While Virginia ratifies the constitution, it's a relatively close vote. It's 89 to 79, five votes switching Virginia would not have ratified. After it ratifies the constitution, it proposes 40 amendments that need to be made to the constitution. Many of the things like the Bill of Rights, protecting individual rights. But many of them known to be these structural concerns that Henry has. The federal government should not have the direct authority to tax. The state should have the authority to tax. The federal government should not be able to regulate commerce directly. Again, that treaty, without at least a two-thirds vote of the congress. So there's all of these proposals that are out there. But the problem, as Henry had pointed out, they're only proposals. The Constitution had been approved. In fact, unbeknownst to people in Virginia while the debates were going on, New Hampshire had also adopted the Constitution. So Virginia is the tenth state, and the Constitution will come into effect. Well, this raises an interesting question. Why did the anti-Federalists fail? If they had the majority of the population, as many historians believe. And Patrick Henry is making powerful arguments, and he's not the only anti-Federalist certainly. George Mason, George Clinton in New York, many other anti-Federalists. Why do they fail in this effort? Well, I think there's several problems. The first is they're not organized, and it's very difficult in the 18th century. We don't have the telephone, we don't have fax, we don't have the Internet. So organizing people across the 13 states is going to be very difficult. Especially when the Federalist are organized because the Federalist leaders had been in Philadelphia. They had work on this constitution. They had brought it together. They knew what the arguments were. They knew what, why things could been done. They knew why power has been given to the federal government. And importantly, the federalists, also tended to control the newspapers. Newspapers are very important in a republic. I think a second reason the anti-federalists have difficulty, is the Constitution is presented as a take it or leave it option. That we have the danger of anarchy, the country's bankrupt, we have Shays' Rebellion. Here is a chance to have a national government which is going to have the power it needs. We can fix things later, but if we don't do this, there's going to be anarchy. Certainly, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson comes around to that view, James Madison and others were making that argument. And the idea which is being pushed by Patrick Henry and the anti-federalists that we'll have a second convention. This is a good first try, it's a good first draft. Let's have a second convention and we'll fix the problems. Well, Washington and others and rightfully so point out, that just isn't going to work. That it was most difficult, we spent months in Philadelphia. There was compromise, there was debate, there was anger, there were threats of walkouts. If you try to go into a second convention, now that the people have been debating this for five or six months. People were going to come with their positions even more embedded in stone and there'll never be any kind of an agreement. So the anti-federalists face an enormous problem. But this ratification debate's on the US constitution to get a document today, which is virtually American scripture. And how close it is, is certainly evidence of how contingent US History had a few votes this way, a few votes that way. We could of had a very, very different history, was Henry right? Well, there are different visions of government, different visions of what we want in our nation. He certainly was rejecting the need for America to have enormous power in the world. The idea that in the 21st century the United States is almost hegemonic in the world in terms of its power. Henry would say, we didn't need that, we don't need that. He was certainly correct, the power would tend toward the Federal Government but we need to be careful. Transporting Henry's concerns into the 21st Century and directly applying the things he is saying in the 21st century is a tenuous comparison at best. Much has changed, much need to change. The world is a very different place. Well, third thought about the anti-federalist laws, did it matter? Patrick Henry gave these wonderful speeches. He made these wonderful arguments. He had the ratification convention spellbound for weeks. People coming to watch, didn't matter. And I think the answer is yes, and in many ways, it's mattered a great deal, especially in more recent years. The courts, lawyers, academics, are turning more and more to the anti-federalists and their arguments to understand the Constitution. Because if you want to understand what the Constitution says. You can't simply look at what was said by those people who were praising the Constitution. You need to look at the Federalists and the anti-Federalists and read them together. So more and more courts and as I said lawyers are turning toward looking at what the arguments where of the anti-Federalists. To understand how powerful that government was going to be. And importantly, maybe most importantly, the Bill of Rights. That had the Anti-Federalists not stood up and insisted that a Bill of Rights be added to the Constitution. It probably would not have been added to the Constitution. Now today, we know the Bill of Rights as the very foundation of many of the freedoms that we appreciate today. The freedom of speech, the freedom of press, the freedom of religion, searches and seizures, the right to counsel. We don't know how these these things might or might not have been protected without the Bill of Rights. Many people say that Patrick Henry could legitimately be considered the father of the Bill of Rights. Because it's the opposition of the anti-federalists and their vehement demand these issues be taken care of. That results in the Bill of Rights. Well I'm not so sure I would call him the father of the Bill of Rights. James Madison certainly is more intimately involved with the actual language and the passage of the Bill of Rights. But Patrick Henry certainly, and the anti-federalists have a lot to do with it. In fact it's interesting, once the deliberates is drafted by the Congress and comes back to the stage four ratification. Patrick Henry dismisses it, it's not going far enough. He thought they should have given far greater protections for individual rights. As well as, he wanted to see those amendments on the structural concerns about the power of government. So I think James Madison's role the bill of rights is certainly legitimately honored. But the anti-federalist had a very significant effect and continued to have an effect on the nation today. So Patrick Henry lost the debate for ratification in our Constitution but the story wasn't over.
