Part 9 (1/2)
”_Resolved_, That a well-regulated entleth and only security of a free government; that such a militia in this colony would forever render it unnecessary for theus for the purpose of our defence any standing army of erous to the liberties of the people, and would obviate the pretext of taxing us for their support
”_Resolved_, That the establishment of such a militia is at this time peculiarly necessary, by the state of our laws for the protection and defence of the country, some of which have already expired, and others will shortly do so; and that the known reislative capacity, renders it too insecure, in this tiiven of renewing the any provision to secure our inestihts and liberties from those further violations hich they are threatened
”_Resolved, therefore_, That this colony be immediately put into a posture of defence; and thatbe a co, and disciplining such a number of men as may be sufficient for that purpose”[153]
No one who reads these resolutions in the light of the facts just given, can find in the by which to account for the opposition which they are known to have e, it islature: it was a athered in spite of the objections of Lord Duninians who meant not finally to sub under express instructions from their constituents to take anization of the colony Not a man, probably, was sent to that convention, not a one to it, as not in substantial sy revolutionary spirit
Of course, even they ere in syht have objected to Patrick Henry's resolutions, had those resolutions beenextreme or violent in expression But, plainly, they were neither extreme nor violent; they were not even novel They contained nothing essential which had not been approved, in almost the same words, more than three months before, by similar conventions in Maryland and in Delaware; which had not been approved, in almost the sainia,--in one instance, by a county convention presided over by Washi+ngton hie, either weeks or months before, by Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and other colonies; which was not sanctioned by the plainest prudence on the part of all persons who intended to ainst the encroachments of Parliah of the revolutionary spirit to have prompted his attendance at a revolutionary convention could have objected to any essential item in Patrick Henry's resolutions
Why, then, were they objected to? Why was their ie resisted? The official journal of the convention throws no light upon the question: it records merely the adoption of the resolutions, and is entirely silent respecting any discussion that they e Tucker, who, though not a member of this convention, had yet as a visitor watched its proceedings that day, gave from memory some account of them; and to him we are indebted for the naainst Patrick Henry's motion ”This produced,” he says, ”an animated debate, in which Colonel Richard Bland, Mr Nicholas, the treasurer, and I think Colonel Harrison, of Berkeley, and Mr
Pendleton, were opposed to the resolution, as conceiving it to be pre prudent politicians, indeed, but all fully committed to the cause of the Revolution
At first, this testimony may seem to leave us as much in the dark as before; and yet all who are fainia at that period will see in this cluster of names some clew to the secret of their opposition It was an opposition to Patrick Henry himself, and as far as possible to anychah Whatevera measure advocated by Patrick Henry, theyto assign St George Tucker tells us that they conceived his resolutions to be ”pre preed weeks and even inia itself, as well as behind those other colonies to which in political feeling Virginia was always most nearly akin
The only possible explanation of the case seems to be found, not in the resolutions themselves, but in the special interpretation put upon the to parlia their adoption What was that interpretation? In the true answer to that question, no doubt, lies the secret of the resistance which his motion encountered For, down to that day, no public body in America, and no public man, had openly spoken of a ith Great Britain in any hly probable, indeed, but still not inevitable At last Patrick Henry spoke of it, and he wanted to induce the convention of Virginia to speak of it, as a thing inevitable Others had said, ”The war s are done”
Patrick Henry, brushi+ng away every prefix or suffix of uncertainty, every half-despairing ”if,” every fragile and pathetic ”unless,”
exclai now done which can avert the war? Such things will not be done The war is coly, other conventions in the colonies, in adopting similar resolutions, had merely announced the probability of war Patrick Henry would have this convention, by adopting his resolutions, virtually declare war itself
In this alone, it is apparent, consisted the real priority and offensiveness of Patrick Henry's position as a revolutionary statesman on the 23d of March, 1775 In this alone were his resolutions ”premature” The very men who opposed theainst the possibility of peace, would have favored them had they only left that door open, or even ajar But Patrick Henry deinia that they should treat all further talk of peace as mere prattle; that they should seize the actual situation by a bold grasp of it in front; that, looking upon the war as a fact, they should instantly proceed to get ready for it And therein, once more, in revolutionary ideas, was Patrick Henry one full step in advance of his contemporaries Therein, once more, did he justify the reluctant praise of Jefferson, as a member of that convention, and who, nearly fifty years afterward, said concerning Patrick Henry to a great statesman from Massachusetts: ”After all, it must be allowed that he was our leader in the inia, and in that respect more is due to him than to any other person He left all of us far behind”[155]
Such, at any rate, we have a right to suppose, was the substantial issue presented by the resolutions of Patrick Henry, and by his introductory speech in support of theroup of politicians--able and patriotic men, who always opposed his leadershi+p--then arrayed the favoring the possibility and the desirableness of a peaceful adjustreat dispute But their opposition to hi him to an effort which simply overpowered and scattered all further resistance It was in review of their whole quivering platoon of hopes and fears, of doubts, cautions, and delays, that he theneffects upon those who heard it, and which, though preserved in a reat a space in the traditions of revolutionary eloquence:--
”'No hly than I do of the patriotisentlemen who have just addressed the House But different hts; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentle, as I do, opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I should speak forth my sentiments freely, and without reserve This is no time for ceremony The question before the house is one of awful moment to this country Forless than a question of freedonitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfil the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country Should I keep backoffence, I should consider uilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty towards the s
”'Mr President, it is natural to e in the illusions of Hope We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transfored in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the nu ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their teuish of spirit itto know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it
”'I have but one lauided, and that is the la of the future but by the past And, judging by the past, I wish to knohat there has been in the conduct of the British ministry, for the last ten years, to justify those hopes hich gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House Is it that insidious smile hich our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled, that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir These are the iuentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to subn any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none
They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British
”'And what have we to oppose to the that for the last ten years Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain Shall we resort to entreaty, and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted?
”'Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves longer
Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the stor on We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the hted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned with contempt fros, e the fond hope of peace and reconciliation There is no longer any room for hope If ish to be free; if we es for which we have been so long contending; if we le in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained,--we ht! An appeal to arms, and to the God of hosts, is all that is left us'”
Up to this point in his address, the orator seereat deliberation and self-restraint St George Tucker, as present, and who has left a written statement of his recollections both of the speech and of the scene, says:--
”It was on that occasion that I first felt a full iive any idea of his speech He was calress of the dispute between Great Britain and the colonies, the various conciliatorytone of violence and arrogance on the part of the fore included in the last two paragraphs of the speech as given above, after which he adds:--
”Inity of Cato of Utica; iine to yourself the Roman senate assembled in the capitol when it was entered by the profane Gauls, who at first were awed by their presence as if they had entered an asseine that you heard that Cato addressing such a senate; i on the wall of Belshazzar's palace; i the words, 'We ht!' as the doom of fate,--and you may have some idea of the speaker, the assembly to whom he addressed himself, and the auditory of which I was one”[156]
But, by a coe Tucker with that of others who heard the speech, it is made evident that, as the orator then advanced toward the conclusion and real clinity of Cato of Utica,” but that his radually deepened into an intensity of passion and a dra He thus continued:--
”'They tell us, sir, that we are weak,--unable to cope with so forer?