The argument posed by the anti-federalist is justified because they supported the centralized system and the bill of rights, unlike their counterparts who supported a decentralized government system and the constitution. The federalists thought that the constitution was sufficient without the bill of rights. However, this system strengthened the mandate of the national government because the constitution gave the national authority more unnoticed power.
A centralized system of government creates leeway for oppression because the federal government has a strong mandate over the state government. Furthermore, this system protects the national government from being challenged by anyone because they have a large measure of sovereignty. Therefore, the anti-federalists had their prediction right because the constitution did not accommodate the bills of rights and deducted power from the state and local courts.
The federalist arguments were camouflaged to help convince the anti-federalists to support their recommendations. For instance, the bill of rights is covered in the constitution, but they fail to protect the citizens in reality. Peaceful demonstrations are allowed under the constitution but are only acceptable when supported by the national government. For example, the Black Lives Matter demonstrations were legal but faced police brutality, according to the death statistics of the protestors. The protests indicated protected freedom risked by people in authority who opposed the idea. This action proves that demonstration is freedom accommodated in the constitution, but its tolerance depends on whether the individuals in power support or counter the protest. Considering this factor, the anti-federalist opinion that the bills of rights will be infringed is justified.