A major criticism of the Constitution was the absence of a Bill of Rights. Aside from its obvious protections, Richard Henry Lee wrote of a BOR as sort of a text for continuing education in the foundations of our society.
The reason some societies held on to their God given rights like jealous lovers was because they were reminded of them often in schools, newspapers and public proclamations. In Great Britain, Magna Charta was read twice a year in public places, not that it would lose its validity without such confirmations, but to fix the contents of it in the minds of the people.
If neglected, we were sure to descend to the pitiful condition of man in mainland Europe, where they accepted their very existence to be at the whim of despots.
A republic cannot be maintained by a people ignorant of the traditions and ideas essential to their political happiness.
We are very close to accepting the slavish condition endured by most men throughout history.
Most “american” history now taught begins in 1861. It was as if this evil group of states decided to go on their own away from the rest and had to be put under the thumb of an imperial government.
When one mentions things like the “federalist papers” today to most high school grads, you get back the stare as if you were talking in code. These matters of the framing of the constitution are downplayed IMO because they begin with a wonderful precept: we are endowed by a Creator with certain rights which is in direct opposition to the current notion of the state being supreme.
Honor and ethics are also underlying concepts to the Constitution i.e. look at those which deal with the advice and consent arguments: it was felt that an hororable president would be ashamed to nominate a person of bad character. Today in DC, Diogenes would need a super tanker of oil to fuel his lamp while he looked for an honorable person.