THIS,
sir, is the language of democracy - that a majority of the community
have a right to alter government when found to be oppressive. But how
different is the genius of your new Constitution from this! How
different from the sentiments of freemen that a contemptible minority
can prevent the good of the majority! If, then, gentlemen standing on
this ground are come to that point, that they are willing to bind
themselves and their posterity to be oppressed, I am amazed and
inexpressibly astonished. If this be the opinion of the majority, I must
submit; but to me, sir, it appears perilous and destructive. I can not
help thinking so. Perhaps it may be the result of my age. These may be
feelings natural to a man of my years, when the American spirit has left
him, and his mental powers, like the members of the body, are decayed.
If, sir, amendments are left to the twentieth, or tenth part of the
people of America, your liberty is gone for ever.
We
have heard that there is a great deal of bribery practised in the House
of Commons of England, and that many of the members raise themselves to
preferments by selling the rights of the whole of the people. But, sir,
the tenth part of that body can not continue oppressions on the rest of
the people. English liberty is, in this case, on a firmer foundation
than American liberty. It will be easily contrived to procure the
opposition of the one-tenth of the people to any alteration, however
judicious. 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 a 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 can not 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 –
an 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; their 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 can not
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.
The
honorable gentleman then went on to the figure we make with foreign
nations; the contemptible one we make in France and Holland, which,
according to the substance of the notes, he attributes to the present
feeble government. An opinion has gone forth, we find, that we are
contemptible people; the time has been when we were thought otherwise.
Under the same despised government we commanded the respect of all
Europe; wherefore are we now reckoned otherwise? The American spirit has
fled from hence: it has gone to regions where it has never been
expected; it has gone to the people of France in search of a splendid
government, a strong, energetic government. Shall we imitate the example
of those nations who have gone from a simple to a splendid government?
Are those nations more worthy of our imitation? What can make an
adequate satisfaction to them for the loss they have suffered in
attaining such a government--for the loss of their liberty? 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
everything. 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
into 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 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 and ask him what he does. He
will inform you that he enjoys the fruits of his labor, 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 danger, to terrify us into an adoption of this new form of
government? And yet who knows the dangers that this new system may
produce? They are out of sight of the common people; they can not
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. I fear I tire the patience of the committee, but I beg to be
indulged with a few more observations.
When
I thus profess myself an advocate for the liberty of the people, I
shall be told I am a designing man, that I am to be a great man, that I
am to be a demagog; and many similar illiberal insinuations will be
thrown out; but, sir, conscious rectitude outweighs those things with
me. I see great jeopardy in this new government. I see none from our
present one. I hope some gentleman or other will bring forth, in full
array, those dangers, if there be any, that we may see and touch them. I
have said that I thought this a consolidated government; I will now
prove it. Will the great rights of the people be secured by this
government? Suppose it should prove oppressive, how can it be altered?
Our Bill of Rights declares that "a majority of the community hath an
indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or
abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the
public weal."
The
voice of tradition, I trust, will inform posterity of our struggles for
freedom. If our descendants be worthy the name of Americans they will
preserve and hand down to their latest posterity the transactions of the
present times; and tho I confess my exclamations are not worthy the
hearing, they will see that I have done my utmost to preserve their
liberty, for I never will give up the power of direct taxation but for a
scourge. I am willing to give it conditionally--that is, after
non-compliance with requisitions. I will do more, sir, and what I hope
will convince the most skeptical man that I am a lover of the American
Union; that, in case Virginia shall not make punctual payment, the
control of our customhouses and the whole regulation of trade shall be
given to Congress, and that Virginia shall depend on Congress even for
passports, till Virginia shall have paid the last farthing and furnished
the last soldier.
Nay,
sir, there is another alternative to which I would consent; even that
they should strike us out of the Union and take away from us all federal
privileges till we comply with federal requisitions; but let it depend
upon our own pleasure to pay our money in the most easy manner for our
people. Were all the States, more terrible than the mother country, to
join against us, I hope Virginia could defend herself; but, sir, the
dissolution of the Union is most abhorrent to my mind. The first thing I
have at heart is American liberty; the second thing is American union;
and I hope the people of Virginia will endeavor to preserve that union.
The increasing population of the Southern States is far greater than
that of New England; consequently, in a short time, they will be far
more numerous than the people of that country. Consider this and you
will find this State more particularly interested to support American
liberty and not bind our posterity by an improvident relinquishment of
our rights. I would give the best security for a punctual compliance
with requisitions; but I beseech gentlemen, at all hazards, not to give
up this unlimited power of taxation. The honorable gentleman has told us
that these powers given to Congress are accompanied by a judiciary
which will correct all. On examination you will find this very judiciary
oppressively constructed, your jury trial destroyed, and the judges
dependent on Congress.
This
Constitution is said to have beautiful features; but when I come to
examine these features, sir, they appear to me horribly frightful. Among
other deformities, it has an awful squinting; it squints toward
monarchy, and does not this raise indignation in the breast of every
true American? Your president may easily become king. Your Senate is so
imperfectly constructed that your dearest rights may be sacrificed to
what may be a small minority; and a very small minority may continue for
ever unchangeably this government, altho horridly defective. Where are
your checks in this government? Your strongholds will be in the hands of
your enemies. It is on a supposition that your American governors shall
be honest that all the good qualities of this government are founded;
but its defective and imperfect construction puts it in their power to
perpetrate the worst of mischiefs should they be bad men; and, sir,
would not all the world, blame our distracted folly in resting our
rights upon the contingency of our rulers being good or bad? Show me
that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were
placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men without a
consequent loss of liberty! I say that the loss of that dearest
privilege has ever followed, with absolute certainty, every such mad
attempt.
If
your American chief be a man of ambition and abilities, how easy is it
for him to render himself absolute! The army is in his hands, and if he
be a man of address, it will be attached to him, and it will be the
subject of long meditation with him to seize the first auspicious moment
to accomplish his design, and, sir, will the American spirit solely
relieve you when this happens? I would rather infinitely - and I am sure
most of this Convention are of the same opinion - have a king, lords,
and commons, than a government so replete with such insupportable evils.
If we make a king we may prescribe the rules by which he shall rule his
people, and interpose such checks as shall prevent him from infringing
them; but the president, in the field, at the head of his army, can
prescribe the terms on which he shall reign master, so far that it will
puzzle any American ever to get his neck from under the galling yoke. I
can not with patience think of this idea. If ever he violate the laws,
one of two things will happen: he will come at the head of the army to
carry everything before him, or he will give bail, or do what Mr. Chief
Justice will order him. If he be guilty, will not the recollection of
his crimes teach him to make one bold push for the American throne? Will
not the immense difference between being master of everything an being
ignominiously tried and punished powerfully excite him to make this bold
push? But, sir, where is the existing force to punish him? Can he not,
at the head of his army, beat down every opposition? Away with your
president! We shall have a king: the army will salute him monarch; your
militia will leave you, and assist in making him king, and fight against
you: and what have you to oppose this force? What will then become of
you and your rights? Will not absolute despotism ensue?
|
This sentence triggered my thoughts- "They are out of sight of the common people; they can not 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."
ReplyDeleteWhen I read this, I couldn't help but think of the Czars in the administration, answerable to no one...
This sentence triggered my thoughts- "They are out of sight of the common people; they can not 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."
ReplyDeleteWhen I read this, I couldn't help but think of the Czars in the administration, answerable to no one...
Smart man, that Patrick Henry. The founders were well schooled in human nature.
ReplyDeleteDon't you sometimes wonder why we have lost this vigor and wisdom over the years? I can't help but think America has lost its innocence and zest among other things.
ReplyDeleteWhat an eloquent orator, that Patrick Henry. Although known for being a tad long-winded, he knew how to turn a phrase. Interesting that he was already predicting the schism with the south down the road. He was a big advocate of the "laissez-faire." Basically if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Did not want to see big government sticking their nose in everything.
ReplyDelete