Why was the Bill of Rights necessary?

I have one small quibble with the response above, which is otherwise just about right: The national capital was not located in Washington, D.C. when the debate over ratification was taking place. Indeed, there was no such city. In 1787-1788, the capital of the United States under the Articles of Confederation was in New York City. There was some discussion in the state ratification conventions of locating the capital somewhere else (some proposed locations included Philadelphia or Lancaster in Pennsylvania, Wilmington, Delaware, and Baltimore, in addition to a yet to be constructed "Federal City" on the banks of the Potomac.) But when the Constitution was ratified, New York (more specifically, Federal Hall) became the capital. Only after a bargain was struck over support for a federal debt assumption bill, and a ten-year stay in Philadelphia, was the capital established permanently at what is now the nation's capital. The point about the capital being distant, and therefore unaccountable, federal government might represent a threat to the rights of the people still stands, however.

There are at least two ways to answer this question.  The first has to do with why a bill of rights would be important to have in general and the second has to do with the political reasons why the Bill of Rights had to be added to the Constitution.

First, we can say that bill of rights is important because it helps to ensure that the government will honor the rights that the people should have.  The Bill of Rights, of course, protects basic freedoms like the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press.  If there are no written guarantees of such rights, the government is much more likely to take them away.  Thus, the Bill of Rights was necessary in order to protect the rights of the American people.

However, there was also a political reason why the Bill of Rights was needed.  After the Constitution was proposed, there were many people who were opposed to it.  They felt, in particular, that it gave too much power to the new federal government.  They remembered how they had felt that the British government, which was far away from them geographically, had abused their rights.  They worried that the government in Washington, D.C. (also far geographically at a time when it was very hard to travel from place to place) would also abuse their rights.  Therefore, they were reluctant to vote to ratify the Constitution.  The Federalists, who wanted the Constitution ratified, had to promise to add the Bill of Rights in order to persuade people that the federal government would respect their basic rights.  This was necessary in order to get the Constitution ratified.

Thus, we can say that the Bill of Rights was necessary in order to protect our rights and also in order to gain support for the ratification of the Constitution.

Why was the Bill of Rights added to the Constitution?

The answer to this question has to go back to the Constitutional Convention.  In the wake of Shays' Rebellion, a moment that brought the young country to the brink of anarchy, the Founding Fathers met in Philadelphia to essentially deliberate on how to prevent more Shays' Rebellions and how to govern effectively.  Of the many debates that were held and discussed with intensity, two distinct camps of individuals emerged.  The Federalists were a group that were petrified at the prospect of lawlessness and disorder that emerged with Shays' Rebellion.  Favoring a strong central government that could instill law and order while governing effectively, the Federalists were met by another group with equal magnitude.  The Anti- Federalists were convinced that while Shays' Rebellion might not have been good, creating a central government would be far worse.  They felt that the excessive force of the central government was what caused the Revolution in terms of the Colonists' corroded relationship with England and its central authority and its lack of respect for the rights of individuals.  To reinstate such an authority without individual freedoms in the new nation was politically repugnant and, in their mind, morally reprehensible.  The two factions literally stood apart as one could be and the Anti- Federalists would not support the new Constitution until something was included that could check the powers of the federal government and protect individual rights.  The Bill of Rights became the bartering chip that allowed the Anti- Federalists to feel comfortable enough with the new Constitution to ratify it.

The Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) was added to the Constitution of the United States as a compromise between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. They were introduced in 1789 and became effective in 1791. During the Constitutional Convention there were many people who were very concerned that the federal government was going to have too much power. It was the Anti-Federalists who wanted to Bill of Rights added to the Constitution. The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to list the rights of the citizens of the United States and to ensure that the federal government did not have too much power.

Why was the Bill of Rights added to the Constitution?

The first ten amendments of the U.S. Constitution recognized and often considered part of the original document was formally adopted in 1791. Jefferson stated a written bill of rights was 'what the people were entitled to'. Hamilton declared 'of course individual liberties would be protected' under the new document. Jefferson did not trust centralized authority therefore he wanted it in writing. On the other hand, Hamilton understood the United States required  federal authority in order to be recognized by the nations of the world.  Article 7 of the U.S. Constitution required  nine of the thirteen states vote in its favor for it to become law. It took over two years to gain the nine state vote and with the guarantee of The Bill of Rights it  secured those votes. By 1790 the convention hammered the proposed amendments down to eighty, then to twelve, and finally to ten. It can be argued that The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution because the Jeffersonian's and Hamiltonian's understood that the ideological principles of our new nation were just as important as the political realities of being a nation, if the nation was to be.

Bill of Rights was an idea adopted from the British.  It was created to protect the people, and give more power to the people.  During the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, the Constitution was in the process of being accepted by each of the states, and the Anti-Federalists such as Patrick Henry would not sign the Constitution without a statement of a Bill of Rights.  The Anti-Federalists were afraid that without a Bill of Rights, the government would become too big and become another monarchy and not a true democracy.  So the compromise between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists was an addition of the Bill of Rights, once that was added, the Constitution was approved.

Once the delegates at the Constitutional Convention agreed on the need to compose a Constitution, problems began to arise.  Northern and Southern states disagreed about the nature and presence of slavery.  Larger states with more population and smaller states with smaller populations disagreed about the nature of representation. The largest issue which caused the greatest amount of inertia concerned about the role of federal government in the life of its citizens.  Federalists wanted a strong national government so that a sense of law and order and basic functionality can be present in the new nation.  Arising out of the terrible reality of Shays' Rebellion as well as the high level of futility featured within the first Constitution called the Articles of Confederation, the Federalists, such as John Jay and Alexander Hamilton, were fairly pronounced on the issue of a strong federal governmental body.  At the same time, the antifederalists, consisting of individuals like Patrick Henry and George Mason, felt that emboldening the federal government without some measure of individual freedom to act as a check against the authority would be a repeat of the tyranny featured with King George of Britain.  The Bill of Rights was the compromise that pleased both sides.  Federalists were happy because the federal government would retain its power to govern the nation effectively and properly.  The Antifederalists were happy because the Bill of Rights became the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, and demanded that while federal government possessed power, it did not come at the cost of individual rights.