The Anti-federalist thought the bigger the growth of the government the less free we were

 "If respect is to be paid to the opinion of the greatest and wisest men who have ever thought or wrote on the science of government, we shall be contrained to conclude, that a free republic cannot succeed over a country of such immense extent, containing such a number of inhabitants, and these encreasing in such rapid progression as that of the whole United States. Among the many illustrious authorities which might be produced to this point, I shall content myself with quoting only two. The one is Baron de Montesquieu, Spirit of Laws, Chap. XVI. Vol. 1[book VIII]. 'It is natural to a republic to have only a small territory, otherwise it cannot long subsist. In a large republic there are men of larger fortunes, and consequently of less moderation; there are trusts too great to be placed in any single subject; he has interest of his own; he soon begins to think that he may be happy, great and glorious, by oppressing his fellow citizens; and that he may raise himself to grandeur on the ruins of his country. In a large republic, the public good is sacrificed to a thousand views; it is subordinate to exceptions, and depends on accidents, in a small one, the interest of the public is easier perceived, better understood, and more within the reach of every citizen; abuses are of less extent, and of course are less protected.' Of the same opinion is Marquis Beccaria." - Probably Robert Yates, 'Brutus' in The Anti-Federalist Papers, Page 288 and 289

it's interesting to read these people. They quote a lot from Montesquieu. I was once told that when reading someone whether in opposition or not, to go back and read who they quote to get a broader view of what is being said and why.