INDEPENDENCE
Upon this mortifying close of a military career which had opened with
so much expectation and even _eclat_, Patrick Henry returned, early in
March, 1776, to his home in the county of Hanover,--a home on which
then rested the shadow of a great sorrow. In the midst of the public
engagements and excitements which absorbed him during the previous
year, his wife, Sarah, the wife of his youth, the mother of his six
children, had passed away. His own subsequent release from public
labor, however bitter in its occasion, must have brought to him a
great solace in the few weeks of repose which he then had under his
own roof, with the privilege of ministering to the happiness of his
motherless children, and of enjoying once more their loving
companionship and sympathy.
But in such a crisis of his country's fate, such a man as Patrick
Henry could not be permitted long to remain in seclusion; and the
promptness and the heartiness with which he was now summoned back into
the service of the public as a civilian, after the recent
humiliations of his military career, were accented, perhaps, on the
part of his neighbors, by something of the fervor of intended
compensation, if not of intended revenge. For, in the mean time, the
American colonies had been swiftly advancing, along a path strewn with
corpses and wet with blood, towards the doctrine that a total
separation from the mother-country,--a thing hitherto contemplated by
them only as a disaster and a crime,--might after all be neither, but
on the contrary, the only resource left to them in their desperate
struggle for political existence. This supreme question, it was plain,
was to confront the very next Virginia convention, which was under
appointment to meet early in the coming May. Almost at once,
therefore, after his return home, Patrick Henry was elected by his
native county to represent it in that convention.
On Monday morning, the 6th of May, the convention gathered at
Williamsburg for its first meeting. On its roll of members we see many
of those names which have become familiar to us in the progress of
this history,--the names of those sturdy and well-trained leaders who
guided Virginia during all that stormy period,--Pendleton, Cary,
Mason, Nicholas, Bland, the Lees, Mann Page, Dudley Digges, Wythe,
Edmund Randolph, and a few others. For the first time also, on such a
roll, we meet the name of James Madison, an accomplished young
political philosopher, then but four years from the inspiring
instruction of President Witherspoon at Princeton. But while a few
very able men had places in that convention, it was, at the time, by
some observers thought to contain an unusually large number of
incompetent persons. Three days after the opening of the session
Landon Carter wrote to Washington:--
"I could have wished that ambition had not so visibly seized
so much ignorance all over the colony, as it seems to have
done; for this present convention abounds with too many of
the inexperienced creatures to navigate our bark on this
dangerous coast; so that I fear the few skilful pilots who
have hitherto done tolerably well to keep her clear from
destruction, will not be able to conduct her with common
safety any longer."[231]
The earliest organization of the House was, on the part of the friends
of Patrick Henry, made the occasion for a momentary flash of
resentment against Edmund Pendleton, as the man who was believed by
them to have been the guiding mind of the Committee of Safety in its
long series of restraints upon the military activity of their chief.
At the opening of the convention Pendleton was nominated for its
president,--a most suitable nomination, and one which under ordinary
circumstances would have been carried by acclamation. Thomas Johnson,
however, a stanch follower of Patrick Henry, at once presented an
opposing candidate; and although Pendleton was elected, he was not
elected without a contest, or without this significant hint that the
fires of indignation against him were still burning in the hearts of a
strong party in that house and throughout the colony.
The convention lasted just two months lacking a day; and in all the
detail and drudgery of its business, as the journal indicates, Patrick
Henry bore a very large part. In the course of the session, he seems
to have served on perhaps a majority of all its committees. On the 6th
of May, he was made a member of the committee of privileges and
elections; on the 7th, of a committee "to bring in an ordinance to
encourage the making of salt, saltpetre, and gunpowder;" on the 8th,
of the committee on "propositions and grievances;" on the 21st, of a
committee "to inquire for a proper hospital for the reception and
accommodation of the sick and wounded soldiers;" on the 22d, of a
committee to inquire into the truth of a complaint made by the Indians
respecting encroachments on their lands; on the 23d, of a committee to
bring in an ordinance for augmenting the ninth regiment, for enlisting
four troops of horse, and for raising men for the defence of the
frontier counties; on the 4th of June, of a committee to inquire into
the causes for the depreciation of paper money in the colony, and into
the rates at which goods are sold at the public store; on the 14th of
June, of a committee to prepare an address to be sent by Virginia to
the Shawanese Indians; on the 15th of June, of a committee to bring in
amendments to the ordinance for prescribing a mode of punishment for
the enemies of America in this colony; and on the 22d of June, of a
committee to prepare an ordinance "for enabling the present
magistrates to continue the administration of justice, and for
settling the general mode of proceedings in criminal and other cases."
