Wisdom from an antifederalist

[Esaias]

The Honorable Gentleman who presides, told us, that to prevent abuses in our Government, we will assemble in Convention, recall our delegated powers, and punish our servants for abusing the trust reposed in them. Oh, Sir, we should have fine times indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people. Your arms wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical; no longer democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? You read of a riot act in a country which is called one of the freest in the world, where a few neighbors cannot assemble without the risk of being shot by a hired soldiery, the engines of despotism. We may see such an act in America. A standing army we shall have also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny: And how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your Mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment? In what situation are we to be? The clause before you gives a power of direct taxation, unbounded and unlimited: Exclusive power of Legislation in all cases whatsoever, for ten miles square; and over all places purchased for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, etc. What resistance could be made? The attempt would be madness. You will find all the strength of this country in the hands of your enemies: Those garrisons will naturally be the strongest places in the country. Your militia is given up to Congress also in another part of this plan: They will therefore act as they think proper: All power will be in their own possession: You cannot force them to receive their punishment: Of what service would militia be to you, when most probably you will not have a single musket in the State; for as arms are to be provided by Congress, they may or may not furnish them. Let me here call your attention to that part which gives the Congress power, "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia, according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." By this, Sir, you see that their control over our last and best defence is unlimitted. If they neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our militia, they will be useless: the States can do neither, this power being exclusively given to Congress: The power of appointing officers over men not disciplined or armed is ridiculous: So that this pretended little remains of power left to the States may, at the pleasure of Congress, be rendered nugatory. Our situation will be deplorable indeed: Nor can we ever expect to get this government amended, since I have already shewn, that a very small minority may prevent it; and that small minority interested in the continuance of the oppression: Will the oppressor let go the oppressed? Was there even an instance? Can the annals of mankind exhibit one single example, where rulers overcharged with power willingly let go the oppressed, though solicited and requested most earnestly? The application for amendments will therefore be fruitless. Sometimes the oppressed have got loose by one of those bloody struggles that desolate a country. A willing relinquishment of power is one of those things which human nature never was, nor ever will be capable of.

- Patrick Henry, 5 Jun 1788. full text here - http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1786-1800/the-anti-federalist-papers/speech-of-patrick-henry-(june-5-1788).php

[Esaias]

If we admit this Consolidated Government it will be because we like a great splendid one. Some way or other we must be a great and mighty empire; we must have an army, and a navy, and a number of things: When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: Liberty, Sir, was then the primary object. We are descended from a people whose Government was founded on liberty: Our glorious forefathers of Great-Britain, made liberty the foundation of every thing. That country is become a great, mighty, and splendid nation; not because their Government is strong and energetic; but, Sir, because liberty is its direct end and foundation: We drew the spirit of liberty from our British ancestors; by that spirit we have triumphed over every difficulty: But now, Sir, the American spirit, assisted by the ropes and chains of consolidation, is about to convert this country to a powerful and mighty empire: If you make the citizens of this country agree to become the subjects of one great consolidated empire of America, your Government will not have sufficient energy to keep them together: Such a Government is incompatible with the genius of republicanism: There will be no checks, no real balances, in this Government: What can avail your specious imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances? But, Sir, we are not feared by foreigners: we do not make nations tremble: Would this, Sir, constitute happiness, or secure liberty? I trust, Sir, our political hemisphere will ever direct their operations to the security of those objects. Consider our situation, Sir: Go to the poor man, ask him what he does; he will inform you, that he enjoys the fruits of his labour, under his own fig-tree, with his wife and children around him, in peace and security. Go to every other member of society, you will find the same tranquil ease and content; you will find no alarms or disturbances: Why then tell us of dangers to terrify us into an adoption of this new Government? And yet who knows the dangers that this new system may produce; they are out of the sight of the common people: They cannot foresee latent consequences: I dread the operation of it on the middling and lower classes of people: It is for them I fear the adoption of this system.

(from the same speech)

[Originalist]

If we admit this Consolidated Government it will be because we like a great splendid one. Some way or other we must be a great and mighty empire; we must have an army, and a navy, and a number of things: When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: Liberty, Sir, was then the primary object. We are descended from a people whose Government was founded on liberty: Our glorious forefathers of Great-Britain, made liberty the foundation of every thing. That country is become a great, mighty, and splendid nation; not because their Government is strong and energetic; but, Sir, because liberty is its direct end and foundation: We drew the spirit of liberty from our British ancestors; by that spirit we have triumphed over every difficulty: But now, Sir, the American spirit, assisted by the ropes and chains of consolidation, is about to convert this country to a powerful and mighty empire: If you make the citizens of this country agree to become the subjects of one great consolidated empire of America, your Government will not have sufficient energy to keep them together: Such a Government is incompatible with the genius of republicanism: There will be no checks, no real balances, in this Government: What can avail your specious imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances? But, Sir, we are not feared by foreigners: we do not make nations tremble: Would this, Sir, constitute happiness, or secure liberty? I trust, Sir, our political hemisphere will ever direct their operations to the security of those objects. Consider our situation, Sir: Go to the poor man, ask him what he does; he will inform you, that he enjoys the fruits of his labour, under his own fig-tree, with his wife and children around him, in peace and security. Go to every other member of society, you will find the same tranquil ease and content; you will find no alarms or disturbances: Why then tell us of dangers to terrify us into an adoption of this new Government? And yet who knows the dangers that this new system may produce; they are out of the sight of the common people: They cannot foresee latent consequences: I dread the operation of it on the middling and lower classes of people: It is for them I fear the adoption of this system.

(from the same speech)


Sadly, Henry later flipped, embracing the Federalist views of Washington, his close friend. He even denounced Madison and Jefferson for penning the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 concerning State nullification of unconstitutional Federal law. Even sadder, Madison flipped later.

[Esaias]

Sadly, Henry later flipped, embracing the Federalist views of Washington, his close friend. He even denounced Madison and Jefferson for penning the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 concerning State nullification of unconstitutional Federal law. Even sadder, Madison flipped later.

This is incorrect and overly simplistic. Henry did not "flip... embracing the Federalist views". He did support the Federalist Party in his last few years, but I think that owes more to practicality and a desire to make the best of the existing situation than anything else.

I'd like to see a copy of his "denouncement" of the KandVResolutions. From what I understand, he was concerned about the prospective use of force against Federal authority leading to a disunion (dissolving of the Union) which he feared would bring in tyranny and "undo the Revolution".

[Esaias]

This is incorrect and overly simplistic. Henry did not "flip... embracing the Federalist views". He did support the Federalist Party in his last few years, but I think that owes more to practicality and a desire to make the best of the existing situation than anything else.

I'd like to see a copy of his "denouncement" of the KandVResolutions. From what I understand, he was concerned about the prospective use of force against Federal authority leading to a disunion (dissolving of the Union) which he feared would bring in tyranny and "undo the Revolution".

And none of this has any bearing on the wisdom found in his speech which I quoted earlier in the thread. His words almost seem prophetic...

[Originalist]

And none of this has any bearing on the wisdom found in his speech which I quoted earlier in the thread. His words almost seem prophetic...

I agree, just as there was wisdom in Madison's early speeches prior to the Jackson administration when he suddenly denounced everything he ever believed and heaped praise on Daniel Webster.

[Originalist]

And none of this has any bearing on the wisdom found in his speech which I quoted earlier in the thread. His words almost seem prophetic...




The response to this appeal came at Charlotte Courthouse in early March, 1799. A huge crowd gathered, for Patrick Henry had announced that he would address his fellow citizens on that day. After declining to be Secretary of State and Chief Justice of the United States, he had acceded to Washington’s request, and was about to ask his neighbors to elect him to the state legislature. Excitement was intense, for Madison, William Giles, John Taylor, and George Nicholas, knowing what a struggle this portended at Richmond, had announced their candidacies, in order to pit their united strength against the man whom Jefferson had described as “the greatest orator who ever lived.”

The hero worship bestowed by the crowd on Henry that morning indicated the importance of his intercession. When the speaker arose, his weakness was manifest. His face was colorless and careworn, his whole frame shaky, his voice, at the beginning, cracked and tremulous. In a few minutes, however, the Henry of the old Virginia House of Burgesses sprang from this emaciated shell. The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions were denounced with all the vehemence that had once been visited on King George. These proceedings filled him “with apprehension and alarm … they had planted thorns upon his pillow … the state had quitted the sphere in which she had been placed by the Constitution … in daring to pronounce upon the validity of Federal laws she had gone out of her jurisdiction.” All the old-time gesticulations were once more pressed into service. Just as, in the Richmond speech of 1775, Henry had dropped on his knees, raised his palms to heaven, and cried, “Give me liberty or give me death,” so now again he clasped his hands and waved his body back and forth, the audience unconsciously swaying in unison. “Let us trust God,” Henry declaimed, “and our better judgment to set us right hereafter. United we stand, divided we fall. Let us not split into factions which must destroy that union upon which our existence hangs.” Charlotte Courthouse, where this speech was made, is situated less than thirty miles from Appomattox, and from this spot, seventy years afterward, were heard the guns that forced Lee’s surrender. Patrick Henry seemed to have divined all this as the inescapable outcome of the Virginia Resolutions. “Such opposition on the part of Virginia”—this was his parting message to his countrymen—“to the acts of the general government must beget their enforcement by military power,” and this would produce “civil war.”

At the end of his oration, Henry literally fell into the arms of bystanders and was carried almost lifeless into a near-by tavern. Two months afterward he was dead. He was overwhelmingly elected to the House of Delegates, but was never able to take his seat. And Washington in December also died. Thus the last act of these two leaders of 1776 was a joint effort to preserve the Constitution….



http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/003648.html