IN THE FIRST CONTINENTAL CONGRESS
On the morning of Tuesday, the 30th of August, Patrick Henry arrived
on horseback at Mt. Vernon, the home of his friend and colleague,
George Washington; and having remained there that day and night, he
set out for Philadelphia on the following morning, in the company of
Washington and of Edmund Pendleton. From the jottings in Washington's
diary,[102] we can so far trace the progress of this trio of
illustrious horsemen, as to ascertain that on Sunday, the 4th of
September, they "breakfasted at Christiana Ferry; dined at Chester;"
and reached Philadelphia for supper--thus arriving in town barely in
time to be present at the first meeting of the Congress on the morning
of the 5th.
John Adams had taken pains to get upon the ground nearly a week
earlier; and carefully gathering all possible information concerning
his future associates, few of whom he had then ever seen, he wrote in
his diary that the Virginians were said to "speak in raptures about
Richard Henry Lee and Patrick Henry, one the Cicero, and the other the
Demosthenes, of the age."[103]
Not far from the same time, also, a keen-witted Virginian, Roger
Atkinson, at his home near Petersburg, was writing to a friend about
the men who had gone to represent Virginia in the great Congress; and
this letter of his, though not meant for posterity, has some neat,
off-hand portraits which posterity may, nevertheless, be glad to look
at. Peyton Randolph is "a venerable man ... an honest man; has
knowledge, temper, experience, judgment,--above all, integrity; a true
Roman spirit." Richard Bland is "a wary, old, experienced veteran at
the bar and in the senate; has something of the look of old musty
parchments, which he handleth and studieth much. He formerly wrote a
treatise against the Quakers on water-baptism." Washington "is a
soldier,--a warrior; he is a modest man; sensible; speaks little; in
action cool, like a bishop at his prayers." Pendleton "is an humble
and religious man, and must be exalted. He is a smooth-tongued
speaker, and, though not so old, may be compared to old Nestor,--
'Experienced Nestor, in persuasion skilled,
Words sweet as honey from his lips distilled.'"
But Patrick Henry "is a real half-Quaker,--your brother's
man,--moderate and mild, and in religious matters a saint; but the
very devil in politics; a son of thunder. He will shake the Senate.
Some years ago he had liked to have talked treason into the
House."[104]
Few of the members of this Congress had ever met before; and if all
had arrived upon the scene as late as did these three members from
Virginia, there might have been some difficulty, through a lack of
previous consultation and acquaintance, in organizing the Congress on
the day appointed, and in entering at once upon its business. In fact,
however, more than a week before the time for the first meeting, the
delegates had begun to make their appearance in Philadelphia;
thenceforward with each day the arrivals continued; by Thursday, the
1st of September, twenty-five delegates, nearly one half of the entire
body elected, were in town;[105] and probably, during all that week,
no day and no night had passed without many an informal conference
respecting the business before them, and the best way of doing it.
Concerning these memorable men of the first Continental Congress, it
must be confessed that as the mists of a hundred years of glorifying
oratory and of semi-poetic history have settled down upon them, they
are now enveloped in a light which seems to distend their forms to
proportions almost superhuman, and to cast upon their faces a gravity
that hardly belongs to this world; and it may, perhaps, help us to
bring them and their work somewhat nearer to the plane of natural
human life and motive, and into a light that is as the light of
reality, if, turning to the daily memoranda made at the time by one of
their number, we can see how merrily, after all, nay, with what
flowing feasts, with what convivial communings, passed those days and
nights of preparation for the difficult business they were about to
take in hand.
For example, on Monday, the 29th of August, when the four members of
the Massachusetts delegation had arrived within five miles of the
city, they were met by an escort of gentlemen, partly residents of
Philadelphia, and partly delegates from other colonies, who had come
out in carriages to greet them.
"We were introduced," writes John Adams, "to all these
gentlemen, and most cordially welcomed to Philadelphia. We
then rode into town, and dirty, dusty, and fatigued as we
were, we could not resist the importunity to go to the
tavern, the most genteel one in America. There we were
introduced to a number of other gentlemen of the city, ...
and to Mr. Lynch and Mr. Gadsden, of South Carolina. Here we
had a fresh welcome to the city of Philadelphia; and after
some time spent in conversation, a curtain was drawn, and in
the other half of the chamber a supper appeared as elegant
as ever was laid upon a table. About eleven o'clock we
retired.
"30, Tuesday. Walked a little about town; visited the
market, the State House, the Carpenters' Hall, where the
Congress is to sit, etc.; then called at Mr. Mifflin's, a
grand, spacious, and elegant house. Here we had much
conversation with Mr. Charles Thomson, who is ... the Sam
Adams of Philadelphia, the life of the cause of liberty,
they say. A Friend, Collins, came to see us, and invited us
to dine on Thursday. We returned to our lodgings, and Mr.
Lynch, Mr. Gadsden, Mr. Middleton, and young Mr. Rutledge
came to visit us.
"31, Wednesday. Breakfasted at Mr. Bayard's, of
Philadelphia, with Mr. Sprout, a Presbyterian minister. Made
a visit to Governor Ward of Rhode Island, at his lodgings.
There we were introduced to several gentlemen. Mr.
Dickinson, the Farmer of Pennsylvania, came in his coach
with four beautiful horses to Mr. Ward's lodgings, to see
us.... We dined with Mr. Lynch, his lady and daughter, at
their lodgings, ... and a very agreeable dinner and
afternoon we had, notwithstanding the violent heat. We were
all vastly pleased with Mr. Lynch. He is a solid, firm,
judicious man.
"September 1, Thursday. This day we breakfasted at Mr.
Mifflin's. Mr. C. Thomson came in, and soon after Dr. Smith,
the famous Dr. Smith, the provost of the college.... We then
went to return visits to the gentlemen who had visited us.
We visited a Mr. Cadwallader, a gentleman of large fortune,
a grand and elegant house and furniture. We then visited Mr.
Powell, another splendid seat. We then visited the gentlemen
from South Carolina, and, about twelve, were introduced to
Mr. Galloway, the speaker of the House in Pennsylvania. We
dined at Friend Collins' ... with Governor Hopkins, Governor
Ward, Mr. Galloway, Mr. Rhoades, etc. In the evening all the
gentlemen of the Congress who were arrived in town, met at
Smith's, the new city tavern, and spent the evening
together. Twenty-five members were come. Virginia, North
Carolina, Maryland, and the city of New York were not
arrived.
"2, Friday. Dined at Mr. Thomas Mifflin's with Mr. Lynch,
Mr. Middleton, and the two Rutledges with their ladies....
We were very sociable and happy. After coffee we went to the
tavern, where we were introduced to Peyton Randolph,
Esquire, speaker of Virginia, Colonel Harrison, Richard
Henry Lee, Esquire, and Colonel Bland.... These gentlemen
from Virginia appear to be the most spirited and consistent
of any. Harrison said he would have come on foot rather than
not come. Bland said he would have gone, upon this occasion,
if it had been to Jericho.
"3, Saturday. Breakfasted at Dr. Shippen's; Dr. Witherspoon
was there. Col. R. H. Lee lodges there; he is a masterly
man.... We went with Mr. William Barrell to his store, and
drank punch, and ate dried smoked sprats with him; read the
papers and our letters from Boston; dined with Mr. Joseph
Reed, the lawyer; ... spent the evening at Mr. Mifflin's,
with Lee and Harrison from Virginia, the two Rutledges, Dr.
Witherspoon, Dr. Shippen, Dr. Steptoe, and another
gentleman; an elegant supper, and we drank sentiments till
eleven o'clock. Lee and Harrison were very high. Lee had
dined with Mr. Dickinson, and drank Burgundy the whole
afternoon."[106]
Accordingly, at 10 o'clock on Monday morning, the 5th of September,
when the delegates assembled at their rendezvous, the city tavern, and
marched together through the streets to Carpenters' Hall, for most of
them the stiffness of a first introduction was already broken, and
they could greet one another that morning with something of the
freedom and good fellowship of boon companions. Moreover, they were
then ready to proceed to business under the advantage of having
arranged beforehand an outline of what was first to be done. It had
been discovered, apparently, that the first serious question which
would meet them after their formal organization, was one relating to
the method of voting in the Congress, namely, whether each deputy
should have a vote, or only each colony; and if the latter, whether
the vote of each colony should be proportioned to its population and
property.
Having arrived at the hall, and inspected it, and agreed that it would
serve the purpose, the delegates helped themselves to seats. Then Mr.
Lynch of South Carolina arose, and nominated Mr. Peyton Randolph of
Virginia for president. This nomination having been unanimously
adopted, Mr. Lynch likewise proposed Mr. Charles Thomson for
secretary, which was carried without opposition; but as Mr. Thomson
was not a delegate, and of course was not then present, the doorkeeper
was instructed to go out and find him, and say to him that his
immediate attendance was desired by the Congress.
Next came the production and inspection of credentials. The roll
indicated that of the fifty-two delegates appointed, forty-four were
already upon the ground,--constituting an assemblage of representative
Americans, which, for dignity of character and for intellectual
eminence, was undoubtedly the most imposing that the colonies had ever
seen. In that room that day were such men as John Sullivan, John and
Samuel Adams, Stephen Hopkins, Roger Sherman, James Duane, John Jay,
Philip and William Livingston, Joseph Galloway, Thomas Mifflin, Caesar
Rodney, Thomas McKean, George Read, Samuel Chase, John and Edward
Rutledge, Christopher Gadsden, Henry Middleton, Edmund Pendleton,
George Washington, and Patrick Henry.
Having thus got through with the mere routine of organization, which
must have taken a considerable time, James Duane, of New York, moved
the appointment of a committee "to prepare regulations for this
Congress." To this several gentlemen objected; whereupon John Adams,
thinking that Duane's purpose might have been misunderstood, "asked
leave of the president to request of the gentleman from New York an
explanation, and that he would point out some particular regulations
which he had in his mind." In reply to this request, Duane "mentioned
particularly the method of voting, whether it should be by colonies,
or by the poll, or by interests."[107] Thus Duane laid his finger on
perhaps the most sensitive nerve in that assemblage; but as he sat
down, the discussion of the subject which he had mentioned was
interrupted by a rather curious incident. This was the return of the
doorkeeper, having under his escort Mr. Charles Thomson. The latter
walked up the aisle, and standing opposite to the president, said,
with a bow, that he awaited his pleasure. The president replied:
"Congress desire the favor of you, sir, to take their minutes."
Without a word, only bowing his acquiescence, the secretary took his
seat at his desk, and began those modest but invaluable services from
which he did not cease until the Congress of the Confederation was
merged into that of the Union.
The discussion, into which this incident had fallen as a momentary
episode, was then resumed. "After a short silence," says the man who
was thus inducted into office, "Patrick Henry arose to speak. I did
not then know him. He was dressed in a suit of parson's gray, and from
his appearance I took him for a Presbyterian clergyman, used to
haranguing the people. He observed that we were here met in a time and
on an occasion of great difficulty and distress; that our public
circumstances were like those of a man in deep embarrassment and
trouble, who had called his friends together to devise what was best
to be done for his relief;--one would propose one thing, and another a
different one, whilst perhaps a third would think of something better
suited to his unhappy circumstances, which he would embrace, and think
no more of the rejected schemes with which he would have nothing to
do."[108]
Such is the rather meagre account, as given by one ear-witness, of
Patrick Henry's first speech in the Congress of 1774. From another
ear-witness we have another account, likewise very meagre, but giving,
probably, a somewhat more adequate idea of the drift and point of what
he said:--
"Mr. Henry then arose, and said this was the first general
congress which had ever happened; that no former congress
could be a precedent; that we should have occasion for more
general congresses, and therefore that a precedent ought to
be established now; that it would be a great injustice if a
little colony should have the same weight in the councils of
America as a great one; and therefore he was for a
committee."[109]
The notable thing about both these accounts is that they agree in
showing Patrick Henry's first speech in Congress to have been not, as
has been represented, an impassioned portrayal of "general
grievances," but a plain and quiet handling of a mere "detail of
business." In the discussion he was followed by John Sullivan, who
merely observed that "a little colony had its all at stake as well as
a great one." The floor was then taken by John Adams, who seems to
have made a searching and vigorous argument,--exhibiting the great
difficulties attending any possible conclusion to which they might
come respecting the method of voting. At the end of his speech,
apparently, the House adjourned, to resume the consideration of the
subject on the following day.[110]
Accordingly, on Tuesday morning the discussion was continued, and at
far greater length than on the previous day; the first speaker being
Patrick Henry himself, who seems now to have gone into the subject far
more broadly, and with much greater intensity of thought, than in his
first speech.
"'Government,' said he, 'is dissolved. Fleets and armies and
the present state of things show that government is
dissolved. Where are your landmarks, your boundaries of
colonies? We are in a state of nature, sir. I did propose
that a scale should be laid down; that part of North America
which was once Massachusetts Bay, and that part which was
once Virginia, ought to be considered as having a weight.
Will not people complain,--"Ten thousand Virginians have not
outweighed one thousand others?"
"'I will submit, however; I am determined to submit, if I am
overruled.
"'A worthy gentleman near me [John Adams] seemed to admit
the necessity of obtaining a more adequate representation.
"'I hope future ages will quote our proceedings with
applause. It is one of the great duties of the democratical
part of the constitution to keep itself pure. It is known in
my province that some other colonies are not so numerous or
rich as they are. I am for giving all the satisfaction in my
power.
"'The distinctions between Virginians, Pennsylvanians, New
Yorkers, and New Englanders are no more. I am not a
Virginian, but an American.
"'Slaves are to be thrown out of the question; and if the
freemen can be represented according to their numbers, I am
satisfied.'
"The subject was then debated at length by Lynch, Rutledge,
Ward, Richard Henry Lee, Gadsden, Bland, and Pendleton, when
Patrick Henry again rose:--
"'I agree that authentic accounts cannot be had, if by
authenticity is meant attestations of officers of the crown.
I go upon the supposition that government is at an end. All
distinctions are thrown down. All America is thrown into one
mass. We must aim at the minutiae of rectitude.'"
Patrick Henry was then followed by John Jay, who seems to have closed
the debate, and whose allusion to what his immediate predecessor had
said gives us some hint of the variations in Revolutionary opinion
then prevailing among the members, as well as of the advanced position
always taken by Patrick Henry:--
"'Could I suppose that we came to frame an American
constitution, instead of endeavoring to correct the faults
in an old one, I can't yet think that all government is at
an end. The measure of arbitrary power is not full; and I
think it must run over, before we undertake to frame a new
constitution. To the virtue, spirit, and abilities of
Virginia we owe much. I should always, therefore, from
inclination as well as justice, be for giving Virginia its
full weight. I am not clear that we ought not to be bound by
a majority, though ever so small; but I only mentioned it as
a matter of danger worthy of consideration.'"[111]
Of this entire debate, the most significant issue is indicated by the
following passage from the journal for Tuesday, the 6th of
September:--
"_Resolved_, that in determining questions in this Congress,
each colony or province shall have one vote; the Congress
not being possessed of, or at present able to procure,
proper materials for ascertaining the importance of each
colony."[112]
So far as it is now possible to ascertain it, such was Patrick Henry's
part in the first discussion held by the first Continental
Congress,--a discussion occupying parts of two days, and relating
purely to methods of procedure by that body, and not to the matters of
grievance between the colonies and Great Britain. We have a right to
infer something as to the quality of the first impression made upon
his associates by Patrick Henry in consequence of his three speeches
in this discussion, from the fact that when, at the close of it, an
order was taken for the appointment of two grand committees, one "to
state the rights of the colonies," the other "to examine and report
the several statutes which affect the trade and manufactures of the
colonies," Patrick Henry was chosen to represent Virginia on the
latter committee,[113]--a position not likely to have been selected
for a man who, however eloquent he may have seemed, had not also shown
business-like and lawyer-like qualities.
The Congress kept steadily at work from Monday, the 5th of September,
to Wednesday, the 26th of October,--just seven weeks and two days.
Though not a legislative body, it resembled all legislative bodies
then in existence, in the fact that it sat with closed doors, and that
it gave to the public only such results as it chose to give. Upon the
difficult and exciting subjects which came before it, there were, very
likely, many splendid passages of debate; and we cannot doubt that in
all these discussions Patrick Henry took his usually conspicuous and
powerful share. Yet no official record was kept of what was said by
any member; and it is only from the hurried private memoranda of two
of his colleagues that we are able to learn anything more respecting
Patrick Henry's participation in the debates of those seven weeks.
For example, just two weeks after the opening of this Congress, one of
its most critical members, Silas Deane of Connecticut, in a letter to
his wife, gave some capital sketches of his more prominent associates
there, especially those from the South,--as Randolph, Harrison,
Washington, Pendleton, Richard Henry Lee, and Patrick Henry. The
latter he describes as "a lawyer, and the completest speaker I ever
heard. If his future speeches are equal to the small samples he has
hitherto given us, they will be worth preserving; but in a letter I
can give you no idea of the music of his voice, or the high-wrought
yet natural elegance of his style and manner."[114]
It was on the 28th of September that Joseph Galloway brought forward
his celebrated plan for a permanent reconciliation between Great
Britain and her colonies. This was simply a scheme for what we should
now call home rule, on a basis of colonial confederation, with an
American parliament to be elected every three years by the
legislatures of the several colonies, and with a governor-general to
be appointed by the crown. The plan came very near to adoption.[115]
The member who introduced it was a man of great ability and great
influence; it was supported by James Duane and John Jay; it was
pronounced by Edward Rutledge to be "almost a perfect plan;" and in
the final trial it was lost only by a vote of six colonies to five.
Could it have been adopted, the disruption of the British empire would
certainly have been averted for that epoch, and, as an act of
violence and of unkindness, would perhaps have been averted forever;
while the thirteen English colonies would have remained English
colonies, without ceasing to be free.
The plan, however, was distrusted and resisted, with stern and
implacable hostility, by the more radical members of the Congress,
particularly by those from Massachusetts and Virginia; and an outline
of what Patrick Henry said in his assault upon it, delivered on the
very day on which it was introduced, is thus given by John Adams:--
"The original constitution of the colonies was founded on
the broadest and most generous base. The regulation of our
trade was compensation enough for all the protection we ever
experienced from her.
"We shall liberate our constituents from a corrupt House of
Commons, but throw them into the arms of an American
legislature, that may be bribed by that nation which avows,
in the face of the world, that bribery is a part of her
system of government.
"Before we are obliged to pay taxes as they do, let us be as
free as they; let us have our trade open with all the world.
"We are not to consent by the representatives of
representatives.
"I am inclined to think the present measures lead to
war."[116]
The only other trace to be discovered of Patrick Henry's activity in
the debates of this Congress belongs to the day just before the one
on which Galloway's plan was introduced. The subject then under
discussion was the measure for non-importation and non-exportation. On
considerations of forbearance, Henry tried to have the date for the
application of this measure postponed from November to December,
saying, characteristically, "We don't mean to hurt even our rascals,
if we have any."[117]
Probably the most notable work done by this Congress was its
preparation of those masterly state papers in which it interpreted and
affirmed the constitutional attitude of the colonies, and which, when
laid upon the table of the House of Lords, drew forth the splendid
encomium of Chatham.[118] In many respects the most important, and
certainly the most difficult, of these state papers, was the address
to the king. The motion for such an address was made on the 1st of
October. On the same day the preparation of it was entrusted to a very
able committee, consisting of Richard Henry Lee, John Adams, Thomas
Johnson, Patrick Henry, and John Rutledge; and on the 21st of October
the committee was strengthened by the accession of John Dickinson, who
had entered the Congress but four days before.[119] Precisely what
part Patrick Henry took in the preparation of this address is not now
known; but there is no evidence whatever for the assertion[120] that
the first draft, which, when submitted to Congress, proved to be
unsatisfactory, was the work of Patrick Henry. That draft, as is now
abundantly proved, was prepared by the chairman of the committee,
Richard Henry Lee, but after full instructions from Congress and from
the committee itself.[121] In its final form, the address was largely
moulded by the expert and gentle hand of John Dickinson.[122] No one
can doubt, however, that even though Patrick Henry may have
contributed nothing to the literary execution of this fine address, he
was not inactive in its construction,[123] and that he was not likely
to have suggested any abatement from its free and manly spirit.
The only other committee on which he is known to have served during
this Congress was one to which his name was added on the 19th of
September,--"the committee appointed to state the rights of the
colonies,"[124] an object, certainly, far better suited to the
peculiarities of his talents and of his temper than that of the
committee for the conciliation of a king.
Of course, the one gift in which Patrick Henry excelled all other men
of his time and neighborhood was the gift of eloquence; and it is not
to be doubted that in many other forms of effort, involving, for
example, plain sense, practical experience, and knowledge of details,
he was often equaled, and perhaps even surpassed, by men who had not a
particle of his genius for oratory. This fact, the analogue of which
is common in the history of all men of genius, seems to be the basis
of an anecdote which, possibly, is authentic, and which, at any rate,
has been handed down by one who was always a devoted friend[125] of
the great orator. It is said that, after Henry and Lee had made their
first speeches, Samuel Chase of Maryland was so impressed by their
superiority that he walked over to the seat of one of his colleagues
and said: "We might as well go home; we are not able to legislate with
these men." But some days afterward, perhaps in the midst of the work
of the committee on the statutes affecting trade and commerce, the
same member was able to relieve himself by the remark: "Well, after
all, I find these are but men, and, in mere matters of business, but
very common men."[126]
It seems hardly right to pass from these studies upon the first
Continental Congress, and upon Patrick Henry's part in it, without
some reference to Wirt's treatment of the subject in a book which has
now been, for nearly three quarters of a century, the chief source of
public information concerning Patrick Henry. There is perhaps no other
portion of this book which is less worthy of respect.[127] It is not
only unhistoric in nearly all the very few alleged facts of the
narrative, but it does great injustice to Patrick Henry by
representing him virtually as a mere declaimer, as an ill-instructed
though most impressive rhapsodist in debate, and as without any claim
to the character of a serious statesman, or even of a man of affairs;
while, by the somewhat grandiose and melodramatic tone of some portion
of the narrative, it is singularly out of harmony with the real tone
of that famous assemblage,--an assemblage of Anglo-Saxon lawyers,
politicians, and men of business, who were probably about as practical
and sober-minded a company as had been got together for any manly
undertaking since that of Runnymede.
Wirt begins by convening his Congress one day too soon, namely, on the
4th of September, which was Sunday; and he represents the members as
"personally strangers" to one another, and as sitting, after their
preliminary organization, in a "long and deep silence," the members
meanwhile looking around upon each other with a sort of helpless
anxiety, "every individual" being reluctant "to open a business so
fearfully momentous." But
"in the midst of this deep and death-like silence, and just
when it was beginning to become painfully embarrassing, Mr.
Henry arose slowly, as if borne down by the weight of the
subject. After faltering, according to his habit, through a
most impressive exordium, in which he merely echoed back the
consciousness of every other heart in deploring his
inability to do justice to the occasion, he launched
gradually into a recital of the colonial wrongs. Rising, as
he advanced, with the grandeur of his subject, and glowing
at length with all the majesty and expectation of the
occasion, his speech seemed more than that of mortal man.
Even those who had heard him in all his glory in the House
of Burgesses of Virginia were astonished at the manner in
which his talents seemed to swell and expand themselves to
fill the vaster theatre in which he was now placed. There
was no rant, no rhapsody, no labor of the understanding, no
straining of the voice, no confusion of the utterance. His
countenance was erect, his eye steady, his action noble, his
enunciation clear and firm, his mind poised on its centre,
his views of his subject comprehensive and great, and his
imagination coruscating with a magnificence and a variety
which struck even that assembly with amazement and awe. He
sat down amidst murmurs of astonishment and applause; and,
as he had been before proclaimed the greatest orator of
Virginia, he was now on every hand admitted to be the first
orator of America."[128]
This great speech from Patrick Henry, which certainly was not made on
that occasion, and probably was never made at all, Wirt causes to be
followed by a great speech from Richard Henry Lee, although the
journal could have informed him that Lee was not even in the House on
that day. Moreover, he makes Patrick Henry to be the author of the
unfortunate first draft of the address to the king,--a document which
was written by another man; and on this fiction he founds two or three
pages of lamentation and of homily with reference to Patrick Henry's
inability to express himself in writing, in consequence of "his early
neglect of literature." Finally, he thinks it due "to historic truth
to record that the superior powers" of Patrick Henry "were manifested
only in debate;" and that, although he and Richard Henry Lee "took the
undisputed lead in the Assembly," "during the first days of the
session, while general grievances were the topic," yet they were both
"completely thrown into the shade" "when called down from the heights
of declamation to that severer test of intellectual excellence, the
details of business,"--the writer here seeming to forget that "general
grievances" were not the topic "during the first days of the session,"
and that the very speeches by which these two men are said to have
made their mark there, were speeches on mere rules of the House
relating to methods of procedure.[129]
Since the death of Wirt, and the publication of the biography of him
by Kennedy, it has been possible for us to ascertain just how the
genial author of "The Life and Character of Patrick Henry" came to be
so gravely misled in this part of his book. "The whole passage
relative to the first Congress" appears to have been composed from
data furnished by Jefferson, who, however, was not a member of that
Congress; and in the original manuscript the very words of Jefferson
were surrounded with quotation marks, and were attributed to him by
name. When, however, that great man, who loved not to send out
calumnies into the world with his own name attached to them, came to
inspect this portion of Wirt's manuscript, he was moved by his usual
prudence to write such a letter as drew from Wirt the following
consolatory assurance:--
"Your repose shall never be endangered by any act of mine,
if I can help it. Immediately on the receipt of your last
letter, and before the manuscript had met any other eye, I
wrote over again the whole passage relative to the first
Congress, omitting the marks of quotation, and removing your
name altogether from the communication."[130]
The final adjournment of the first Continental Congress, it will be
remembered, did not occur until its members had spent together more
than seven weeks of the closest intellectual intimacy. Surely, no mere
declaimer however enchanting, no sublime babbler on the rights of man,
no political charlatan strutting about for the display of his
preternatural gift of articulate wind, could have grappled in keen
debate, for all those weeks, on the greatest of earthly subjects, with
fifty of the ablest men in America, without exposing to their view all
his own intellectual poverty, and without losing the very last shred
of their intellectual respect for him. Whatever may have been the
impression formed of Patrick Henry as a mere orator by his associates
in that Congress, nothing can be plainer than that those men carried
with them to their homes that report of him as a man of extraordinary
intelligence, integrity, and power, which was the basis of his
subsequent fame for many years among the American people. Long
afterward, John Adams, who formed his estimate of Patrick Henry
chiefly from what he saw of him in that Congress, and who was never
much addicted to bestowing eulogiums on any man but John Adams, wrote
to Jefferson that "in the Congress of 1774 there was not one member,
except Patrick Henry, who appeared ... sensible of the precipice, or
rather the pinnacle, on which we stood, and had candor and courage
enough to acknowledge it."[131] To Wirt likewise, a few years later,
the same hard critic of men testified that Patrick Henry always
impressed him as a person "of deep reflection, keen sagacity, clear
foresight, daring enterprise, inflexible intrepidity, and untainted
integrity, with an ardent zeal for the liberties, the honor, and
felicity of his country and his species."[132]
Of the parting interview between these two men, at the close of that
first period of thorough personal acquaintance, there remains from the
hand of one of them a graphic account that reveals to us something of
the conscious kinship which seems ever afterward to have bound
together their robust and impetuous natures.
"When Congress," says John Adams, "had finished their
business, as they thought, in the autumn of 1774, I had with
Mr. Henry, before we took leave of each other, some familiar
conversation, in which I expressed a full conviction that
our resolves, declarations of rights, enumeration of wrongs,
petitions, remonstrances, and addresses, associations, and
non-importation agreements, however they might be expected
by the people in America, and however necessary to cement
the union of the colonies, would be but waste paper in
England. Mr. Henry said they might make some impression
among the people of England, but agreed with me that they
would be totally lost upon the government. I had but just
received a short and hasty letter, written to me by Major
Hawley, of Northampton, containing 'a few broken hints,' as
he called them, of what he thought was proper to be done,
and concluding[133] with these words: 'After all, we must
fight.' This letter I read to Mr. Henry, who listened with
great attention; and as soon as I had pronounced the words,
'After all, we must fight,' he raised his head, and with an
energy and vehemence that I can never forget, broke out
with: 'By God, I am of that man's mind!'"[134]
This anecdote, it may be mentioned, contains the only instance on
record, for any period of Patrick Henry's life, implying his use of
what at first may seem a profane oath. John Adams, upon whose very
fallible memory in old age the story rests, declares that he did not
at the time regard Patrick Henry's words as an oath, but rather as a
solemn asseveration, affirmed religiously, upon a very great occasion.
At any rate, that asseveration proved to be a prophecy; for from it
there then leaped a flame that lighted up for an instant the next
inevitable stage in the evolution of events,--the tragic and bloody
outcome of all these wary lucubrations and devices of the assembled
political wizards of America.
It is interesting to note that, at the very time when the Congress at
Philadelphia was busy with its stern work, the people of Virginia were
grappling with the peril of an Indian war assailing them from beyond
their western mountains. There has recently been brought to light a
letter written at Hanover, on the 15th of October, 1774, by the aged
mother of Patrick Henry, to a friend living far out towards the
exposed district; and this letter is a touching memorial both of the
general anxiety over the two concurrent events, and of the motherly
pride and piety of the writer:--
"My son Patrick has been gone to Philadelphia near seven
weeks. The affairs of Congress are kept with great secrecy,
nobody being allowed to be present. I assure you we have our
lowland troubles and fears with respect to Great Britain.
Perhaps our good God may bring good to us out of these many
evils which threaten us, not only from the mountains but
from the seas."[135]
FOOTNOTES:
[102] _Washington's Writings_, ii. 503.
[103] _Works of John Adams_, ii. 357.
[104] Meade, _Old Churches and Families of Va._ i. 220, 221.
[105] _Works of John Adams_, ii. 361.
[106] _Works of John Adams_, ii. 357-364.
[107] _Works of John Adams_, ii. 365.
[108] _Am. Quarterly Review_, i. 30, whence it is quoted in _Works of
John Adams_, iii. 29, 30, note. As regards the value of this testimony
of Charles Thomson, we should note that it is something alleged to
have been said by him at the age of ninety, in a conversation with a
friend, and by the latter reported to the author of the article above
cited in the _Am. Quart. Rev._
[109] _Works of John Adams_, ii. 365.
[110] It seems to me that the second paragraph on page 366 of volume
ii. of the _Works of John Adams_ must be taken as his memorandum of
his own speech; and that what follows on that page, as well as on page
367, and the first half of page 368, is erroneously understood by the
editor as belonging to the first day's debate. It must have been an
outline of the second day's debate. This is proved partly by the fact
that it mentions Lee as taking part in the debate; but according to
the journal, Lee did not appear in Congress until the second day. 4
_Am. Arch._ i. 898.
[111] _Works of John Adams_, ii. 366-368.
[112] 4 _Am. Arch._ i. 898, 899.
[113] 4 _Am. Arch._ i. 899.
[114] _Conn. Hist. Soc. Coll._ ii. 181.
[115] The text of Galloway's plan is given in 4 _Am. Arch._ i. 905,
906.
[116] _Works of John Adams_, ii. 390.
[117] _Works of John Adams_, ii. 385.
[118] Hansard, _Parl. Hist._ xviii. 155, 156 note, 157.
[119] 4 _Am. Arch._ i. 906, 907, 927.
[120] Wirt, 109.
[121] _Works of John Adams_, x. 79; ii. 396, note; Lee's _Life of R.
H. Lee_, i. 116-118, 270-272.
[122] _Political Writings_, ii. 19-29.
[123] Thus John Adams, on 11th October, writes: "Spent the evening
with Mr. Henry at his lodgings consulting about a petition to the
king." _Works_, ii. 396.
[124] 4 _Am. Arch._ i. 904.
[125] Judge John Tyler, in Wirt, 109, note.
[126] For another form of this tradition, see Curtis's _Life of
Webster_, i. 588.
[127] Pages 105-113.
[128] Wirt, 105, 106.
[129] The exact rules under debate during those first two days are
given in 4 _Am. Arch._ i. 898, 899.
[130] Kennedy, _Mem. of Wirt_, i. 364.
[131] _Works of John Adams_, x. 78.
[132] _Ibid._ x. 277.
[133] As a matter of fact, the letter from Hawley began with these
words, instead of "concluding" with them.
[134] _Works of John Adams_, x. 277, 278.
[135] Peyton, _History of Augusta County_, 345, where will be found
the entire letter.