The journal also mentions his frequent activity in the House in the
presentation of reports from some of these committees: for example,
from the committee on propositions and grievances, on the 16th of May,
on the 22d of May, and on the 15th of June. On the latter occasion, he
made to the House three detailed reports on as many different
topics.[232]
Of course, the question overshadowing all others in that convention
was the question of independence. General Charles Lee, whose military
duties just then detained him at Williamsburg, and who was intently
watching the currents of political thought in all the colonies,
assured Washington, in a letter written on the 10th of May, that "a
noble spirit" possessed the convention; and that the members were
"almost unanimous for independence," the only disagreement being "in
their sentiments about the mode."[233] That Patrick Henry was in favor
of independence hardly needs to be mentioned; yet it does need to be
mentioned that he was among those who disagreed with some of his
associates "about the mode." While he was as eager and as resolute
for independence as any man, he doubted whether the time had then
fully come for declaring independence. He thought that the declaration
should be so timed as to secure, beyond all doubt, two great
conditions of success,--first, the firm union of the colonies
themselves, and secondly, the friendship of foreign powers,
particularly of France and Spain. For these reasons, he would have had
independence delayed until a confederation of the colonies could be
established by written articles, which, he probably supposed, would
take but a few weeks; and also until American agents could have time
to negotiate with the French and Spanish courts.
On the first day of the session, General Charles Lee, who was hot for
an immediate declaration of independence, seems to have had a
conversation upon the subject with Patrick Henry, during which the
latter stated his reasons for some postponement of the measure. This
led General Lee, on the following day, to write to Henry a letter
which is really remarkable, some passages from which will help us the
better to understand the public situation, as well as Patrick Henry's
attitude towards it:--
WILLIAMSBURG, May 7, 1776.
DEAR SIR,--If I had not the highest opinion of your
character and liberal way of thinking, I should not venture
to address myself to you. And if I were not equally
persuaded of the great weight and influence which the
transcendent abilities you possess must naturally confer, I
should not give myself the trouble of writing, nor you the
trouble of reading this long letter. Since our conversation
yesterday, my thoughts have been solely employed on the
great question, whether independence ought or ought not to
be immediately declared. Having weighed the argument on both
sides, I am clearly of the opinion that we must, as we value
the liberties of America, or even her existence, without a
moment's delay declare for independence.... The objection
you made yesterday, if I understood you rightly, to an
immediate declaration, was by many degrees the most
specious, indeed, it is the only tolerable, one that I have
yet heard. You say, and with great justice, that we ought
previously to have felt the pulse of France and Spain. I
more than believe, I am almost confident, that it has been
done.... But admitting that we are utter strangers to their
sentiments on the subject, and that we run some risk of this
declaration being coldly received by these powers, such is
our situation that the risk must be ventured.
On one side there are the most probable chances of our
success, founded on the certain advantages which must
manifest themselves to French understandings by a treaty of
alliance with America.... The superior commerce and marine
force of England were evidently established on the monopoly
of her American trade. The inferiority of France, in these
two capital points, consequently had its source in the same
origin. Any deduction from this monopoly must bring down her
rival in proportion to this deduction. The French are and
always have been sensible of these great truths.... But
allowing that there can be no certainty, but mere chances,
in our favor, I do insist upon it that these chances render
it our duty to adopt the measure, as, by procrastination,
our ruin is inevitable. Should it now be determined to wait
the result of a previous formal negotiation with France, a
whole year must pass over our heads before we can be
acquainted with the result. In the mean time, we are to
struggle through a campaign, without arms, ammunition, or
any one necessary of war. Disgrace and defeat will
infallibly ensue; the soldiers and officers will become so
disappointed that they will abandon their colors, and
probably never be persuaded to make another effort.
But there is another consideration still more cogent. I can
assure you that the spirit of the people cries out for this
declaration; the military, in particular, men and officers,
are outrageous on the subject; and a man of your excellent
discernment need not be told how dangerous it would be, in
our present circumstances, to dally with the spirit, or
disappoint the expectations, of the bulk of the people. May
not despair, anarchy, and final submission be the bitter
fruits? I am firmly persuaded that they will; and, in this
persuasion, I most devoutly pray that you may not merely
recommend, but positively lay injunctions on, your servants
in Congress to embrace a measure so necessary to our
salvation.
