Would the constitution be different if Patrick Henry had participated in framing it?

Answer 1

Most likely it wouldn’t have made any difference for two reasons.

First there were others at the convention who voiced much of what Patrick Henry promoted, and they made little headway.

Secondly, until ratification was achieve, Patrick Henry was steadfastly against ‘any’ form of a strong general government whether via a constitution or any other means. Patrick Henry was for strong States working together only through the Articles of Confederation.

The country (all thirteen colonies) was at a cross roads. First, was a general government required, and most (including Patrick Henry) agreed that there was such a need. Secondly, should such a general government be sovereign and independent on its own, and most (including Patrick Henry) agreed it should not. Thirdly, if there was to be such a general government could it be restrained and if so what was the best structure to ensure such a goal.

This debate existed prior to the Articles of Confederation and continued until the end of the Civil War. Ultimately the concerns expressed by Patrick Henry as to a strong general government were realized. However, this occurred not due to weaknesses within the Constitution, rather, it has occurred due to individuals gaining control of the federal government who strongly believed in a strong general government. This included many individuals but such as Hamilton, Marshall, Clay, and surely Lincoln, who viewed as most important that there be a strong, sovereign general government with the States in a subservient position to the general government. Obviously this misuse of the Constitution has come to pass.