Final answer:
The Antifederalists required a Bill of Rights to protect against federal overreach, while the Federalists believed it was unnecessary and could be risky, given that unlisted rights might be infringed. The conflict was resolved when Federalists agreed to add a Bill of Rights to secure the Constitution's ratification.
Step-by-step explanation:
The Antifederalists believed that a Bill of Rights was absolutely necessary to protect individual liberties from a potentially expansive federal government. They pointed to provisions like the elastic clause in the Constitution which they felt could be used to extend federal powers well beyond intended limits. A figure such as Brutus, likely Robert Yates, argued that the same constraints applied to state governments should be placed on the federal government to protect life, liberty, and property.
On the other hand, the Federalists considered a Bill of Rights unnecessary and potentially harmful, fearing it could lead to violations of rights not specifically enumerated. They believed a strong central government was essential for the nation's survival and argued that the new government would not become tyrannical. Their conviction was articulated in the Federalist Papers, pivotal essays written to encourage the ratification of the Constitution.
The debate was a cornerstone of American democratic development, leading to the Great Compromise in which Federalists agreed to add a Bill of Rights to the Constitution. This compromise effectively resolved the impasse and the Constitution was ratified, with the Bill of Rights becoming some of the most well-known and significant elements of American law.