Which statement best describes a difference between Federalists and Anti-Federalists?

• A. Federalists believed that a Bill of Rights wasn't needed; Anti-Federalists feared tyranny without one
• B. Anti-Federalists feared a strong central government
• C. Federalists supported a direct democracy
• D. Anti-Federalists favored more centralized power

Answer: (A)

The key idea here is how the two groups viewed protecting liberty under a new national government. Federalists argued that the Constitution’s framework would limit federal power through checks and balances and separation of powers, so a separate Bill of Rights wasn’t necessary to protect rights. Anti-Federalists, by contrast, feared that without explicit protections for individual liberties, the new central government could easily infringe on them, so they insisted on a Bill of Rights.

Understanding the historical context helps: the Constitution created a stronger national government, and its supervisors believed rights would be safeguarded by structure rather than by a list of rights. The Anti-Federalists worried that enumerating rights would be essential to prevent government overreach and to reassure the people that their freedoms wouldn’t be violated.

The other statements don’t capture this specific debate as clearly. While Anti-Federalists did fear a powerful central government, that concern is broader and doesn’t directly address why a Bill of Rights was demanded. The claims about direct democracy or about Anti-Federalists wanting more centralized power are simply not accurate descriptions of their positions.