Anti-Federalist No. 40 is a compilation of articles.

The Anti-Federalist Party, led by Patrick Henry, objected to the constitution.

Anti-Federalist Papers: "Brutus" - Constitution Society

The other specter that has been raised to terrify and alarm the people outof the exercise of their judgment on this great occasion, is the dread of oursplitting into separate confederacies or republics, that might become rivalpowers and consequently liable to mutual wars from the usual motives ofcontention. This is an event still more improbable than the foregoing. It is apresumption unwarranted, either by the situation of affairs, or the sentimentsof the people; no disposition leading to it exists; the advocates of the newconstitution seem to view such a separation with horror, and its opponents arestrenuously contending for a confederation that shall embrace all America underits comprehensive and salutary protection. This hobgoblin appears to havesprung from the deranged brain of Publius, [The Federalist] a New York writer,who, mistaking sound for argument, has with Herculean labor accumulated myriadsof unmeaning sentences, and mechanically endeavored to force conviction by atorrent of misplaced words. He might have spared his readers the fatigue ofwading through his long-winded disquisitions on the direful effects of thecontentions of inimical states, as totally inapplicable to the subject he wasprofessedly treating; this writer has devoted much time, and wasted more paperin combating chimeras of his own creation.

Mostly the Anti-Federalists thought that the Constitution created too strong a .

Brutus (Antifederalist) - Wikipedia

. . . . It has been the language, since the peace, of the most virtuous anddiscerning men in America, that the powers vested in Congress were inadequate tothe procuring of the benefits that should result from the union. It was foundthat our national character was sinking in the opinion of foreign nations, andthat the selfish views of some of the states were likely to become the source ofdangerous jealousy. The requisitions of Congress were set at naught; thegovernment, that represented the union, had not a shilling in its treasury toenable it to pay off the federal debts, nor had it any method within its powerto alter its situation. It could make treaties of commerce, but could notenforce the observance of them; and it was felt that we were suffering from therestrictions of foreign nations, who seeing the want of energy in our federalconstitution, and the unlikelihood of cooperation in thirteen separatelegislatures, had shackled our commerce, without any dread of recrimination onour part. To obviate these grievances, it was I believe the general opinion,that new powers should be vested in Congress to enable it, in the amplestmanner, to regulate the commerce, to lay and collect duties on the imports ofthe United States. Delegates were appointed by most of them, for thosepurposes, to a convention to be held at Annapolis in the September before last.

The two major parties in this battle were the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists.

"A DEMOCRATIC FEDERALIST," appeared in "the PennsylvaniaPacket," October 23, 1787; the following portion of #29, & #30 are excerpted from "The Address And Reasons Of Dissent Of The Minority Of The Convention Of The State Of Pennsylvania To Their Constituents," December 12, 1787.

The two major parties in this battle were the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists.