Origin of the Bill of Rights

The Other Founders: A Study of the Origin of the Bill of Rights

and the Antifederalist Contribution to Formulation, Development and Adoption What role did the Antifederalists have in the founding of America? It is a well-known theory that the Antifederalists contribution to the founding is the addition of the Bill of Rights. However, James Madison is often referred to as the father of the Bill of Rights and it is often argued that the Bill of Rights did not accomplish the goals of the Anti-Federalists as the document presented did not encompass the structural changes they intended. In order to determine the Antifederalists role in the founding, an investigation of the origin and development of the Bill of Rights is necessary. This essay will analyze the history of the Bill of Rights during pre-colonial times and in English history as well as the development of rights which took place during revolutionary times to determine which rights were recognized at the time of ratification and to whom their development can be credited. A further study of the Antifederalist role during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and the ratification hearings for the Constitution, as well as ratification of the Bill of Rights, is necessary to determine to whom credit should be given for formulation as well as the adoption of the United States Bill of Rights. Thorough analysis will establish that while James Madison is justly credited with playing a large role in the adoption of the Bill of Rights, the development, formulation and adoption of the Bill of Rights can be traced to leading Antifederalists, giving them legitimacy as “The Other Founders.” Individual liberty was not created by Americans. Nor were they the first to record it in writing. (Conley and Kaminski, p. xi) The origin of human freedom can be traced all the way back to the Bible. Personal rights are especially numerous in England’s common law, the Magna Carta (1215), the Petition of Right (1628) and the Bill of Rights (1689). (Conley and Kaminski, p. xi) The Assize of Clarendon (1166) alludes to a criminal jury and over one hundred years earlier the use of civil juries has been verified. The right to counsel was recognized in the Statute of Merton in 1236. (Rutland, p. 5) Excessive fines and bails were also prohibited by the English as early as 1275 when the First Statute of Westminster provided a penalty to officers for extortion from prisoners. The inclination toward granting freedom from self-incrimination arose in the late 1500’s. (Rutland, p. 8) Due process of law and the prohibition of quartering of troops were enacted by Charles I in 1628. (Rutland, p. 6) A series of common law rights were incorporated in Sir Edward Coke’s Second Institutes in 1642 ensuring due process of law, habeas corpus, prohibition against double jeopardy and the right to be tried in the county where an act was committed (Rutland, p. 10) The Toleration Act and Bill of Rights of 1689 made many religious concessions, however, they only applied to legalization of worship by Protestant nonconformist. This Act also enumerated prohibitions against maintenance of standing armies in times of peace, infliction of cruel and unusual punishments and excessive bails. The act granted the right to petition as well as the right to bear arms. (Rutland, p. 9) Regardless of the wide array of rights asserted by the English common and statutory laws, most rights were limited in scope (Rutland, p. 10) The development of individual liberties in America ensued after religious toleration was secured. Colonists surpassed all precedents in the areas of freedom of religion, speech and the press. (Rutland, p. 12) Liberty and government among the colonies varied greatly depending on their charters allowing some to make great progress while others were restrained. Compassionate founders in Rhode Island, New Jersey, and particularly Pennsylvania gave colonists substantial rights. However, it was those in less fortunate colonies with overbearing governors who aroused the demand for self-government and security of liberties. (Conley and Kaminski, p. xii) The vast difference between colonies creates fourteen different stories of evolving freedom among the states. “New Yorkers championed freedom of expression; Rhode Islanders passionately defended religious liberty and church-state separation; Delewareans showed an unusual preoccupation with the right to keep and bear arms; Massachusetts men stoutly objected to unreasonable searches and seizures; Vermonters led the way in abolishing slavery; Rhode Islanders’ and North Carolinians exalted states’ rights as an antidote to centralized power; and Pennsylvanians and Virginians pioneered in asserting a broad range of individual freedoms.” (Conley and Kaminski, p. xii) In 1606 in the first English colony of Virginia, the first law, The VA Charter of 1606, was enacted declaring that all colonists “shall have and enjoy all liberties, franchises and immunities within anie of our other dominions to all intents and purposes as if they had been abiding and borne within this our realme of Englande or anie other of our saide dominions.” (Conley and Kaminski, p. 5) Similar wording was found in other colonial charters. Unlike their forefathers, colonial Americans felt the need to codify their laws into fundamental documents that clearly established the rights and privileges of colonists. (Conley