What two bills of Rights were rejected? A clear, sourced explanation

Quick answer: what the patrick henry bill of rights question refers to

The short answer is that the question most often points to two related events: the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention
27s decision not to add a formal declaration of rights, and the later decision by the First Congress to condense many state-proposed amendment lists into a smaller set that became the ten ratified amendments in 1791. The Convention vote on George Mason
27s motion is the classic example of the first rejection, and the congressional selection process is the clearest example of the second.

Patrick Henry did not attend the Philadelphia Convention but was a leading Anti-Federalist voice in Virginia
27s 1788 ratifying convention; he urged either withholding ratification or ratifying with strong reservations and prompt amendments. For the Convention record showing Mason
27s motion and vote, see the selection of convention records in the Farrand compilation and Avalon Project, which reproduce the relevant minutes and debates, and for Patrick Henry
27s role consult the Virginia ratifying convention materials.

Why people ask about the patrick henry bill of rights: context and common phrasing

Searches and questions using the phrase patrick henry bill of rights often compress several different documents and debates into one shorthand. People may mean the motion at the Philadelphia Convention, the lists of amendments produced by state ratifying conventions, or the final Bill of Rights that emerged from Congress. This shorthand can hide important differences in authorship, timing, and wording.

To verify specific claims, readers should look to primary documents or institutional summaries rather than relying on shorthand. The Library of Congress and state archives collect the convention records, the Virginia proceedings, and congressional materials that together explain how proposals moved from state lists into a narrower set of congressional amendments. See our constitutional rights page for related resources.

The 1787 Convention: George Mason’s motion and the rejected declaration of rights

At the Philadelphia Convention in June 1787, George Mason proposed that the Convention include a formal declaration of rights in the new Constitution, but delegates voted the motion down. The motion and the record of the vote appear in contemporary compilations of the Convention minutes and in editorial collections of the debates, which document how delegates discussed and ultimately rejected a separate declaration at that time Records of the Federal Convention in the Farrand selection at Avalon Project. Also see the Founders Online copy of Mason correspondence and editorial Farrand volumes for additional documentary versions George Mason to George Washington, 7 October 1787 and the Farrand volume listing Farrand, Records of the Federal Convention (Liberty Fund edition).

Contemporaneous accounts show two main lines of argument recorded in the minutes: some delegates thought a declaration of rights was unnecessary because the Constitution was a limited grant of powers that did not need a separate catalogue, while others preferred leaving such additions to the amendment process after ratification. The Convention minutes present these procedural and substantive reasons without a single unified motive for the rejection.

The Convention vote is the most commonly cited example of a “rejected bill of rights” because it was a formal motion among delegates to insert a declaration at the national founding moment. Later debates and amendments grew from that procedural choice, and historians treat the Convention refusal and subsequent amendment process as connected stages in the same larger question.

Patrick Henry in 1788: Virginia’s ratifying convention and calls for amendments

Patrick Henry did not attend the Philadelphia Convention, but in 1788 he led Anti-Federalist opposition in Virginia’s ratifying convention, pressing for either rejection of the Constitution or ratification conditional on explicit amendments. Contemporary accounts of the Virginia proceedings show Henry arguing that the Constitution needed explicit protections and that ratification should come with clear recommendations for amendment Patrick Henry overview and the Virginia proceedings at Encyclopedia Virginia.

The Virginia convention ultimately chose to ratify the Constitution while appending a set of recommended amendments and reservations, commonly called the Virginia recommendations. Those recommendations influenced later congressional consideration but were not adopted word for word by the First Congress.

Virginia’s recommendations: what the proposed ‘bill’ looked like

The Virginia recommendations collected a range of proposed protections and clarifications, including protections for trial by jury, limits on standing armies, and language urging clear definitions of federal powers and safeguards for state authority. The state
27s papers and proceedings document the drafting and submission of these recommended amendments to Congress Virginia ratifying convention papers at Virginia Memory.

Congress received Virginia
27s recommendations among many other lists sent by ratifying conventions. The recommendations varied in tone and wording, and scholars note that the Virginia draft was influential but not a direct template for every article in the final Bill of Rights.

How the First Congress turned many state proposals into the Bill of Rights

After ratification, the First Congress in 1789 considered amendment suggestions from several states and from Anti-Federalist writers, and James Madison took a central role in drafting a narrowed set of amendments to propose to the states. Institutional summaries and congressional records outline how Madison consolidated multiple proposals and introduced a set of amendments for legislative consideration Library of Congress summary of the congressional amendment process. See our Bill of Rights full-text guide for related transcriptions.

