Reddit mentions of Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788

judicial scholars sure, not historians (except for the ones that write high school history textbooks) I was referencing the author of Ratification Debates:
https://www.amazon.com/Ratification-People-Debate-Constitution-1787-1788/dp/0684868555

She makes a good point in the book that we really should look to the ratification debates and not the federalist papers. The papers where written by the consitutions authors sure, but the debates are where people debated the constitution and then voted on ratification. Every single ratification convention in all the states had some delegates from the constitutional convention present to answer any question/comments the citizens had. These Q&A sessions shed a lot more light on how the founding GENERATION understood the constitution, which is arguably more important than how the framers understood it

Ask Historians isn't a place for homework questions. Having said that an invaluable resource on the subject is Pauline Maier's "Ratification: People Debate the Constitution".

It's probably the most thorough account of the ratification and debate process throughout America.

I will say this--the term anti-federalist was a term that was not used by opponents of the Constitution, but was applied to them by their opponents and then used by later historians. It was a wide coalition of groups that opposed ratification for a large number of reasons that varied from personal enmity amongst political figures, to local vs state control, to economic interests, to religious interests, to a host of other ones.

Much like there isn't a single reason for the Revolutionary War, there isn't a single reason for opposition or support to the Constitution.