1/3 of the states joined the Union during or after the Civil War, when it was pretty clear secession wouldn't fly.
TS's original statement is correct as it stands.
New York was among the States adding "clarifications" of Original Intent to their ratification resolutions, which by the way are not swept up in the general Madisonian condemnation of "conditional ratification".
Several of the States, like New York, ratified only in the expectation, which they made clear in their "clarification" language, that a Bill of Rights would be added to the Constitution.
The Antifederalists were the fathers of the Bill of Rights; Madison and Hamilton insisted a Bill of Rights wasn't needed, and Hamilton freely dispensed the snake oil that ratifying the Constitution without a Bill of Rights would be more restrictive of federal accessions and claims of power, than having a Bill of Rights. Anyone think he was right today?
Without the Bill of Rights, the Antifederalists had the votes to defeat ratification in several key States, "without which not". The Antifederalists were the fathers of our liberty, for using their heads and not listening to the New York City hustle put on by Hamilton.
Eventually Madison agreed to write the Bill of Rights, not that he agreed with having one, simply on the grounds that the most competent person available should give the writing his best effort, to come up with the best language possible. Even so, he got worked over extensively (as in the case of the Second Amendment) before the language fell into its final form that we know today.
Thermalseeker earns the palm for being right.
"It has been several times truly remarked, that bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was Magna Charta, obtained by the Barons, sword in hand, from king John. Such were the subsequent confirmations of that charter by subsequent princes. Such was the petition of right assented to by Charles the First, in the beginning of his reign. Such also was the declaration of right presented by the lords and commons to the prince of Orange in 1688, and afterwards thrown into the form of an act of parliament, called the bill of rights. It is evident, therefore, that according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations. "We the people of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America." Here is a better recognition of popular rights than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our state bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government."
"But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns. If therefore the loud clamours against the plan of the convention on this score, are well founded, no epithets of reprobation will be too strong for the constitution of this state. But the truth is, that both of them contain all, which in relation to their objects, is reasonably to be desired."
"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government. [ed. see 2nd Amendment debates!] This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights." Hamilton, Federalist 84.
I can find no fault in these arguments and would contend that what Hamilton predicted has indeed come to pass! We refer to "Constitutional Rights" as if the Constitution granted us any, and the Federal Behemoth - based on it's contention that IT is the arbiter of our rights - has amassed such power that it will be nigh on impossible to reign it in.
Anti-federalists were flimflam men, mediocrities whose power came from state politics comparable to the Chicago Ward Healers of today. Their opposition to the constitution came from their understanding that it would reduce their relative power. Their rhetoric about “liberty” was only that being the forefathers of the democrat party it was just another fraud it has run upon.
Federalists were overwhelmingly those who fought during the Revolution or had a role developing a modern capitalist economy. Their war experience reinforced the understanding that a stronger Union was critical for TRUE liberty. Antis cynically used the Bill of Rights argument as an attempt to derail ratification. It was also a fraud. There were no Bill of Rights in any of the states controlled by Antis or even demands for one. But their demand was accepted cutting the legs out from under the Anti’s argument.