Antifederalists:

The Antifederalists thought the Constitution gave the Federal government too much control over commerce; they thought that laws regarding commerce should not be passed except by 3/4 of each chamber of Congress.  The Federalists thought a simple majority was sufficient, as the Constitution provided.

The Antifederalists thought the Federal government should not have so much power over the  state militias as the Constitution gave it.  The Federalists thought the Federal government should have power over the state militias.

The Antifederalists thought the Constitution gave the President too much power and he would end up being like a king.  The Federalists wanted a powerful president.

The Antifederalists thought each state should have the same vote in Congress.  Some Federalists thought more populous states should have more votes in Congress.  Some Federalists thought wealthier states should have more votes in Congress.

The Federalists pointed out that under the Articles of Confederation, the Confederation government could not directly tax the people, thus it could not repay foreign debts, it could not mount a respectable foreign diplomacy, it could not provide for an effective national defense.  The Antifederalists thought that if the Federal government could tax the people directly, it would use this taxing power to raise and spend far more money than good government needs and would grow far bigger and more oppressive than good government needs to be.

The Antifederalists pointed out that the Constitution did not guarantee freedom of speech and other freedoms that Englishmen and British Americans had long enjoyed.  Federalists said that it did not need to guarantee them because it did not give the government permission to violate them.

Antifederalists thought that the Constitution gave the Federal government so much power that it would do things it wanted to do whether or not the Constitution gave permission.  The Federalists said that separation of powers and the very many and diverse interests that existed in so vast a republic would prevent abuses of the power.

The Antifederalists said that the Constitution should provide a means for the states to veto unconstitutional laws by Congress.  The Federalists said "no," the Constitution should provide for the Federal government to veto unconstitutional laws by states.

The Antifederalists said the President should refuse to enforce laws that he thought were unconstitutional and the Supreme Court should refuse to hear cases brought under laws that it thought were unconstitutional.  The Federalists said the Supreme Court should rule on the constitutionality of laws and the President should obey the Court.

The Antifederalists wanted the Federal government to have power to do only what could be done better by all the states collectively than by each state individually.  Things such as national defense, foreign treaties, regulation of commerce.  All other matters, such as welfare, transportation improvements, regulation of property, inspection of businesses, etc., should be left up to the states and the Federal government should have no power over them.  Federalists desired a more powerful central government than this interpretation would have permited.

No doubt there were more arguments than I can remember.

In addition to the stronger national government vs states rights arguement, many Anti-Federalists also were hesitant to pass the Constitution as it was written, because it did not provide for individual liberties.  They were promised a set of amendments (Bill of Rights) if ratification could proceed.

Many Federalists were elitists that did not believe in the people's ability to vote wisely.  Some believed that having a king would solve the problem of depending upon an educated population to make wise choice.  Anti-Feds, on the other hand, believed that educating the populus was all that was needed in order to ensure a truly representative government.

The ratification of the U.S. Constitution was anything but a slam dunk.  Both during and after the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, two camps emerged that maintained distinct ideas as to how the new nation should govern itself.  These differences would set the tone for a lively process of debate leading up to ratification itself.

Under the rule of King George III, the American colonies found themselves as little more than a "cash cow" for the English monarchy.  As England attempted to regain the money lost during the defense of her colonies during the French and Indian War with taxes, colonial leaders rallied around the cry of "no taxation without representation."

While many of the taxes were not overly oppressive, they demonstrated the total control the monarchy maintained over her colonies.  This strict governmental control would be a significant factor when the first written plan of government—the Articles of Confederation—was drafted for the newly formed United States of America.

The Articles were intentionally made to be very relaxed, and the central government maintained no legitimate control over the individual states.  This period in our history was known as "The Critical Period" because we meandered through the 1780s with no real central government.

By 1787 it was obvious the government would have to be revamped, and from the Constitutional Convention came a document that created a much stronger central authority that could manage and maintain a higher level of control over the states of the Union.

Without question, not everyone was happy with this development. For the Constitution to be ratified and become the law of the land, 9 of the 13 states would have to approve it. This set in motion a series of debates between those in favor of a much stronger central authority (Federalists) and those who favored more control to the states (Anti-Federalists).

One of the major problems the Anti-Federalist camp had with the Constitution was the fact it did not include any protections of individual freedoms. Eventually, the Anti-Federalists were successful in securing a Bill of Rights to express, in writing, the personal liberties that would become the foundation of the country.

The Federalists campaigned for ratification through persuasive pamphlets called "The Federalist Papers." These papers attempted to address the concerns of the Anti-Federalists and are today considered classic historical writings.

In the end, the Federalists were successful—no doubt helped along by support from such highly esteemed people as George Washington and Ben Franklin.  Among the more well known Anti-Federalists were Patrick Henry and Thomas Paine.  The debate concerning strong government versus a more relaxed government continues to this day.  

The Federalists and Anti-Federalists were two opposing political groups who emerged in the late-eighteenth century, when the Constitution was under debate.

On one side, the Federalists were strongly in favour of adopting a Constitution. They believed that a strong central government was the only way to protect the liberties earned in the American Revolution. In the words of James Madison, a Federalist leader: the Constitution was a "Republican remedy for the diseases most incident to Republican government."

On the other side were the Anti-Federalists. These men were strongly opposed to the Constitution because they believed that it gave too much power to the central government that, in their opinion, was incapable of representing the ordinary citizen. They were also concerned that the proposed Constitution didn't affirm certain liberties, like freedom of speech. As a compromise, the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution in 1791 in the form of the first ten amendments.