The Anti-Feds were interested in freedom, not empire. The facts are clear 240 years later. Every danger they warned of has happened.
It's kind of interesting to me because both sides were right in some ways.
For instance, the Federalists warned that adding a list of rights specifically called out as being protected (i.e., the Bill of Rights) to the document would lead many to argue that only those rights were protected, and not others. I can't tell you how many times I've seen, on this very forum, people arguing against an inherent right to privacy, or the common law right to travel. It's obvious the Federalists were right in this case. However, the Anti-Federalists argued that if you didn't include them, then those rights would not be respected at all. I believe it is equally obvious to anyone that this is the case. We need merely look at the arguments against us exercising our 2nd Amendment rights that even having them listed isn't enough to prevent government from eviscerating them.
I can just imagine how little support there would be on Free Republic amongst alleged "conservatives" for a right to keep silent would be, or how much support among the ctrl-left you'd find for speech codes like they have in Canada and Britain.