Yours, most sincerely,
CHARLES LEE.[234]
Just eight days after that letter was written, the Virginia convention
took what may, at first glance, seem to be the precise action therein
described as necessary; and moreover, they did so under the
influence, in part, of Patrick Henry's powerful advocacy of it. On the
15th of May, after considerable debate, one hundred and twelve members
being present, the convention unanimously resolved,
"That the delegates appointed to represent this colony in
General Congress be instructed to propose to that
respectable body to declare the United Colonies free and
independent States, absolved from all allegiance to, or
dependence upon, the crown or Parliament of Great Britain;
and that they give the assent of this colony to such
declaration, and to whatever measures may be thought proper
and necessary by the Congress for forming foreign alliances
and a confederation of the colonies, at such time, and in
the manner, as to them shall seem best: provided, that the
power of forming government for, and the regulations of the
internal concerns of, each colony, be left to the respective
colonial legislatures."[235]
On the testimony of Edmund Randolph, who was a member of the
convention, it is now known that this momentous resolution "was drawn
by Pendleton, was offered in convention by Nelson, and was advocated
on the floor by Henry."[236] Any one who will carefully study it,
however, will discover that this resolution was the result of a
compromise; and especially, that it is so framed as to meet Patrick
Henry's views, at least to the extent of avoiding the demand for an
immediate declaration, and of leaving it to Congress to determine the
time and manner of making it. Accordingly, in letters of his, written
five days afterward to his most intimate friends in Congress, we see
that his mind was still full of anxiety about the two great
prerequisites,--a certified union among the colonies, and a friendly
arrangement with France. "Ere this reaches you," he wrote to Richard
Henry Lee, "our resolution for separating from Britain will be handed
you by Colonel Nelson. Your sentiments as to the necessary progress of
this great affair correspond with mine. For may not France, ignorant
of the great advantages to her commerce we intend to offer, and of the
permanency of that separation which is to take place, be allured by
the partition you mention? To anticipate, therefore, the efforts of
the enemy by sending instantly American ambassadors to France, seems
to me absolutely necessary. Delay may bring on us total ruin. But is
not a confederacy of our States previously necessary?"[237]
On the same day, he wrote, also, a letter to John Adams, in which he
developed still more vigorously his views as to the true order in
which the three great measures,--confederation, foreign alliances, and
independence,--should be dealt with:--
"Before this reaches you, the resolution for finally
separating from Britain will be handed to Congress by
Colonel Nelson. I put up with it in the present form for the
sake of unanimity. 'T is not quite so pointed as I could
wish. Excuse me for telling you of what I think of immense
importance; 't is to anticipate the enemy at the French
court. The half of our continent offered to France, may
induce her to aid our destruction, which she certainly has
the power to accomplish. I know the free trade with all the
States would be more beneficial to her than any territorial
possessions she might acquire. But pressed, allured, as she
will be,--but, above all, ignorant of the great thing we
mean to offer,--may we not lose her? The consequence is
dreadful. Excuse me again. The confederacy:--that must
precede an open declaration of independency and foreign
alliances. Would it not be sufficient to confine it, for the
present, to the objects of offensive and defensive nature,
and a guaranty of the respective colonial rights? If a
minute arrangement of things is attempted, such as equal
representation, etc., etc., you may split and divide;
certainly will delay the French alliance, which with me is
everything."[238]
In the mean time, however, many of the people of Virginia had received
with enthusiastic approval the news of the great step taken by their
convention on the 15th of May. Thus "on the day following," says the
"Virginia Gazette," published at Williamsburg, "the troops in this
city, with the train of artillery, were drawn up and went through
their firings and various other military manoeuvres, with the greatest
exactness; a continental union flag was displayed upon the capitol;
and in the evening many of the inhabitants illuminated their
houses."[239] Moreover, the great step taken by the Virginia
convention, on the day just mentioned, committed that body to the duty
of taking at once certain other steps of supreme importance. They were
about to cast off the government of Great Britain: it was necessary
for them, therefore, to provide some government to be put in the place
of it. Accordingly, in the very same hour in which they instructed
their delegates in Congress to propose a declaration of independence,
they likewise resolved, "That a committee be appointed to prepare a
declaration of rights, and such a plan of government as will be most
likely to maintain peace and order in this colony, and secure
substantial and equal liberty to the people."[240]
Of this committee, Patrick Henry was a member; and with him were
associated Archibald Cary, Henry Lee, Nicholas, Edmund Randolph,
Bland, Dudley Digges, Paul Carrington, Mann Page, Madison, George
Mason, and others. The two tasks before the committee--that of
drafting a statement of rights, and that of drafting a constitution
for the new State of Virginia--must have pressed heavily upon its
leading members. In the work of creating a new state government,
Virginia was somewhat in advance of the other colonies; and for this
reason, as well as on account of its general preeminence among the
colonies, the course which it should take in this crisis was watched
with extraordinary attention. John Adams said, at the time, "We all
look up to Virginia for examples."[241] Besides, in Virginia itself,
as well as in the other colonies, there was an unsettled question as
to the nature of the state governments which were then to be
instituted. Should they be strongly aristocratic and conservative,
with a possible place left for the monarchical feature; or should the
popular elements in each colony be more largely recognized, and a
decidedly democratic character given to these new constitutions? On
this question, two strong parties existed in Virginia. In the first
place, there were the old aristocratic families, and those who
sympathized with them. These people, numerous, rich, cultivated,
influential, in objecting to the unfair encroachments of British
authority, had by no means intended to object to the nature of the
British constitution, and would have been pleased to see that
constitution, in all its essential features, retained in Virginia.
