Part 22 (2/2)
”I have not reat diligence) opposed to it, except Mr
Henry, who I have heard is so, but could only conjecture it from a conversation with hiress was before us to-day, when Mr Henry declared that it transcended our powers to decide on the Constitution, and that it o before a convention As it was insinuated he would ai this, much pleasure was discovered at the declaration”[364]
On the 24th of October, froress, Madison sent over to Jefferson, in Paris, a full account of the results of the Philadelphia convention, and of the public feeling with reference to its work: ”My inforinia is as yet extremely imperfect The part which Mr Henry will take is unknown here Much will depend on it I had taken it for granted, from a variety of circumstances, that he would be in the opposition, and still think that will be the case There are reports, however, which favor a contrary supposition”[365] But, by the 9th of December, Madison was able to send to Jefferson a further report, which indicated that all doubt respecting the hostile attitude of Patrick Henry was then reinia seemed to be in favor of the Constitution, he added: ”What change may be produced by the united influence and exertions of Mr Henry, Mr
Mason, and the governor, with some pretty able auxiliaries, is uncertain Mr Henry is the great adversary ill render the event precarious He is, I find, with his usual address, working up every possible interest into a spirit of opposition”[366]
Long before the date last ularly declared for a state convention, to be held at Richmond on the first Monday in June, 1788, then and there to deterinia would accept the new Constitution In view of that event, delegates were in the mean ti ht was to be transferred to the arena of popular debate In such a contest Patrick Henry, being once aroused, was not likely to take a languid or a hesitating part; and of the importance then attached to the part which he did take, we catch frequent glimpses in the correspondence of the period Thus, on the 19th of February, 1788, Madison, still at New York, sent this word to Jefferson: ”The teone but little change of late At first, there was an enthusiasm for the Constitution The tide next took a sudden and strong turn in the opposite direction The influence and exertions of Mr Henry, Colonel Mason, and some others, will account for this I ae is held by Mr Henry and some of his partisans”[367] On the 10th of April, Madison, then returned to his hoinia, wrote to Edmund Randolph: ”The declaration of Henry, mentioned in your letter, is a proof to ame”[368] On the 22d of the same month Madison wrote to Jefferson: ”The adversaries take very different grounds of opposition
Some are opposed to the substance of the plan; others, to particular modifications only Mr Henry is supposed to aiton, writing from New York, told Jefferson: ”Mr H does not openly declare for a disuo directly to that issue He says that three confederacies would be practicable, and better suited to the good of coton wrote to Lafayette on account of the struggle then going forward; and after na champions of the Constitution, he adds sorrowfully: ”Henry and Mason are its great adversaries”[371]
Finally, as late as on the 12th of June, the Rev John Blair Se, conveyed to Madison, an old college friend, his own deep disapproval of the course which had been pursued by Patrick Henry in the ainst the Constitution:--
”Before the Constitution appeared, the ainst it; so that all opposition [to Mr Henry] at the election of delegates to consider it, was in vain That gentleeht him capable of If Mr Innes has shown you a speech of Mr Henry to his constituents, which I sent hi of the rieves reat natural talents abused to such purposes”[372]
On Monday, the 2d of June, 1788, the long-expected convention assereat was the public interest in the event that a full delegation was present, even on the first day; and in order to inia and from other States, who had flocked thither to witness the i battle, it was decided that the convention should hold its est asseht States had already adopted the Constitution The five States which had yet to act upon the question were New Hainia For every reason, the course then to be taken by Virginia would have great consequences
Moreover, since the days of the struggle over independence, no question had so profoundly inia; none had aroused such hopes and such fears; none had so absorbed the thoughts, or so ee, therefore, that this convention, consisting of one hundred and seventy ht to represent, to an unusual degree, the intelligence, the character, the experience, the reputation of the State Perhaps it would be true to say that, excepting Washi+ngton, Jefferson, and Richard Henry Lee, no Virginian of eminence was absent from it
Furthermore, the line of division, which from the outset parted into two hostile sections these one hundred and seventy Virginians, was so quite unparalleled In other States it had been noted that the conservative classes, the h social and professional standing, were nearly all on the side of the new Constitution Such was not the case in Virginia Of the conservative classes throughout that State, quite as ainst the new Constitution as were in favor of it Of the four distinguished citizens who had been its governors, since Virginia had assuovernors,--Patrick Henry, Jefferson, Nelson, and Harrison,--each in turn had denounced the erous; while Ed attended the great convention at Philadelphia, and having there refused to sign the Constitution, had published an impressive statement of his objections to it, and, for severalitsthe attitude of the legal profession,--a profession always inclined to conservatiseneral and admiralty courts, with most of the bar, oppose the Constitution”[373] Finally, ainians ere at that time particularly honored and trusted for patriotic services during the Revolution, such men as these, Theodoric Bland, Williae Mason, and Richard Henry Lee, had declared their disapproval of the document
Nevertheless, within the convention itself, at the opening of the session, it was claiovernment that they then outnureat champion in debate was James Madison, as powerfully assisted, first or last, by Ede Nicholas, Francis Corbin, George Wythe, James Innes, General Henry Lee, and especially by that sa the Constitution for ”features so odious” that he could not ”agree to it,”[375] had finally swung coainst all this array of genius, learning, character, logical acuonist for twenty-three days,--his chief lieutenants in the fight being Mason, Grayson, and John Dawson, with occasional help from Harrison, Monroe, and Tyler Upon him alone fell the brunt of the battle Out of the twenty-three days of that splendid tourney, there were but five days in which he did not take the floor On each of several days he made three speeches; on one day he ht In one speech alone, he was on his legs for seven hours The words of all who had any share in that debate were taken down, according to the irapher, David Robertson, whose reports, however, are said to be little more than a pretty full outline of the speeches actually made: but in the volume which contains these abstracts, one of Patrick Henry's speeches fills eight pages, another ten pages, another sixteen, another twenty-one, another forty; while, in the aggregate, his speeches constitute nearly one quarter of the entire book,--a book of six hundred and sixty-three pages[376]
Any one who has fallen under the ienious ene, that Patrick Henry was a re infornorant especially of law, of political science, and of history, totally lacking in logical power and in precision of state a strange gift of overpowering, dithyrambic eloquence, will find it hard, as he turns over the leaves on which are recorded the debates of the Virginia convention, to understand just how such a person could have made the speeches which are there attributed to Patrick Henry, or how a round, in close hand-to-hand coonists, on all the difficult subjects of law, political science, and history involved in the Constitution of the United States,--while showing at the saeneralshi+p as a tactician and as a party leader ”There has been, I am aware,” says an eminent historian of the Constitution, ”aPatrick Henry's abilities; but I cannot share it The manner in which he carried on the opposition to the Constitution in the convention of Virginia, for nearly a whole reat natural eloquence”[377]
But, noere Patrick Henry's objections to the new Constitution?
First of all, let it be noted that his objections did not spring from any hostility to the union of the thirteen States, or from any preference for a separate union of the Southern States Undoubtedly there had been a time, especially under the provocations connected with the Mississippi business, when he and ht be no security for their interests even under the Confederation, and that this lack of security would be evenand disastrous under the new Constitution
Such, for example, seems to have been the opinion of Governor Benjamin Harrison, as late as October the 4th, 1787, on which date he thus wrote to Washi+ngton: ”I cannot divest myself of an opinion thatif the Constitution is carried into effect, the States south of the Potoes to those to the northward of it”[378] It is very probable that this sentence accurately reflects, likewise, Patrick Henry's ht at that tiht under the sectional suspicions and alar inia convention, he had come to see that the thirteen States ether ”I am persuaded,” said he, in reply to Randolph, ”of what the honorable gentleman says, 'that separate confederacies will ruin us'” ”Sir,” he exclaimed on another occasion, ”the dissolution of the Union isI have at heart is Aain he protested: ”I e, of secession”[379]
In the second place, he adreat defects in the old Confederation, and that those defects ought to be cured by proper ath to the federal government But did the proposed Constitution embody such amendments? On the contrary, that Constitution, instead of properly a the old Confederation, si radically different and radically dangerous
”The federal convention ought to have aated; the object of their mission extended to no other consideration”
”The distinction between a national government and a confederacy is not sufficiently discerned Had the delegates ere sent to Philadelphia a power to propose a consolidated government, instead of a confederacy?” ”Here is a resolution as radical as that which separated us frohts and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the States will be relinquished: and cannot we plainly see that this is actually the case? The rights of conscience, trial by jury, liberty of the press, all your ihts and privileges, are rendered insecure, if not lost, by this change, so loudly talked of by some, so inconsiderately by others” ”A nureatest eoverninary It is a formidable reality
If consolidation proves to be as mischievous to this country as it has been to other countries, ill the poor inhabitants of this country do? This government will operate like an aovern previous notice If gentle to run the hazard, let them run it; but I shall exculpate s within these walls”[380]
But, in the third place, besides transfor the old confederacy into a centralized and densely consolidated governovernment with enormous powers over States and over individuals, what had this new Constitution provided for the protection of States and of individuals? Al It had created a new and a tremendous power over us; it had failed to cover us with any shi+eld, or to interpose any barrier, by which, in case of need, we ht save ourselves from the wanton and fatal exercise of that power In short, the new Constitution had no bill of rights But ”a bill of rights,” he declared, is ”indispensably necessary”
”A general positive provision should be inserted in the new systeht which was not conceded to the general governentleion, liberty of the press, trial by jury, interdiction of cruel punishree to that paper” ”Mr
Chairreater in this governovernment before I have observed already that the sense of European nations, and particularly Great Britain, is against the construction of rights being retained which are not expressly relinquished I repeat, that all nations have adopted the construction, that all rights not expressly and unequivocally reserved to the people are impliedly and incidentally relinquished to rulers, as necessarily inseparable froated powers Let us consider the sentiments which have been entertained by the people of America on this subject At the Revolution, it reat rights which ought, in all countries, to be held inviolable and sacred Virginia did so, we all rehts She uardedly reserved and secured those invaluable, inesties which no people, inspired with the least glow of patriotic liberty, ever did, or ever can, abandon She is called upon now to abandon them, and dissolve that compact which secured them to her Will she do it? This is the question If you intend to reserve your unalienable rights, you must have the most express stipulation; for, if ihts If the people do not think it necessary to reserve theive up these powers, without a bill of rights, you will exhibit the overnment that has abandoned all its powers,--the powers of direct taxation, the sword, and the purse You have disposed of thehts, without check, liuards; still you keep barriers--pointed where? Pointed against your weakened, prostrated, enervated, state governainst the state governainst Congress--though in full and exclusive possession of all power You arainst the weak and defenceless, and expose yourselves naked to the armed and powerful Is not this a conduct of unexaain, in response to his demand for an express assertion, in the instruhts of individuals and of States, he was told that every one of those rights was secured, since it was naturally and fairly implied ”Even say,” he rejoined, ”it is a natural ihtin express teres? If they can use iainst us We are giving power; they are getting power; judge, then, on which side the ierous, because it is unbounded; if it be admitted at all, and no limits prescribed, it admits of the utmost extension” ”The existence of powers is sufficiently established If we trust our dearest rights to implication, we shall be in a very unhappy situation”[382]