When we think of the American Constitution, many of us tend to focus on the Bill of Rights, especially the great protections of freedom of speech and freedom of religion enshrined in the First Amendment.

The September 17 date of National Constitution Day marks when the Framers signed the Constitution in its original form.

There were serious shortcomings in that Constitution. The greatest was the document’s tolerance of human slavery. Indeed, the Constitution of 1787 created incentives for the spread of slavery, particularly by tying the number of each state’s congressional representatives in part to the number of slaves within its borders.

The Framers’ failure to deal with the tragedy of slavery contributed greatly to the Civil War.

The first constitutional act in the wake of that war was the Thirteenth Amendment, which provides that: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude . shall exist within the United States …”

Later amendments – adopted pursuant to the amendment process put in place by the original Constitution itself – broadly extended the franchise to racial minorities, women, young adults and those too poor to pay poll taxes.

Another major problem with the original Constitution was that it included no Bill of Rights. When George Mason of Virginia proposed adding a Bill of Rights at the Constitutional Convention, his motion was overwhelmingly defeated.

The Framers wisely provided the Constitution could become law only if it were approved by special state conventions at which the people were directly represented by delegates called on to focus on the Constitution. Following the lead of Mason, delegates in several key states – including Massachusetts, Virginia, and New York – demanded the addition of a Bill of Rights as the price of ratification. The mode of adoption established by the original Framers generated a far better Constitution than those Framers themselves had crafted.

The Framers gave little attention to a Bill of Rights because they focused on devising an effective structure for self-rule. It is impossible to capture all of the moves made by the Framers to produce a stable and effective framework of republican government. But one move was key: The Framers broadly dispersed powers – between nation and states and among the legislative, executive and judicial branches – to frustrate efforts, particularly by self-interested majorities, to turn the government into a vehicle of tyranny.

Each branch of the new government was given a distinctive identity so that conflicting perspectives would naturally emerge within them. Senators elected for six-year terms, for example, would take a longer view than Representatives elected for two-year terms.

Federal judges appointed for life would take an even longer view than either Representatives or Senators, and their legal backgrounds and insulation from political retaliation would focus their attention more on fundamental principles than near-term popular causes. The executive branch was given a distinctive capacity because executive power was vested in the President.

In the Federalist Papers, James Madison asserted the essential challenge in constitution-writing lay in “so contriving the interior structure of the government, as that its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places.”

Did our founding fathers succeed in this effort? There can be little better evidence of their essential success than that the Constitution they forged has now endured for 220 years.

- Dan Coenen is a professor of law at the University.