and Kaminski, p. xiii) In 1641 in Massachusetts, Nathaniel Ward drafted a Body of Liberties, which essentially became the first enumerated declaration of rights in history. The Body of Liberties gave “due process of law, equal protection of laws, right of petition, free exercise of religion to refugees who professed adherence to the Congregational form of worship” and prohibited cruel and unusual punishment and assured right to counsel. (Rutland p. 15; Conley and Kaminski, p. 70) Most of the rights guaranteed in the first ten amendments were protected in the Body of Liberties with the most remarkable difference being the first amendment which was strongly disputed. (Conley and Kaminski, p.73) While the Body of Liberties incorporated many rights it was not actually followed. (Rutland p. 16) Connecticut followed the Massachusetts example in establishing the Declaration of Rights of 1650. (Conley and Kamanski, p. 101) The Charter of Liberties passed in 1683 granted freeholders in New York substantial personal rights including due process of law, jury trial, bail, prohibition of quartering of troops and free exercise of religion as long as they did not disturb “civil peace.” The first broad grant of religious freedom in colonial settlements was given in the Rhode Island Charter of 1663. (Conley and Kaminski, p. 7) The most radical colonial document was the Fundamental Laws of West Jersey in 1676 which granted broad religious freedom, due process of law and jury trial in all cases. (Conley and Kaminski, p. 259)The Pennsylvania Frame of Government of 1683 granted freeman many personal rights including right to speedy trial, jury trial and limited religious toleration. (Rutland, p. 20) After the Stamp Act of 1765 was passed, the Virginia Assembly took a stand adopting four resolutions including one declaring the original settlers held all the “Liberties, Privileges, Franchises and Immunities” possessed by English citizens. In response to the events in Virginia, apprehension grew in the other colonies. Thus the first united action of the colonies ensued and delegates were sent by the colonies to Congress in New York to address Great Britain’s infringement of liberties of the colonists. (Conley and Kaminski, p. 9) Resolutions were adopted by Congress insisting colonist receive “trial by jury, right of petition and free enjoyment of their rights and liberties.” (Rutland, p. 25) Loyalty to England and King George II resumed after the Stamp Act and other questionable statutes were repealed. However, peace in the colonies was short lived. The colonial right to trial by jury was threatened following the burning of the Gaspee, a British revenue sloop in Rhode Island. The Boston Tea Party in 1774 brought further tension between the colonists and Great Britain. In 1774, the Continental Congress drafted many documents and resolutions, including the Declaration of Resolves with the primary concern being the “rights, liberties, and immunities of free and natural-born subjects within the realm of England.” (Conley and Kaminski, p. 11) George Mason drafted a similar document, the Fairfax Resolves. Although it was one of many such resolves drafted by the counties of Virginia, the Fairfax Resolves was the most detailed and influential. Mason “warned the English that free people are ‘impatient of restraint’, for those who have once known liberty will not submit to tyranny.” (Rutland, p. 35) The colonies were advised by the Continental Congress in May, 1776 to craft their government as would “best conduce to the happiness and safety of their constituents in particular and America in general.” (Conley and Kaminski, p. 11) With the revolutionary movement on the rise, the necessity of declaration of rights became clear. (Rutland, p. 26) Congress proceeded with appointing a Committee to draft the Declaration of Independence. (Conley and Kaminski, p. 11) The colonists wanted the best traditions found in English law “due process of law, trial by jury, procedural fairness in courts of law, punishments in accord with the growth of civilized standards, and a say in imposition of taxes.” (Conley and Kaminski, p. 9) While the Declaration of Independence was grounded in natural rights, the Virginia Declaration of Rights adopted in June of 1776, just prior to the Declaration, more clearly established the rights of which the American’s would ultimately fight for. (Rutland, p. 26) Virginia took the lead through “passive resistance to England” recognizing that sister states would expect them to establish an example, George Mason and other leaders in Virginia moved quickly, adopting the first declaration of rights and permanent constitution. Mason’s Declaration of Rights developed the concept of individual liberties “as no other document before its adoption had done.” (Rutland, p. 40) Of the sixteen articles, nine set forth the basic principles of a free republic and the remaining seven specified the rights of the citizens. (Rutland, p. 38) Although many of the rights Mason enumerated were founded in English law, there were other values, such as the principle that government is derived from the people rather than rulers as well as a promise of freedom of religion which were unrecognizable to Englishmen. (Conley and Kaminski, p. xiii) At the end of 1776, a model of individual rights, provided by the Virginia Declaration of Rights along with modifications and additions was firmly planted. The revolution