Debated Issue Federalists Anti-Federalists
Bill of Rights They opposed a bill of rights in the Constitution because they thought the state constitutions guaranteed individual rights. They agreed to add the Bill of Rights as a condition of ratification. They believed that a bill of rights needed to be in the Constitution to guarantee that the new federal government would not take away those rights. They successfully campaigned to have the Bill of Rights added to the Constitution after ratification.
state sovereignty
presidential power Federalist praised the Presidency. They pointed to the weaknesses of the Confederation and state governments with their nearly powerless executives. For Federalists, America needed a separate President with executive powers to enforce federal laws and conduct foreign policy effectively. Antifederalists thought that the President would become an elected monarch, that cabals would develop to ensure his reelection, and that the presidential veto power would be abused.
political corruption
taxation

The Debate over Ratification Those who supported the Constitution became known as federalists and those who opposed its ratification were called antifederalists. ... The antifederalists favored strong state governments and believed that the national government created by the Constitution was too strong.

Federalists argued that the Constitution did not need a bill of rights, because the people and the states kept any powers not given to the federal government. Anti-Federalists held that a bill of rights was necessary to safeguard individual liberty.

The amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, were designed to protect the basic rights of U.S. citizens, guaranteeing the freedom of speech, press, assembly, and exercise of religion; the right to fair legal procedure and to bear arms; and that powers not delegated to the federal government were reserved for the states ...