This party was led by such men as Robert Carter Nicholas, Carter
Braxton, and Edmund Pendleton. In the second place, there were the
democrats, the reformers, the radicals,--who were inclined to take the
opportunity furnished by Virginia's rejection of British authority as
the occasion for rejecting, within the new State of Virginia, all the
aristocratic and monarchical features of the British Constitution
itself. This party was led by such men as Patrick Henry, Richard
Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, and George Mason. Which party was to
succeed in stamping its impress the more strongly on the new plan for
government in Virginia?
Furthermore, it is important to observe that, on this very question
then at issue in Virginia, two pamphlets, taking opposite sides, were,
just at that moment, attracting the notice of Virginians,--both
pamphlets being noble in tone, of considerable learning, very
suggestive, and very well expressed. The first, entitled "Thoughts on
Government," though issued anonymously, was soon known to be by John
Adams. It advocated the formation of state constitutions on the
democratic model; a lower house elected for a single year by the
people; this house to elect an upper house of twenty or thirty
members, who were to have a negative on the lower house, and to serve,
likewise, for a single year; these two houses to elect a governor, who
was to have a negative on them both, and whose term of office should
also end with the year; while the judges, and all other officers,
civil or military, were either to be appointed by the governor with
the advice of the upper house, or to be chosen directly by the two
houses themselves.[242] The second pamphlet, which was in part a reply
to the first, was entitled "Address to the Convention of the Colony
and Ancient Dominion of Virginia, on the subject of Government in
general, and recommending a particular form to their consideration."
It purported to be by "A native of the Colony." Although the pamphlet
was sent into Virginia under strong recommendations from Carter
Braxton, one of the Virginian delegates in Congress, the authorship
was then unknown to the public. It advocated the formation of state
constitutions on a model far less democratic: first, a lower house,
the members of which were to be elected for three years by the people;
secondly, an upper house of twenty-four members, to be elected for
life by the lower house; thirdly, a governor, to be elected for life
by the lower house; fourthly, all judges, all military officers, and
all inferior civil ones, to be appointed by the governor.[243]
Such was the question over which the members of the committee,
appointed on the 15th of May, must soon have come into sharp conflict.
At its earliest meetings, apparently, Henry found the aristocratic
tendencies of some of his associates so strong as to give him
considerable uneasiness; and by his letter to John Adams, written on
the 20th of the month, we may see that he was then complaining of the
lack of any associate of adequate ability on his own side of the
question. When we remember, however, that both James Madison and
George Mason were members of that committee, we can but read Patrick
Henry's words with some astonishment.[244] The explanation is
probably to be found in the fact that Madison was not placed on the
committee until the 16th, and, being very young and very unobtrusive,
did not at first make his true weight felt; while Mason was not placed
on the committee until the working day just before Henry's letter was
written, and very likely had not then met with it, and may not, at the
moment, have been remembered by Henry as a member of it. At any rate,
this is the way in which our eager Virginia democrat, in that moment
of anxious conflict over the form of the future government of his
State, poured out his anxieties to his two most congenial political
friends in Congress. To Richard Henry Lee he wrote:--
"The grand work of forming a constitution for Virginia is
now before the convention, where your love of equal liberty
and your skill in public counsels might so eminently serve
the cause of your country. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I fear
too great a bias to aristocracy prevails among the opulent.
I own myself a democratic on the plan of our admired friend,
J. Adams, whose pamphlet I read with great pleasure. A
performance from Philadelphia is just come here, ushered in,
I'm told, by a colleague of yours, B----, and greatly
recommended by him. I don't like it. Is the author a Whig?
