Final answer:
The absence of a bill of rights in the original draft of the U.S. Constitution was a significant factor that led many people, including Anti-Federalists and key states, to oppose its ratification. A bill of rights was later promised and added as the first ten amendments, which eased concerns about individual liberties and helped secure the Constitution's acceptance.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that the absence of a bill of rights was cause for many people to oppose ratification of the Constitution is true. When the Constitution was sent to the states for ratification, immediate concern arose about the lack of explicit protection for individual liberties. This concern was not a trivial one; it was shared by a number of states, including but not limited to New York, Virginia, and Massachusetts, who feared that a strong centralized government could endanger the rights and freedoms they cherished.
Anti-Federalists, in particular, were vocal in their opposition to the Constitution without a bill of rights, leading to Rhode Island and North Carolina refusing to ratify the document. Prominent figures like George Mason and Patrick Henry also opposed the Constitution as it stood. To address these concerns and to ensure the participation of the largest and most influential states, the promise of a bill of rights was indispensable in swaying opinion and was instrumental in the subsequent ratification of the Constitution. The addition of the first ten amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, was a critical factor in the acceptance of the Constitution by providing the assurances demanded by skeptics of a strong central government.