Critics from both sides have complained about how slavery is treated in this proposed Constitution. Some wanted more protections for the institution of slavery, while others wanted it abolished entirely.
The only way to move forward is to compromise. We must leave this debate to the future.
Whose argument is it? Federalism or Anti-Federalism

Federalism.

Explanation:

Before the United States Constitution, there were the Articles of Confederation. They were very weak and gave little to no power to the government. Under the Articles, the government could not tax the states, draft soldiers, regulate trade, create and enforce laws properly, and other important matters.

People who were in favor of the Articles of Confederation were Anti-Federalists. They wanted to keep a small government and often associated having a strong government with British tyranny. Those who were in favor of a new constitution were called Federalists, they associated having a strong government with having a strong country.

Along with this, the argument you stated is an argument that a Federalist would say. The Articles were getting scrapped and the United States Constitution was being created instead and some people were not happy with how slavery was being treated. Some thought protections on slavery would just be enough, as many people during this time relied on slavery for their main source of income. Some thought slavery was entirely inhumane and wanted to abolish it completely.

"The only way to move forward is to compromise. We must leave this debate to the future."

This is a federalism argument regarding slavery.

b. 155 enlisted men and no officers

answer: false. due to the church's swaying authority on common law, it influenced secular music greatly.

explanation: