Final answer:
Anti-Federalists objected to the Constitution's strong federal government and absence of a bill of rights, calling for more state autonomy and protections for individual rights. Federalists responded that a robust central government was crucial, eventually agreeing to add a bill of rights.
Step-by-step explanation:
The Anti-Federalists were proponents of strong state sovereignty and a weaker federal government, fearing that the new Constitution consolidated too much power at the national level and lacked a bill of rights to safeguard individual liberties.
They believed that a large federal republic would fail to represent the diverse interests of the citizens and that local governments, closer to the people, could better protect freedoms. The Anti-Federalists foresaw a political environment where the centralized authority would serve the elite, creating a government much like the British system they had rebelled against.
Their insistence on a bill of rights as a condition for ratification reflected the importance they placed on individual rights and limitations to government power. In contrast, Federalists argued that a strong central government was necessary for the nation's survival and prosperity, ultimately promising to include a bill of rights.