brought an American political tradition wherein citizens were guaranteed rights under codified bills of rights recognizing individual liberties, not only in theory, but in practice and reality. (Rutland p. 77) In August of 1776, Pennsylvania mirrored the Virginia Declaration of Rights but offered even more radical provisions. (Rutland, p. 46-47) Pennsylvania was the first colony or state to provide a right to assemble. Furthermore, while written assurances of freedom of speech had been made before, Pennsylvania offered the “first constitutional guarantee that ‘the people have a right to freedom of speech and of writing, and publishing their sentiments.” (Conley and Kaminski p. 323) Delaware modeled their Declaration of Rights after Pennsylvania with a more conservative approach. (Conley and Kaminski, p. 294) Maryland followed suit adopting a lengthy and detailed itemization of rights containing forty-two articles. The importance of the Bill of Rights in Maryland was demonstrated by their resolve to adopt the Declaration of Rights before drafting the Constitution. (Conley and Kaminski, p. 386) Two innovations found in the Maryland Declaration of Rights include the prohibition of ex post facto laws and bills of attainder, both of which made their way into the Federal Constitution. (Conley and Kaminski, p. 389) North Carolina modeled their Declaration of Rights after Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Maryland. (Conley and Kaminski, p. 430) Vermont mirrored Pennsylvania’s but added a provision prohibiting private property from being taken for public use without just compensation, the first state to adopt this right. (Rutland, p. 63-65) The Massachusetts Constitution was not adopted until 1780. However, it was more comprehensive and sophisticated than its predecessors despite its unfortunate reservations on religious freedoms. (Conley & Kaminski, p. 93; 95) New Hampshire followed Massachusetts’ model but added the first constitutional protection for double jeopardy. (Conley and Kaminski, p. 314) New Jersey, Georgia, New York and South Carolina did not have a Bill of Rights but individual rights were incorporated within the Constitutions. (Rutland, p. 64-65) Connecticut and Rhode Island were the only two states who did not adopt a Constitution, choosing to continue following their colonial charters. (Conley and Kaminski, p. 120; 154) The first federal Bill of Rights was adopted in 1787 when the Northwest Ordinance created a territorial government. It included a short bill of rights which included writ of habeas corpus, trial by jury, representative government, due process of law, the right to bail, prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments, no excessive fines, and just compensation for private property or services taken by the government for public purposes, protection for the sanctity of contracts, religious liberty and a ban against slavery. (Rutland, p. 100-105) Persistent observance of civil liberty is evident in various petitions and court cases grounded in individual rights which occurred throughout the Revolutionary era creating judicial precedents. By the time the Bill of Rights was proposed by James Madison in 1789 significant noteworthy progress in the state courts had been accomplished. (Rutland p. 82) The greatest issue facing legislative and judicial challenges was freedom of religion. Despite demonstrated progress in civil rights, complete religious freedom in 1789 could only be found in Rhode Island and Virginia. (Rutland, 91) Other rights challenged during this era, included freedom of the press through libel laws, trial by jury, ex post facto laws, illegal search and seizure, double jeopardy, bills of attainder and writ of habeas corpus. (Rutland, p. 91-98) While the system was not perfect, a well-defined pattern of expansion of individual rights had emerged in America due to the creation of state bills of rights and enforcement through vital state court decisions. As Governor Morris noted in 1785 speaking of judicial review it was “dangerous; but unless it somewhere exists, the time employed in framing a bill of rights and form of government was merely thrown away.” (Rutland, p. 99) At the time of ratification, twenty-five of the twenty-six rights enumerated within the Bill of Rights, consisting of the First Ten Amendments were provided for by one or more states. (Conley and Kaminski, p. xvii – xx) The exception, Amendment Ten establishing that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people,” was specifically requested by Massachusetts as its first proposed Amendment following the Massachusetts’ constitutional ratification convention. (Conley and Kaminski, p. 95) The right most recognized by the states, was freedom of religion, which was protected at least in some degree by twelve entities out of fourteen counting the thirteen states and Vermont which joined the union in 1791. Of course, as previously explained, freedom of religion was only fully recognized at this time by Virginia and Rhode Island. Nonetheless, this warranted substantial progress from English civil rights. Jury trial in criminal cases was recognized in eleven of the fourteen. Perhaps the most impressive gain toward civil liberty, not recognized by England, is reflected in the ten out of fourteen states and colonies guaranteeing freedom of the press. Ten out of the fourteen also recognized due process of law and no excessive bail. Pennsylvania was notable as the only state allowing freedom of speech. While New York did have a provision for freedom of speech it was restricted to legislators during time of debate. Massachusetts was the only state with a provision that provided that “enumeration of rights within the constitution should not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” New Hampshire remained the only state with a provision prohibiting double jeopardy. Vermont and Massachusetts were the only states recognizing private property for public use without compensation. Finally, only four states, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Vermont and Massachusetts included a right to bear arms. (Conley and Kaminski, p. xvii – xx) During the final week of the Constitutional Convention, on September 12, 1787, George Mason indicated he “wished the plan had been prefaced with a Bill of Rights.” Such a written protection, Mason asserted, would “give great quiet to the people; and with the aid of the State declarations, a bill might be prepared in a few hours.” Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts moved for appointment of a committee for that purpose. Connecticut’s Roger Sherman objected indicating a federal bill of rights was unnecessary as the state bills of rights were not being repealed. The motion was defeated unanimously. (Conley and Kaminski, p. 23) Mason composed a list of objections on his copy of the “Committee on stile and arrangement’ report. (Rutland p. 125) On the final day of the convention, Virginia’s Richard Henry Lee recommended the Constitution be provided to the states with an accompanying bill of rights, including freedom of religion, freedom of press, the right to assemble, the right to petition, due process of law, trial by jury drawn in the locality in both criminal and civil cases, prohibition of excessive bail and fines, cruel and unusual punishments and unreasonable searches and seizures. He also recommended that “Federal elections should be free and frequent and standing armies in peacetime prohibited unless approved by a 2/3 majority in both houses of congress.” The majority voted to proceed with forwarding the Constitution to the states, ignoring Lee’s proposal and striking the debate from the journals. (Conley and Kaminski, p. 24) Soon after the Convention, Mason’s list of objections was circulated throughout America in over twenty-five newspapers, several pamphlets, magazines and broadsides. Mason declared “There is no Declaration of Rights” and then proceeded with an array of structural defects to the constitution. (Conley and Kaminsky, p. 125) Mason did not want to abandon the proposed constitution, he wanted to perfect it. He did not expect everything he requested be adopted but rather insisted the people should have the option of making amendments before it became effective. (Maier, p. 48) Elbridge Gerry shared the document with both the New York and Massachusetts delegates. (Maier, p. 51) Additionally, Mason showed the objections to Robert Whitehill, a Pennsylvania delegate who proceeded to copy the document for himself. The handwritten document remains in Whitehill’s collected papers. (Maier, p. 51) While Richard Henry Lee’s debate was deleted from the journal, the Federalists could not stop him from circulating his amendments privately. Lee forwarded copies of the proposed amendments to Congress in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Virginia. (Conley and Kaminski, p. 25) Massachusetts was the first state to ratify the constitution under the promise that the national government would acknowledge amendments to create a Bill of Rights. With the exception of Amendment Ten, the remaining amendments were structural in nature. Massachusetts’ process caught on elsewhere and other states followed suit. Had this process of ratifying while proposing amendments not began, it may not have been possible to gain ratification of the necessary nine states. (Conley and Kaminski, p. 95) In order to appease the Antifederalist opposition in the Virginia ratification proceedings, the Federalists agreed to propose amendments. The committee to draft the amendments was headed by Federalist, George Wythe. Wythe included almost all of the Virginia Declaration of Rights as well as four other amendments, specifically, peaceful assembly, liberty to petition, freedom of speech and that the states to retain “every power, jurisdiction and right which is not by this Constitution delegated to the Congress of the United States.” (Conley and Kaminski, p. 359-361) New York proposed a set of fifty five amendments of which twenty four related to personal liberties. (Conley and Kaminski, p. 366) Despite heavy debate by the Maryland Antifederalist minority, Maryland ratified the Constitution without amendments. Samuel Chase and William Paca offered forty-two articles for amendment including most all of those adopted in the Bill of Rights. The Maryland convention chose to ignore the amendments. (Conley and Kaminski, p. 394) In New Hampshire, John Langdon and Samuel Livermore drafted amendments which were essentially those found in the United States Bill of Rights. (Conley and Kaminski, p. 179) North Carolina ratified with an amendment calling for a Bill of Rights similar to that proposed by Virginia. (Conley and Kaminski, p. 425) South Carolina was mostly focused on structure for amendments and chose not to include a Bill of Rights in its