Did the Federalists win the ratification debate? Their collective goal, when viewed in the most general terms, was to encourage Virginia to ratify the U.S. Constitution. Undoubtedly, the commonwealth of Virginia ratified the new plan with only a suggestion for future consideration. In that sense the Federalists won.

But in the process of the debate, the Federalists seemed to have lost many of their fundamental principles. For one, they were forced to concede on the issue of a bill of rights. While the Federalists in Richmond were not forced to add a bill of rights, they were forced to admit that one was necessary. In the ratification-by-convention method that was spelled out in the Constitution, this admission was tantamount to concession. Furthermore, the Federalists were forced to admit that because the new government would be invested with the power to act directly upon individuals, limitations must be placed on the nature the powers to be exercised. And without such protections, the bold new energy being invested in the general government was likely to produce tyranny. "I will submit to your recollection," Patrick Henry told delegates to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, "whether liberty has been destroyed most often by the licentiousness of the people, or by the tyranny of the rulers. I imagine, sir, you will find the balance to be on the side of tyranny."¹

Taken as a whole, Henry said two things at the Richmond convention: that the new consolidated government posed serious threats to liberty and that if the new plan were to take effect, protections must be placed upon the individual liberties of citizens. If a scorecard were to be drafted, one might mark Henry's consolidated government a loser. The United States government did indeed consolidate. As James Madison noted in Federalist No. 34, the Philadelphia delegates "framed a national government, which regards the union as a consolidation of the States." He also admits that such a move was "bold and radical."²

The principled dissent of Patrick Henry was part of a series of events that led to the drafting and eventual adoption of the Bill of Rights. While Henry was not solely responsible, his role in theVirginia Ratifying Convention played a great role in that struggle. As a leader unafraid to challenge the Tidewater elite and argue passionately for the principles he believed so strongly in, Patrick Henry played a crucial role in a larger drama that was unfolding in the late 18th century. As a result, Americans owe a great debt to one of our least remembered Founding Fathers, Patrick Henry.

¹McCants, Henry. p.130.

²Bailyn, pp.28-29.