Not at all in agreement with much of any of this post. However, most of it is opinion or subject to argument. However, that last piece is not. The Bill of Rights was proposed by Congress and submited to the States AFTER the Constitution had been ratified. The Constitution was ratified by the 9th state on June 21, 1788 and became effective on March 4, 1789. The first Congress under the Constitution submitted the Bill Of Rights to the States for consideration as Amendments to the Constitution on September 25, 1789. The Bill of Rights (or the first
10 Amendments to the Constitution) became effective on December 15, 1791. Clearly this timeline shows that the purpose was NOT "to get the anti-federalists to calm down and ratify the Constitution" though admittedly there was much talk about a Bill of Rights at the various legislatures when the states were debating the Constitution. The Federalist Papers and "anti-Federalist Papers" represent a number of articles discussing this in the context of the times (along with a lot of other issues of concern with the proposed Constitution)."In Massachusetts, the Constitution ran into serious, organized opposition. Only after two leading Antifederalists, Adams and Hancock, negotiated a far-reaching compromise did the convention vote for ratification on February 6, 1788 (187?168). Antifederalists had demanded that the Constitution be amended before they would consider it or that amendments be a condition of ratification; Federalists had retorted that it had to be accepted or rejected as it was. Under the Massachusetts compromise, the delegates recommended amendments to be considered by the new Congress, should the Constitution go into effect. The Massachusetts compromise determined the fate of the Constitution, as it permitted delegates with doubts to vote for it in the hope that it would be amended."[7]
Four of the next five states to ratify, including New Hampshire, Virginia, and New York, included similar language in their ratification instruments. They all sent recommendations for amendments with their ratification documents to the new Congress. Since many of these recommendations pertained to safeguarding personal rights, this pressured Congress to add a Bill of Rights after Constitutional ratification. Additionally, North Carolina refused to ratify the Constitution until progress was made on the issue of the Bill of Rights. Thus, while the Anti-Federalists were unsuccessful in their quest to prevent the adoption of the Constitution, their efforts were not totally in vain." [from Wikipedia - yeah I know that is not autoritative]
Dave Hall