amendment. However, they did propose the provision which is Amendment Ten of the Bill of Rights. (Conley and Kaminski, p. 419) The constitution was well received and passed without objection in Connecticut, Delaware, New Jersey and Georgia. (Conley and Kaminski, p. 114; 294; 248-249; 456) In the Pennsylvania ratifying convention Robert Whitehill battled with James Wilson over the necessity of a Bill of Rights. Wilson argued that a Bill of Rights would be dangerous because it “is an enumeration of powers reserved. If we attempt an enumeration, everything that is not enumerated is presumed to be given.” Whitehill fought back stating that if Wilson’s logic were true the Constitution’s inclusion of habeas corpus and jury in criminal trials would “hereafter be construed to be the only privileges reserved by the people.” (Maier, p. 108) Whitehill persistently argued for inclusion of a bill of rights. At the close of the convention, Whitehill proposed fifteen articles to be considered for amendment. His amendments resembled Mason’s and Lee’s but went further. (Maier, p. 120) Whitehill’s amendments were deleted from the record, however, three days after the convention he published the Pennsylvania Packet signed by twenty-one of the delegates who had voted against ratification. In the days that followed mobs broke out in riots over the Pennsylvania majority delegates’ actions in the ratification proceedings. (Maier, p. 121) The failure to include a Bill of Rights preoccupied the year long debate over ratification of the Constitution. (Conley and Kaminski, p. 23) In drafting the Bill of Rights, Madison used more from the Declaration of Rights then the Amendments proposed at state ratifying conventions. He resisted nearly all structural changes. Madison’s bill protected individual rights and the ability of citizens to be part of the governing process. (Conley and Kaminski p. 95) While Patrick Henry continued to dispute ratification of the Bill of Rights as insufficient, Senator Richard Henry Lee proposed the Virginia legislature proceed with adopting the proposed amendments in order to accomplish “as much as we can at different times.” Lee wrote to the Virginia House of Delegates in August 1790 supporting the approval. Virginia was the ninth state to ratify and the Bill of Rights was adopted on March 1, 1972. In order for the new national government to be “lasting,” George Mason indicated it need to be designed to command “the confidence and affections of the people.” As Mason was seven years older than George Washington, he brought to the convention a more lengthy record as a supporter of colonial rights. As a member of the house of Burgesses Mason assisted in drafting the Non-Importation Resolutions for Virginia in 1769. As he was collecting evidence to strengthen his claims he came across phrases involving “Liberties, Franchises, and Immunities of free Denizens and natural subjects in the Virginia Company’s charters.” This experience equipped him with the skills to draft the Fairfax Resolves carried to Williamsburg by Washington in 1774. Mason held strong beliefs for equality and believed it was necessary for people to be the “source of all political power.” (Rutland 34-35) He was described as a man “of remarkable strong powers” with a “clear and copious understanding, able and convincing in debate, steady and firm in his principles, and undoubtedly one of the best politicians in America.” Mason drafted Virginia’s first state Constitution and the highly influential Declaration of Rights adopted in early June of 1776 and his affirmation that “all men are born equally free and independent” became, with some changes, part of the state bill of rights and the Declaration of Independence. Like Washington, Mason would have preferred not to be part of the convention, but when he was called to service, he answered. Mason left Philadelphia “with a fixed disposition to prevent the adoption of the plan if possible.” (Maier, p. 39) However, he was not rebellious by nature and he came to the convention originally supporting the creation of stronger central government and was agreeable to leaving behind the confederation and starting anew. He acknowledged the necessity of a national government whose power arose from the people with enforcement powers against the people. While Mason aspired to preserve the states, he relinquished powers to the national government on several points. Mason was on the Committee that proposed the Great Compromise on representation, which prevented the Convention from failing and he likely “used his influence at a caucus of large – state delegates to reconcile his colleagues to the loss of proportional representation in the Senate.” George Mason contributed greatly in designing a national government with extensive powers. Nonetheless, he wanted the people to be protected from those powers. He was also responsible for changing the words giving congress the power to “declare” not “make” war, which he perceived as promoting peace. (Maier, 42-43) Although remnants of some of the principles within our Bill of Rights can be found in the English government and Bill of Rights, for the most part these principles were never fully put into practice and they certainly do not account for the wide breadth of rights encompassed in the United States Bill of Rights, most significantly the First Amendment freedoms of speech, religion and press which were unattainable in