He would have been present for the formation of the Virginia/Randolph Plan. Could he have, from the beginning influenced what generally emerged as our Constitution four months later?
On June 9th delegate Paterson of New Jersey convinced the Convention to step back from the Virginia Plan in order for opponents to devise a more federal arrangement that improved the Articles of Confederation. There is no doubt that Henry would have immersed himself in this committee and its product, the Paterson Plan.
On 15-16 June the Paterson Plan was debated.
Madison shredded the Paterson Plan on the 19th. Had the best orator and debater in modern history, Patrick Henry been present, maybe the vote to accept the Virginia Plan as the basis for discussion by 7-3 would have been closer. In any event, Henry was no shrinking violet and would have been a prominent speaker along with Madison, Morris and Wilson.
I also suspect John Lansing and Robert Yates of New York would have remained to influence events if another large state delegate like Henry had likewise remained to oppose key elements of the Constitution.
Fast forward to June 1788 and Henry almost kept Virginia out of the Union. Had he attended the Constitutional Convention he would have undoubtedly affected the final product. If it met with his disapproval, he would have been as well equipped as Madison to debate the finer points. As it was, he was not, and federalists carried the day.
I doubt it greatly. I think that plan was structured long before the convention. What was constructed in the time you describe was the strategy for selling it. I think Hamilton's "President for life" pitch was a ruse.
Madison shredded the Paterson Plan on the 19th. Had the best orator and debater in modern history, Patrick Henry been present, maybe the vote to accept the Virginia Plan as the basis for discussion by 7-3 would have been closer.
Again I doubt it. Our creditors had spoken.
I also suspect John Lansing and Robert Yates of New York would have remained to influence events if another large state delegate like Henry had likewise remained to oppose key elements of the Constitution.
Here is where I think you may be right, and it might have collapsed the process. Had Henry tackled international law as a theme, he might well have succeeded in exposing this Trojan horse of Hamilton's for what it was and is. There is no way he could have got away with the kind of snow job he pulled in Federalist 75 in a debate setting. The whole project might then have been seen for the ruse that it was and possibly collapsed. I agree that this was a 'you of little faith' moment for Henry.
In his defense however, it is very hard for most FReepers to appreciate the depth of the hidden masonic agenda of Enlightenment antipathy for Christianity Henry knew he was facing. One need only read Hume or Voltaire knowing the kind of correspondence many of the prominent founders shared with the European philosophes to realize that to many of these men, their faith in "God" was not that of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, while public attributions to same were a deliberate cover.
Fast forward to June 1788 and Henry almost kept Virginia out of the Union. Had he attended the Constitutional Convention he would have undoubtedly affected the final product.
Here you, in part, contradict your thesis. Had he affected the product it might have been more likely to sell. Perhaps he was gambling on his absence permitting flaws that would be fatal to ratification in Virginia.
If it met with his disapproval, he would have been as well equipped as Madison to debate the finer points. As it was, he was not, and federalists carried the day.
I think you give too much credit for persuasion. Hard political allegiances had pretty well determined the numbers in advance. Communications media were so slow it would have been a done deal before the people could rally to Henry's arguments. The BOR had mollified the deal, but even that had its own Federalist "poison pill" in the original 14th Article. Good thing the idea was rejected until the Feds later rammed through the 'usurpation by selective enforcement' gambit in the 14th Amendment.