Answer: The Federalists and Anti-Federalists were divided over ratification of the Constitution because they had different ideas about the role and power of the federal government.
The Federalists, who supported ratification of the Constitution, believed that a stronger central government was necessary to unify the country and provide for the common defense. They also believed that a stronger central government would be better able to address the economic and financial problems facing the country at the time. They saw the Constitution as a way to create a more effective government that would be able to resolve the issues that the Articles of Confederation had failed to address.
On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists, who opposed ratification of the Constitution, believed that a strong central government would be a threat to individual liberty and state sovereignty. They were worried that the Constitution would create a government that was too powerful and would have too much control over the lives of the citizens. They believed that the Constitution gave too much power to the federal government and that it would be able to trample on the rights of the states and the people.
Additionally, the Anti-Federalists were concerned about the lack of a Bill of Rights in the Constitution, which would have protected individual rights and freedoms. They feared that without such a bill, the federal government would be able to infringe on the rights of citizens. Federalists argued that a bill of rights was unnecessary because the Constitution already limited the powers of the federal government and the Bill of rights would be added later.
In short, the Federalists and Anti-Federalists were divided over ratification of the Constitution because they had different views on the role and power of the federal government, specifically on how much power it should have and how it would affect the rights and liberties of the citizens and states.
Step-by-step explanation: