FRtR > Documents > The Anti-Federalist Papers > 34
The Anti-Federalist Papers
The Constitutional Convention Debates
Speech of Patrick Henry
June 5, 1788
*** Index
* Quote
* Context ***
-
-
5 June 1788
Mr. Chairman ... I rose yesterday to ask a question which arose in my own mind. When I asked that question, I
thought the meaning of my interrogation was obvious: The fate of this question and of America may depend on this:
Have they said, we, the States? Have they made a proposal of a compact between states? If they had, this would be a
confederation: It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, Sir, on that poor little
thing-the expression, We, the people, instead of the States, of America. I need not take much pains to show that the
principles of this system are extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous. Is this a monarchy, like England-a
compact between prince and people, with checks on the former to secure the liberty of the latter? Is this a
Confederacy, like Holland-an association of a number of independent states, each of which retains its individual
sovereignty? It is not a democracy, wherein the people retain all their rights securely. Had these principles been
adhered to, we should not have been brought to this alarming transition, from a Confederacy to a consolidated
Government.
We have no detail of these great consideration, which, in my opinion, ought to have abounded before we should recur
to a government of this kind. Here is a revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain. It is
radical in this transition; our rights 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 immunities and franchises, all pretensions to human rights and privileges, are
rendered insecure, if not lost, by this change, so loudly talked of by some, and inconsiderately by others. Is this
tame relinquishment of rights worthy of freemen? Is it worthy of that manly fortitude that ought to characterize
republicans: It is said eight States have adopted this plan. I declare that if twelve States and a half had adopted
it, I would, with manly firmness, and in spite of an erring world, reject it.
You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but
how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your Government. Having premised these
things, I shall, with the aid of my judgment and information, which, I confess, are not extensive, go into the
discussion of this system more minutely.
Is it necessary for your liberty that you should abandon those great rights by the adoption of this system? Is the
relinquishment of the trial by jury and the liberty of the press necessary for your liberty? Will the abandonment of
your most sacred rights tend to the security of your liberty? Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings-give us
that precious jewel, and you may take every thing else: But I am fearful I have lived long enough to become
an fellow: Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man, may, in these refined,
enlightened days, be deemed old fashioned: If so, I am contented to be so: I say, the time has been when every pore
of my heart beat for American liberty, and which, I believe, had a counterpart in the breast of every true American: But
suspicions have gone forth-suspicions of my integrity-publicly reported that my professions are not real. 23 years
ago was I supposed a traitor to my country; I was then said to be the bane of sedition, because I supported the
rights of my country: I may be thought suspicious when I say our privileges and rights are in danger. But, Sir, a
number of the people of this country are weak enough to think these things are too true: I am happy to find that the
Honorable Gentleman on the other side declares they are groundless: But, Sir, suspicion is a virtue, as long as its
object is the preservation of the public good, and as long as it stays within proper bounds: Should it fall on me,
I am contented: Conscious rectitude is a powerful consolation: I trust there are many who think my professions for
the public good to be real. Let your suspicion look to both sides: There are many on the other side, who possibly
may have been persuaded of the necessity of these measures, which I conceive to be dangerous to your liberty.
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing
will preserve it but downright force: Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.
I am answered by gentlemen, that though I might speak of terrors, yet the fact was, that we were surrounded by none
of the dangers apprehended. I conceive this new Government to be one of those dangers: It has produced those horrors
which distress many of our best citizens. We are come hither to preserve the poor commonwealth of Virginia, if it can
be possibly done: Something must be done to preserve your liberty and mine: The Confederation; this same despised
Government, merits, in my opinion, the highest encomium: It carried us through a long and dangerous war: It rendered
us victorious in that bloody conflict with a powerful nation: It has secured us a territory greater than any European
monarch possesses: And shall a Government which has been thus strong and vigorous, be accused of imbecility and
abandoned for want of energy? Consider what you are about to do before you part with this Government. Take longer
time in reckoning things: Revolutions like this have happened in almost every country in Europe: Similar examples are
to be found in ancient Greece and ancient Rome: Instances of the people losing their liberty by their carelessness
and the ambition of a few.
We are cautioned by the Honorable Gentleman who presides, against faction and turbulence: I acknowledge that
licentiousness is dangerous, and that it ought to be provided against: I acknowledge also the new form of Government
may effectually prevent it: Yet, there is another thing it will as effectually do: it will oppress and ruin the
people.
There are sufficient guards placed against sedition and licentiousness: For when power is given to this Government to
suppress these, or, for any other purpose, the language it assumes is clear, express, and unequivocal; but when this
Constitution speaks of privileges, there is an ambiguity, Sir, a fatal ambiguity;-an ambiguity which is very
astonishing: In the clause under consideration, there is the strangest language that I can conceive. I mean, when it
says that there shall not be more Representatives than one for every 30,000.
Now, Sir, how easy is it to evade this privilege? "The number shall not exceed one for every 30,000." This may be
satisfied by one Representative from each State. Let our numbers be ever so great, this immense continent, may, by
this artful expression, be reduced to have but 13 Representatives: I confess this construction is not natural; but
the ambiguity of the expression lays a good ground for a quarrel. Why was it not clearly and unequivocally
expressed, that they should be entitled, to have one for every 30,000? This would have obviated all disputes; and
was this difficult to be done?
What is the inference? When population increases, and a state shall send Representatives in this proportion,
Congress may remand them, because the right of having one for every 30,000 is not clearly expressed: this possibility
of reducing the number to one for each state approximates to probability by that other expression, "but each state
shall at least have one Representative."
Now, is it not clear that, from the first expression, the number might be reduced so much that some States should
have no Representatives at all, were it not for the insertion of this last expression? And as this is the only
restriction upon them, we may fairly conclude that they may restrain the number to one from each State: Perhaps the
same horrors may hang over my mind again. I shall be told I am continually afraid: But, Sir, I have strong cause of
apprehension: In some parts of the plan before you, the great rights of freemen are endangered, in other parts
absolutely taken away.
How does your trial by jury stand? In civil cases gone-not sufficiently secured in criminal-this best privilege
is gone: But we are told that we need not fear; because those in power, being our Representatives, will not abuse
the power we put in their hands: I am not well versed in history, but I will submit to your recollection, whether
liberty has been destroyed most often by the licentiousness of the people, or by the tyranny of rulers? I imagine,
sir, you will find the balance on the side of tyranny: Happy will you be if you miss the fate of those nations,
who, omitting to resist their oppressors, or negligently suffering their liberty to be wrested from them, have
groaned under intolerable despotism. Most of the human race are now in this deplorable condition: And those nations
who have gone in search of grandeur, power, and splendor, have also fallen a sacrifice, and been the victims of
their own folly: While they acquired those visionary blessings, they lost their freedom.
My great objection to this Government is, that it does not leave us the means of defending our rights, or of
waging war against tyrants: It is urged by some gentlemen, that this new plan will bring us an acquisition of
strength, an army, and the militia of the States: This is an idea extremely ridiculous: Gentlemen cannot be
earnest. This acquisition will trample on our fallen liberty: Let my beloved Americans guard against that fatal
lethargy that has pervaded the universe: Have we the means of resisting disciplined armies, when our only defence,
the militia, is put into the hands of Congress?
The Honorable Gentleman said, that great danger would ensue if the Convention rose without adopting this system: I
ask, Where is that danger? I see none: Other Gentlemen have told us within these walls, that the Union is gone---or,
that the Union will be gone: Is not this trifling with the judgment of their fellow-citizens? Till they tell us the
grounds of their fears, I will consider them as imaginary: I rose to make inquiry where those dangers were; they
could make no answer: I believe I never shall have that answer: Is there a disposition in the people of this
country to revolt against the dominion of laws? Has there been a single tumult in Virginia? Have not the people of
Virginia, when laboring under the severest pressure of accumulated distresses, manifested the most cordial
acquiescence in the execution of the laws? What could be more awful than their unanimous acquiescence under general
distresses?
Is there any revolution in Virginia? Whither is the spirit of America gone? Whither is the genius of America fled?
It was but yesterday, when our enemies marched in triumph through our country. Yet the people of this country could
not be appalled by their pompous armaments: They stopped their career, and victoriously captured them. Where is
the peril, now, compared to that?
Some minds are agitated by foreign alarms: Happily for us, there is no real danger from Europe: that country is
engaged in more arduous business: from that quarter there is no cause of fear: You may sleep in safety forever for
them.
Where is the danger? If, Sir, there was any, I would recur to the American spirit to defend us;--- that spirit which
has enabled us to surmount the greatest difficulties: To that illustrious spirit I address my most fervent prayer,
to prevent our adopting a system destructive to liberty.
Let no Gentlemen be told, that it is not safe to reject this Government. Wherefore is it not safe? We are told there
are dangers; but those dangers are ideal; they cannot be demonstrated: To encourage us to adopt it, they tell us that
there is a plain, easy way of getting amendments: When I come to contemplate this part, I suppose that I am mad, or
that my countrymen are so: The way to amendment is, in my conception, shut.
Let us consider this plain, easy way: "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary,
shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the
several states, shall call a Convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all
intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several
States, or by the Conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed
by the Congress. Provided, that no amendment which may be made prior to the year 1808, shall in any manner affect
the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no State, without its consent,
shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." Hence it appears that three-fourths of the States must
ultimately agree to any amendments that may be necessary.
Let us consider the consequence of this: However uncharitable it may appear, yet I must tell my opinion, that the
most unworthy character may get into power, and prevent the introduction of amendments: Let us suppose (for the case
is supposable, possible, and probable) that you happen to deal those powers to unworthy hands; will they relinquish
powers already in their possession, or agree to amendments? Two-thirds of the Congress, or, of the State
Legislatures, are necessary even to propose amendments: If one-third of these be unworthy men, they may prevent the
application for amendments; but what is destructive and mischievous, is, that three-fourths of the State
Legislatures, or of the State Conventions, must concur in the amendments when proposed: In such numerous bodies,
there must necessarily be some designing bad men: To suppose that so large a number as three-fourths of the States
will concur, is to suppose that they will possess genius, intelligence, and integrity, approaching to miraculous.
It would indeed be miraculous that they should concur in the same amendments, or even in such as would bear some
likeness to one another. For four of the smallest States, that do not collectively contain one-tenth part of the
population of the United States, may obstruct the most salutary and necessary amendments: Nay, in these four
States, six tenths of the people may reject these amendments; and suppose, that amendments shall be opposed to
amendments (which is highly probable) is it possible, that three-fourths can ever agree to the same amendments?
A bare majority in these four small States may hinder the adoption of amendments; so that we may fairly and justly
conclude, that one-twentieth part of the American people, may prevent the removal of the most grievous
inconveniences and oppression, by refusing to accede to amendments.
A trifling minority may reject the most salutary amendments. Is this an easy mode of securing the public liberty?
It is, Sir, a most fearful situation, when the most contemptible minority can prevent the alteration of the most
oppressive Government; for it may, in many respects, prove to be such. Is this the spirit of republicanism?
What, Sir, is the genius of democracy? Let me read that clause of the Bill of Rights of Virginia which relates to
this: third clause. "That Government is or ought to be instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security
of the people, nation, or community: Of all the various modes and forms of Government, that is best which is capable
of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of
mal-administration, and that whenever any Government shall be found inadequate, or contrary to those purposes, 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."
This, Sir, is the language of democracy; that a majority of the community have a right to alter their 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 cannot 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 forever.
We have heard that there is a great deal of bribery practiced in the House of Commons in England; and that many of
the members raised themselves to preferments, by selling the rights of the people: But, Sir, the tenth part of that
body cannot 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 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
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: The Honorable Gentleman's observations respecting the people's right of
being the agents in the formation of this Government, are not accurate in my humble conception. The distinction
between a National Government and a Confederacy is not sufficiently discerned.
Had the delegates who were sent to Philadelphia a power to propose a Consolidated Government instead of a
Confederacy? Were they not deputed by States, and not by the people?
The assent of the people in their collective capacity is not necessary to the formation of a Federal Government.
The people have no right to enter into leagues, alliances, or confederations: They are not the proper agents for
this purpose: States and sovereign powers are the only proper agents for this kind of Government: Shew me an
instance where the people have exercised this business: Has it not always gone through the Legislatures? I refer
you to the treaties with France, Holland, and other nations: How were they made? Were they not made by the States?
Are the people therefore in their aggregate capacity, the proper persons to form a Confederacy?
This, therefore, ought to depend on the consent of the Legislatures; the people having never sent delegates to make
any proposition for changing the Government.
Yet I must say, at the same time, that it was made on grounds the most pure, and perhaps I might have been brought
to consent to it so far as to the change of Government; but there is one thing in it which I never would acquiesce
in. I mean the changing it into a Consolidated Government; which is so abhorrent in my mind. 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 my notes, he attributes to the present feeble Government.
An opinion has gone forth, we find, that we are a 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 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.
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 demagogue; and many similar illiberal insinuations will be thrown out; but, Sir,
conscious rectitude, out-weighs 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.