England. Colonial experiences in Declarations of Rights made some headway in development of acceptance of these rights as standards. Although the colonial experiences had little success in actual practice, their experiments were built upon by the State governments during the revolutionary era of drafting Constitutions and Declarations or Bills of Rights. Either by way of separate documents or encompassed within the State Constitutions, individual liberties became the norm. The Courts throughout the following ten years slowly began to enforce the rights guaranteed by the State Constitutions and Bill of Rights. Americans gained a sense of liberty not known by any other country and upon adoption of the new Constitution they were not possibly going to give them away. As previously indicated George Mason was an innovator for personal liberties from the end of the colonial era and into the revolutionary era. He drafted the first Declaration of Rights used as a model for all others to follow. The Pennsylvania Constitution mirrored Virginia’s but added new radical provisions which were followed by other states as well. Another prominent Antifederalist, Robert Whitehill has been credited with drafting the Pennsylvania constitution. Finally, the Maryland Declaration of Rights leaned heavily on the Pennsylvania constitution but also added new protections. Antifederalist, Samuel Chase served on the committee that drafted the Maryland Declaration of Rights. Thus the development of the Bill of Rights is well-founded in the Antifederalists. In drafting the Bill of Rights, James Madison looked upon the Declarations of Rights as well as the amendments made by ratifying conventions as well as proposals made at the Constitutional Convention and the published Antifederalist essays. Likewise credit for formulation of the Constitution could be attributed to Antifederalist, Richard Henry Lee who proposed almost every right contained within the Bill of Rights at the Constitutional Convention. Robert Whitehill’s amendments published in the Pennsylvania Packet also contain almost every provision within the Bill of Rights. The contribution of Mason, Whitehill, Chase and Lee clearly establish the Antifederalists’ contribution to the formulation of the Bill of Rights. Finally, the adoption of the Bill of Rights can also be attributed to the Antifederalists. Perhaps it wasn’t the goal of Mason, Lee, Whitehill, Chase or other prominent Antifederalists to adopt the Bill of Rights we know today. Maybe the structure of government was their ultimate goal and they simply used the Bill of Rights to stir the public. Regardless, without their opposition the public would not have realized a threat to their liberties. Once stirred, the public was not going to be quieted without action, and the constitution though ratified, would have had little legitimacy or longevity. Madison would not have deemed it necessary to push forward with a Bill of Rights if it were not for the Antifederalist debate. Furthermore, it was Richard Henry Lee who wrote the Virginia representatives supporting passage of the Bill of Rights. The Virginia Congress acted on Lee’s approval resulting in ratification by the ninth state which accomplished adoption of the Bill of Rights. As such, the Antifederalists deserve gratitude for their overwhelming contribution to the development, formulation and adoption of the liberties we know today. The Antifederalist can rightly be called “the other founders.” Nonetheless, Madison must also be given credit, if Madison were not genuinely concerned for the well-being of our country he would not have sought to pass the Bill of Rights. Madison proved in the Federalist papers that he believed in the Constitution and a strong national government that would allow a balance between national and state sovereignty. Madison sought to protect not just the majority but the minority as he argued in Federalist 10. Madison proved true to his principles, when he chose to adopt the Bill of Rights in order to quell the opposition to the Constitution in order to legitimize the document. We owe gratitude to Madison, Mason and others who were at the constructed, advanced and institutionalized the Bill of Rights. Their actions throughout this period developed an expected standard of protection of liberties. Ultimately, all of these actors resulted in the success we know and recognize today in our freedoms as United States citizens.
Bibliography
1. Conley, Patrick T. and John P. Kaminski, eds. 1992. Catalog Holdings (1)
The Bill of Rights and the States: the Colonial and Revolutionary Origins of American Liberties. Madison: Madison House Publishers.

2. Maeier, Pauline. 2010. Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution 1787-1788. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks.

3. Rutland, Robert Allen. 1955. The Birth of the Bill of Rights 1776-1791. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina.

Bibliography: 1. Conley, Patrick T. and John P. Kaminski, eds. 1992. Catalog Holdings (1) The Bill of Rights and the States: the Colonial and Revolutionary Origins of American Liberties. Madison: Madison House Publishers. 2. Maeier, Pauline. 2010. Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution 1787-1788. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks. 3. Rutland, Robert Allen. 1955. The Birth of the Bill of Rights 1776-1791. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina.