Editor’s Note: Henry delivered this speech in June, 1788 at the opening of the Virginia Ratifying Convention and is reprinted here in honor of his birthday, May 29.
EXTRACT FROM SPEECH ON THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.
THE preamble and the two first sections of the first article of the constitution being under consideration, Mr. Henry thus addressed the convention:
MR. CHAIRMAN: The public mind, as well as my own, is extremely uneasy at the proposed change of government. Give me leave to form one of the number of those who wish to be thoroughly acquainted with the reasons of this perilous and uneasy situation, and why we are brought hither to decide on this great national question. I consider myself as the servant of the people of this commonwealth, as a sentinel over their rights, liberty, and happiness. I represent their feelings when I say that they are exceedingly uneasy, being brought from that state of full security, which they enjoy, to the present delusive appearance of things.
Before the meeting of the late Federal convention at Philadelphia, a general peace and an universal tranquility prevailed in this country, and the minds of our citizens were at perfect repose; but since that period, they are exceedingly uneasy and disquieted. When I wished for an appointment to this convention, my mind was extremely agitated for the situation of public affairs. I conceive the republic to be in extreme danger. If our situation be thus uneasy, whence has arisen this fearful jeopardy? It arises from this fatal system; it arises from a proposal that goes to the utter annihilation of the most solemn engagements of the states into a confederacy, to the eventual exclusion of four states. It goes to the annihilation of those solemn treaties we have formed with foreign nations. The present circumstances of France, the good offices rendered us by that kingdom, require our most faithful and most punctual adherence to our treaty with her. We are in alliance with the Spaniards, the Dutch, the Prussians: those treaties bound us as thirteen states, confederated together.
Yet here is a proposal to sever that confederacy. Is it possible that we shall abandon all our treaties and national engagements? And for what? I expected to have heard the reasons of an event so unexpected to my mind, and many others. Was our civil polity or public justice endangered or sapped? Was the real existence of the country threatened, or was this preceded by a mournful progression of events? This proposal of altering our federal government is of a most alarming nature: make the best of this new government-say it is composed of anything but inspiration-you ought to be extremely cautious, watchful, jealous of your liberty; for, instead of securing your rights, you may lose them forever. If a wrong step be now made, the republic may be lost forever. If this new government will not come up to the expectation of the people, and they should be disappointed, their liberty will be lost, and tyranny must and will arise. I repeat it again, and I beg gentlemen to consider, that a wrong step, made now, will plunge us into misery, and our republic will be lost. It will be necessary for this convention to have a faithful historical detail of the facts that preceded the session of the federal convention, and the reasons that actuated its members in proposing an entire alteration of government–and to demonstrate the dangers that awaited us. If they were of such awful magnitude as to warrant a proposal so extremely perilous as this, I must assert that this convention has an absolute right to a thorough discovery of every circumstance relative to this great event. And here I would make this inquiry of those worthy characters who composed a part of the late federal convention. I am sure they were fully impressed with the necessity of forming a great consolidated government, instead of a confederation. That this is a consolidated government is demonstrably clear; and the danger of such a government is, to my mind, very striking.
I have the highest veneration for those gentlemen; but, sir, give me leave to demand, what right had they to say, “We, the People”? My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask, who authorized them to speak the language of, “We, the People,” instead of We, the States? States are the characteristics and the soul of a confederation. If the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great consolidated national government of the people of all the states. I have the highest respect for those gentlemen who formed the convention; and were some of them not here, I would express some testimonial of esteem for them. America had on a former occasion put the utmost confidence in them; a confidence which was well placed; and I am sure, sir, I would cheerfully confide in them as my representatives. But, sir, on this great occasion, I would demand the cause of their conduct. Even from that illustrious man, who saved us by his valor, I would have a reason for his conduct; that liberty which he has given us by his valor tells me to ask this reason, and sure I am, were he here, he would give us that reason: but there are other gentlemen here, who can give us this information. The people gave them no power to use their name. That they exceeded their power is perfectly clear. It is not mere curiosity that actuates me; I wish to hear the real, actual, existing danger which should lead us to take those steps so dangerous in my conception. Disorders have arisen in other parts of America, but here, sir, no dangers, no insurrection or tumult has happened; everything has been calm and tranquil.
But not withstanding this, we are wandering on the great ocean of human affairs. I see no landmark to guide us. We are running we know not whither. Difference in opinion has gone to a degree of inflammatory resentment, in different parts of the country, which has been occasioned by this perilous innovation. The federal convention ought to have amended the old system; for this purpose they were solely delegated; the object of their mission extended to no other consideration. You must therefore forgive the solicitation of one unworthy member, to know what danger could have arisen under the present confederation, and what are the causes of this proposal to change our government.
The views expressed at AbbevilleInstitute.org are not necessarily the views of the Abbeville Institute.
It’s easy to see that Patrick Henry called it. You often hear both sides of the political spectrum say “We the people” instead of challenging that very phrase.
The “we the people” today is even more monstrous in that it has had a construct built around it of a “right to vote.” This construct often mentioned by the modernity crowd of Republicans, Democrats, media, talk-show squabblers, river rats or whatever as something that God gave us (he most certainly DID NOT) is something that will be difficult, if not impossible even for penicillin to kill!
“…here I would make this inquiry of those worthy characters who composed a part of the late federal convention. I am sure they were fully impressed with the necessity of forming a great consolidated government, instead of a confederation. That this is a consolidated government is demonstrably clear; and the danger of such a government is, to my mind, very striking.”
So, after all was said and done, what conclusion did Mr. Henry come to? Did it remain a consolidation as far as he was concerned? Or, was Mr. Henry satisfied that the proper outs for the States were inserted into the Constitution? From my reading it seems Mr. Davis and the South thought so, that the way out had been expressed in the country’s documents. Did Mr. Henry think so, or would he have told Mr. Davis, that Constitutionally, he and the South were in a bit of a bind?
I did a quick lookup to remind myself what Patrick Henry did concerning the ratification of the Constitution. I’m thinking I knew, but couldn’t remember. So, he didn’t like it, didn’t “sign on.”
I’d like to know, and perhaps it’s already well known, if he thought the States Constitutionally had way out if they wished to depart the Union. I’ll assume he though secession was permissable until I can make a determination. To me it seems the States had every right, but I’m interested to know what Henry might have thought. Perhaps I read about this, I did read four of the Kennedy twins books, but I can’t recall. I’ll have to look that up.
“I see no landmark to guide us”
I see them all over Metropolitan Chicago, in the old growth forests here. They still mark the foot trails that became, almost exactly, the United States highway system. As well as all the diagonal and irregular roads of Chicago city.