> I fully appreciate that the codification of the Constitution was a
> torturous,
> twisted, and "dicey" trail and tale. But I am of the opinion that its
> ratification would never have been achieved without the inclusion of the
> Bill of
> Rights -- the compromise that made our Constitution our guiding governing
> instrument.
> Anyway that what I learned in grade school.>

Good grade school. Yup its a big and complex story. In a nutshell: In
Delaware and other early-to-ratify states, the Constituion was adopted
promptly. From the Mass ratifying convention onward, however, the
pro-Constitution guys recognized that the people were demanding a bill of
rights. The nose-counts of pro- and anti- votes in convention were so
close that they came up with ratify-to-secure-the-Union and THEN
amend-as-needed argument.
   It worked in Mass, and after three weeks of debate in June 1788, by the
time Virginia's convention was ready for a final vote, the question
turned only on whether to insist upon amendments as a condition of
ratification or to ratify and then amend. Edmund Randolph, who had
refused to sign the document in Philadelphia, makes exactly this
argument in his first speech.
   Once the convention chose the latter, the anti-Federalists reigned
supreme in the General Assembly, and they sent two of their own to the
Senate - R H Lee and Wm Grayson - pointedly NOT James Madison. In fact,
Madison squeaked into the new House of Representatives only by
promising that he would push a bill of rights through Congress - a
promise on which he made good, but for which political pressure from
Henry, Mason, Grayson, Monroe and all Virginia's other anti-Federalists
was essential.



Dr. Jon Kukla, Executive Vice-President
Red Hill - The Patrick Henry National Memorial
1250 Red Hill Road
Brookneal, Virginia 24528
www.redhill.org

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html