The congressional process moved through committee review, debates, and votes that selected a subset of provisions; that narrower selection is what was sent to the states and ultimately ratified as the ten amendments known as the Bill of Rights in 1791. The First Congress
27s choices effectively omitted or condensed other state-proposed items.

Which proposed items were rejected or omitted by Congress

Congress did not adopt every proposal it received. Representative examples of items that were narrowed or left out include longer lists of suggested amendments touching on congressional apportionment, structural adjustments, or specific language on states
27 powers that either overlapped with existing clauses or were judged unnecessary by congressional drafters. The Library of Congress and the National Archives discuss how many state proposals were considered and then set aside or combined in the drafting process Bill of Rights transcript and context at the National Archives.

The surviving documentary record shows that wording and emphasis varied across state lists, so historians warn against assuming any single state text was “rejected” as a whole. Rather, Congress selected language and protections it considered most broadly acceptable and left other items unadopted or folded into different clauses.

How historians and archives treat the ‘two rejected bills of rights’ phrasing

Scholars and archival descriptions typically treat the phrase “two rejected bills of rights” as shorthand for two related historical acts: the Convention
27s refusal to adopt a declaration of rights, and the congressional narrowing of more extensive state amendment lists during the First Congress. Editorial notes in convention records and modern institutional summaries explain this two-part framing and its evidentiary basis Farrand selection and editorial records at Avalon Project.

Where opinions differ is mainly about fine points, such as whether separate Convention motions beyond Mason
27s should be counted as distinct “bills” and exactly which draft texts circulated by Anti-Federalists were intended as single packages. Archives provide the core evidence, but draft variation means some interpretive judgment is required.

Typical mistakes readers make when asking which bills were rejected

Common errors include attributing authorship of the final Bill of Rights to a single figure like Patrick Henry, or assuming that Virginia
27s recommendations were adopted verbatim. The records show Henry was an influential Anti-Federalist leader in Virginia but did not author the federal amendments that Congress ultimately approved.

Another frequent mistake is to conflate a recommendation or list with a formally enacted text. To check claims, readers should compare the Convention minutes, the Virginia proceedings, and the congressional journals and the National Archives transcript to see how language changed across stages Virginia Memory holdings for the ratification proceedings.

Primary sources and modern resources to read next

The most direct primary records are the Convention minutes and the Farrand editorial selection, the Virginia ratifying convention journals, and the congressional journals that show the First Congress
27s drafting choices. For accessible transcriptions and context, the Avalon Project, the Library of Congress, and the National Archives are reliable starting points National Archives Bill of Rights transcription.

Start by searching the convention records for George Mason
27s motion, then review the Virginia proceedings for the text of the recommendations, and finally consult congressional records and Madison
27s drafts to trace which items were selected or left out. These steps let readers follow the documentary chain from motion to amendment.

How to explain this history to voters or students in plain language

Two-minute explanation: At the Philadelphia Convention delegates voted down a proposal to include a declaration of rights, and later Congress condensed many state amendment suggestions into the ten amendments that became the Bill of Rights. Patrick Henry pressed for amendments in Virginia but did not attend the Convention where Mason
27s motion was rejected Encyclopedia Virginia on Patrick Henry and the ratifying convention.

Classroom activity: Have students compare three short documents side by side
27s the Convention minutes for Mason
27s motion, the Virginia recommendations, and the National Archives Bill of Rights transcript. Ask them to note language that was retained, language that was shortened, and language that disappeared between drafts.

Conclusion: the best short answer and where scholars still ask questions

The clearest, sourced short answer is that historians usually mean two related rejections: George Mason
27s rejected motion for a declaration of rights at the Philadelphia Convention, and the subsequent narrowing by the First Congress of larger state-proposed amendment lists into the ten ratified amendments. For the Convention record see editorial compilations of the debates, and for the congressional process consult the Library of Congress and the National Archives summaries Library of Congress context on ratification and amendments. Learn more on our about page.

Open questions remain mainly about precise draft wording in some Anti-Federalist circulations and over how to count multiple motions or minority drafts as separate “bills.” Readers who want to dig deeper should follow the primary records and the institutionally curated transcriptions cited above.