That the Anti-Federalists would have created, in a Constitution they worked to defeat, a listing of rights that might have overridden some of their own states' domestic policies is absurd.
The fact is that the Federalists were mostly reluctant to add a Bill of Rights claiming that a bill of rights would only prohibit the federal government from doing things it had not the power to do anyway and might also be read to expand federal powers beyond those expressly enumerated to do whatever is not expressly prohibited by the bill of rights.
Conversely, the Anti-Federalists argued for a bill of rights...but not on the grounds that a listing of rights would protect individuals from both the new federal government and existing state governments. Rather, the Anti-Federalists argued that the Constitution left open the possibility of broad federal power against which the people needed a bill of rights.
why the framers of this Constitution omitted a bill of rights; if it had been, they would not have made certain reservations, while they totally omitted others of more importance. We find they have, in the ninth section of the first article declared, that the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless in cases of rebellion,-that no bill of attainder, or ex post facto law, shall be passed,-that no title of nobility shall be granted by the United States, etc. If every thing which is not given is reserved, what propriety is there in these exceptions? Does this Constitution any where grant the power of suspending the habeas corpus, to make ex post facto laws, pass bills of attainder, or grant titles of nobility? It certainly does not in express terms. The only answer that can be given is, that these are implied in the general powers granted. With equal truth it may be said, that all the powers which the bills of rights guard against the abuse of, are contained or implied in the general ones granted by this Constitution.
--Anti-Federalist #84
The Anti-Federalists did not want a new federal government at all and certainly did not want to see the Constitution make illegal certain policies that existed in certain states at the time the Bill of Rights were ratified. The fact is that, in 1791, several states had official texpayer-supported churches. Several states did not guarantee jury trials in cases valued at more than $20.
That these states were jealously protective of their own internal policies is likely why the Senate (members of which were selected by the state legislatures and was therefore the legislative body representative of the states) rejected the proposed amendment that Madison believed the most important...the amendment that would have expressly restricted the states:
No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases
There is no Declaration of Rights, and the laws of the general government being paramount to the laws and constitution of the several States, the Declarations of Rights in the separate States are no security. Nor are the people secured even in the enjoyment of the benefit of the common law. George Mason Objections to the Constitution
We the People explicitly said "shall not be infringed". We the People demanded privacy and security in our possessions. We the People demanded our rights of conscience not be violated. We the People placed those limits on ANY government operating in the US.
These are our Rights. A minimal set protected under the "Supreme law of the Land". Take them from us and we'll take back the power you are stealing. By force if necessary.