a. didn't have a bill of rights that would guarantee basic freedoms. b. divided the nation into north and south. c. didn't expand federal power enough. d. was difficult for the average person to understand.

The correct answer is answer A ("The New Constitution didn't have a Bill of rights that would guarantee basic freedoms").

Anti-federalists believed that the New Constitution wouldn't effectively guarantee individuals liberties such as freedom of speech and religion without a Bill of Rigths.

Many important Federalist figures of the time like James Madison argued that these liberties weren't compromised at all, as the government wasn't allowed to take any actions that it wasn't explicitly allowed to. Also, most states already had a bill of rights of their own, and a Federal one would just be redundant. Mainly to silence these claims, however, the Bill of Rigths ended up being added to the Constitution.

Hope this helps!

abraham lincoln, according to anyone who was connected with agriculture, represented the worst of northern politicians. shortly after lincoln was elected, south carolina seceded from the union. they along with other southern states, retained their anger. in a way, it was their own fault: the democrats were split in the south. some wanted slavery to be extended in other states that were about to join the union and some didn't want it badly enough. lincoln had a solid backing from his party: the republicans were united in not wanting slavery to be expanded.

imperialism and colonization in 1936

part of the politics series

basic forms of government

power structure

separation

associated state dominion chiefdom

federalism

federation confederation devolution

integration

empire hegemony unitary state

administrative division

power source

democracy

power of many

direct representative liberal social demarchy others

oligarchy

power of few

anocracy aristocracy plutocracy kakistocracy kraterocracy stratocracy timocracy meritocracy technocracy geniocracy noocracy kritarchy particracy ergatocracy netocracy

autocracy

power of one

despotism dictatorship military dictatorship

others

anarchy theocracy

power ideology

monarchy vs. republic

socio-political ideologies

absolute legalist

constitutional

parliamentary directorial semi-presidential presidential

authoritarian vs. libertarian

socio-economic ideologies

tribalism despotism feudalism colonialism distributism anarchism socialism communism totalitarianism

global vs. local

geo-cultural ideologies

commune city-state national government intergovernmental organisation world government

politics portal

vte

an empire is a sovereign state functioning as an aggregate of nations or people that are ruled over by an emperor or another kind of monarch. the territory and population of an empire is commonly of greater extent than the one of a kingdom.[1]

an empire can be made solely of contiguous territories, such as the austro-hungarian empire or the russian empire, or of territories far remote from the homeland, such as a colonial empire. aside from the more formal usage, the word empire can also refer colloquially to a large-scale business enterprise (e.g. a transnational corporation), a political organisation controlled by a single individual (a political boss), or a group (political bosses).[2] the word empire is associated with such other words as imperialism, colonialism, and globalization. empire is often used to describe a displeasure to overpowering situations.[3]