Been re-studying the United States Constitutional Convention, and I've been thinking about just how much things could have gone differently. Generally, people talk about how the different Compromises could have been hashed out between the various Plans (Virginia's, New Jersey's, etc. etc.), but I'm presently more interested in more specifics.
For example, I'm struck by how the not-yet dubbed Anti-Federalists choose the least effective method of opposing the measures to strengthen the Federal Government: boycotting the Convention, by and large. Not to mention that Rhode Island completely boycotted it and didn't even ratify until after the new Federal government was sworn in.
And, on the Federalist side, there was Hamilton's threat to have NYC secede from NY state when the governor was stymying the state's ratification of the Constitution.
All sorts of fun little details.
So, to start, lets posit that Patrick Henry decides to attend the Convention, and that leads to a stronger Anti-Federalist representation there. We might also assume that Rhode Island might also attend.
On the one hand, they might just gum up the works and slow things down, or totally derail the process. On the other hand, the anti-Federalist were not malicious, and tended to be just as patriotic to the cause of America as their Federalist opponents. Patrick Henry, after all, eventually came to support the Federalist Party, and opposed Nullification. So, I don't think it would be unreasonable to assert that they would work in good faith to get the Constitution more in line with what they would want.
And what might that be?
Well, the most obvious would that the Bill of Rights would be included in the actual Constitution, rather than as amendments. If it maintains the same basic structure of several articles (7 historically), this would probably be the 8th article, or, if you're feeling poetic, bump it up to the 1st article.
While simply putting the Bill of Rights into the Constitution before Ratification might seem like nothing, there are some changes that might happen. For example, two of the Amendments were not initially passed; the first defined apportionment to the House of Representatives, and the second limited Congressional pay, eventually made it in as the 27th Amendment. So, that might be in from the get-go, meaning that the House might be much larger as the US grew, unless Amended.
Another change might be the Enumerated Powers. Simply put, the Anti-Federalists might defeat the inclusion of the Necessary and Proper clause, or weaken it (perhaps by requiring any law passed on the basis of being necessary and proper to obtain a super-majority). If the N&P is totally struck, I could see many more amendments to the Constitution, as additional Enumerated Powers are added as seen fit by contemporaries.
I'd go on, but my wife is glaring at me for spending too much time typing up history stuff for now. Discuss away.
For example, I'm struck by how the not-yet dubbed Anti-Federalists choose the least effective method of opposing the measures to strengthen the Federal Government: boycotting the Convention, by and large. Not to mention that Rhode Island completely boycotted it and didn't even ratify until after the new Federal government was sworn in.
And, on the Federalist side, there was Hamilton's threat to have NYC secede from NY state when the governor was stymying the state's ratification of the Constitution.
All sorts of fun little details.
So, to start, lets posit that Patrick Henry decides to attend the Convention, and that leads to a stronger Anti-Federalist representation there. We might also assume that Rhode Island might also attend.
On the one hand, they might just gum up the works and slow things down, or totally derail the process. On the other hand, the anti-Federalist were not malicious, and tended to be just as patriotic to the cause of America as their Federalist opponents. Patrick Henry, after all, eventually came to support the Federalist Party, and opposed Nullification. So, I don't think it would be unreasonable to assert that they would work in good faith to get the Constitution more in line with what they would want.
And what might that be?
Well, the most obvious would that the Bill of Rights would be included in the actual Constitution, rather than as amendments. If it maintains the same basic structure of several articles (7 historically), this would probably be the 8th article, or, if you're feeling poetic, bump it up to the 1st article.
While simply putting the Bill of Rights into the Constitution before Ratification might seem like nothing, there are some changes that might happen. For example, two of the Amendments were not initially passed; the first defined apportionment to the House of Representatives, and the second limited Congressional pay, eventually made it in as the 27th Amendment. So, that might be in from the get-go, meaning that the House might be much larger as the US grew, unless Amended.
Another change might be the Enumerated Powers. Simply put, the Anti-Federalists might defeat the inclusion of the Necessary and Proper clause, or weaken it (perhaps by requiring any law passed on the basis of being necessary and proper to obtain a super-majority). If the N&P is totally struck, I could see many more amendments to the Constitution, as additional Enumerated Powers are added as seen fit by contemporaries.
I'd go on, but my wife is glaring at me for spending too much time typing up history stuff for now. Discuss away.