Anti-Federalists don't produce the Bill of Rights

Isaac Beach

Banned
My first thread was something of a blundering failure because I asserted a particular premise and half the people said this or that MUST or CAN'T under any circumstances be changed without massive redactions that I can't attend to as the map in question is already finished and will probably have to sit in a dusty folder for the rest of it's sorry existence.

So this time I'm going to ask (As for one thing I'm not particularly familiar with internal American history -'Straya-). If the Anti-Federalists didn't produce the Bill of Rights, was there any chance of those states walking away from the negotiating table altogether and refusing to join the US? Keeping in mind I don't know for sure if the negotiators actually represented the state they originated from nor the fine details surrounding the Constitution's signing's circumstances.
 

jahenders

Banned
My first thread was something of a blundering failure because I asserted a particular premise and half the people said this or that MUST or CAN'T under any circumstances be changed without massive redactions that I can't attend to as the map in question is already finished and will probably have to sit in a dusty folder for the rest of it's sorry existence.

So this time I'm going to ask (As for one thing I'm not particularly familiar with internal American history -'Straya-). If the Anti-Federalists didn't produce the Bill of Rights, was there any chance of those states walking away from the negotiating table altogether and refusing to join the US? Keeping in mind I don't know for sure if the negotiators actually represented the state they originated from nor the fine details surrounding the Constitution's signing's circumstances.

Some states were resisting ratification until the Bill of Rights was approved. Had it not been put in place as amendments, an idea had been proposed to have another constitutional convention to modify the core document itself.

Ultimately, there were quite a few states, and key players, that wanted something like the Bill of Rights in place, either as amendments or changes to the constitution. It might have taken considerably longer to get full ratification without them (assuming it could be achieved). Similar effects might have been achieved by early court or executive precedent, but that would be far less secure.

Without the Bill of Rights, we'd probably still be a nation, but our civil liberties would be less secure and interpretations more changing.
 

Isaac Beach

Banned
Some states were resisting ratification until the Bill of Rights was approved. Had it not been put in place as amendments, an idea had been proposed to have another constitutional convention to modify the core document itself.

Ultimately, there were quite a few states, and key players, that wanted something like the Bill of Rights in place, either as amendments or changes to the constitution. It might have taken considerably longer to get full ratification without them (assuming it could be achieved). Similar effects might have been achieved by early court or executive precedent, but that would be far less secure.

Without the Bill of Rights, we'd probably still be a nation, but our civil liberties would be less secure and interpretations more changing.

So without the Bill of Rights individual freedoms would be less ensured, which could lead to some pervasive policies especially if nothing else comes to the table, and whilst not destroying the nation preemptively could lead to some vast shifts in civil liberties and therefore potentially the government's involvement with people's lives?

Thanks, btw, for answering.
 

jahenders

Banned
So without the Bill of Rights individual freedoms would be less ensured, which could lead to some pervasive policies especially if nothing else comes to the table, and whilst not destroying the nation preemptively could lead to some vast shifts in civil liberties and therefore potentially the government's involvement with people's lives?

Thanks, btw, for answering.

Absolutely, but it's impossible to know what the shifts would be. Most likely, our rights would be less protected. However, it IS possible that, instead of adopting the Bill of Rights, the framers might have instead changed the text of the constitution in such a way that some/all of our freedoms were MORE clearly protected.
 

Isaac Beach

Banned
Absolutely, but it's impossible to know what the shifts would be. Most likely, our rights would be less protected. However, it IS possible that, instead of adopting the Bill of Rights, the framers might have instead changed the text of the constitution in such a way that some/all of our freedoms were MORE clearly protected.

Ah cool, so it could've gone either way. Maybe I should make a map pertaining to that, one going balls to the wall Orwellian and the other a sort of codified libertarianism. Lovely :3.
 

B-29_Bomber

Banned
It was my way of thinking that a lot of the key players were pro-Bill of Rights, while those weren't necessarily weren't exactly ardently against it in principle.

Indeed, one of the arguments against a National Bill of Rights was that most states had their own Bill of Rights within their own Constitutions and that a National one would be redundant.

I could see a US without a National Bill of Rights having a stronger States' Rights movement, but not by much.
 
Top