One or two expressions in the book make me ask. I wish to
divide you, and have you here to animate, by your manly
eloquence, the sometimes drooping spirits of our country,
and in Congress to be the ornament of your native country,
and the vigilant, determined foe of tyranny. To give you
colleagues of kindred sentiments, is my wish. I doubt you
have them not at present. A confidential account of the
matter to Colonel Tom,[245] desiring him to use it according
to his discretion, might greatly serve the public and
vindicate Virginia from suspicions. Vigor, animation, and
all the powers of mind and body must now be summoned and
collected together into one grand effort. Moderation,
falsely so called, hath nearly brought on us final ruin. And
to see those, who have so fatally advised us, still guiding,
or at least sharing, our public counsels, alarms me."[246]
On the same day, he wrote as follows to John Adams:--
WILLIAMSBURG, May 20, 1776.
MY DEAR SIR,--Your favor, with the pamphlet, came safe to
hand. I am exceedingly obliged to you for it; and I am not
without hopes it may produce good here, where there is among
most of our opulent families a strong bias to aristocracy. I
tell my friends you are the author. Upon that supposition, I
have two reasons for liking the book. The sentiments are
precisely the same I have long since taken up, and they come
recommended by you. Go on, my dear friend, to assail the
strongholds of tyranny; and in whatever form oppression may
be found, may those talents and that firmness, which have
achieved so much for America, be pointed against it....
Our convention is now employed in the great work of forming
a constitution. My most esteemed republican form has many
and powerful enemies. A silly thing, published in
Philadelphia, by a native of Virginia, has just made its
appearance here, strongly recommended, 't is said, by one of
our delegates now with you,--Braxton. His reasonings upon
and distinction between private and public virtue, are weak,
shallow, evasive, and the whole performance an affront and
disgrace to this country; and, by one expression, I suspect
his whiggism.
Our session will be very long, during which I cannot count
upon one coadjutor of talents equal to the task. Would to
God you and your Sam Adams were here! It shall be my
incessant study so to form our portrait of government that a
kindred with New England may be discerned in it; and if all
your excellences cannot be preserved, yet I hope to retain
so much of the likeness, that posterity shall pronounce us
descended from the same stock. I shall think perfection is
obtained, if we have your approbation.
I am forced to conclude; but first, let me beg to be
presented to my ever-esteemed S. Adams. Adieu, my dear sir;
may God preserve you, and give you every good thing.
P. HENRY, JR.
P. S. Will you and S. A. now and then write?[247]
To this hearty and even brotherly letter John Adams wrote from
Philadelphia, on the 3d of June, a fitting reply, in the course of
which he said, with respect to Henry's labors in making a constitution
for Virginia: "The subject is of infinite moment, and perhaps more
than adequate to the abilities of any man in America. I know of none
so competent to the task as the author of the first Virginia
resolutions against the Stamp Act, who will have the glory with
posterity of beginning and concluding this great revolution. Happy
Virginia, whose constitution is to be framed by so masterly a
builder!" Then, with respect to the aristocratic features in the
Constitution, as proposed by "A Native of the Colony," John Adams
exclaims:--
"The dons, the bashaws, the grandees, the patricians, the
sachems, the nabobs, call them by what name you please,
sigh, and groan, and fret, and sometimes stamp, and foam,
and curse, but all in vain. The decree is gone forth, and it
cannot be recalled, that a more equal liberty than has
prevailed in other parts of the earth, must be established
in America. That exuberance of pride which has produced an
insolent domination in a few, a very few, opulent,
monopolizing families, will be brought down nearer to the
confines of reason and moderation than they have been used
to.... I shall ever be happy in receiving your advice by
letter, until I can be more completely so in seeing you here
in person, which I hope will be soon."[248]
On the 12th of June, the convention adopted without a dissenting voice
its celebrated "declaration of rights," a compact, luminous, and
powerful statement, in sixteen articles, of those great fundamental
rights that were henceforth to be "the basis and foundation of
government" in Virginia, and were to stamp their character upon that
constitution on which the committee were even then engaged. Perhaps
no political document of that time is more worthy of study in
connection with the genesis, not only of our state constitutions, but
of that of the nation likewise. That the first fourteen articles of
the declaration were written by George Mason has never been disputed:
that he also wrote the fifteenth and the sixteenth articles is now
claimed by his latest and ablest biographer,[249] but in opposition to
the testimony of Edmund Randolph, who was a member both of the
convention itself and of the particular committee in charge of the
declaration, and who has left on record the statement that those
articles were the work of Patrick Henry.[250] The fifteenth article
was in these words: "That no free government, or the blessings of
liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to
justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue, and by
frequent recurrence to fundamental principles." The sixteenth article
is an assertion of the doctrine of religious liberty,--the first time
that it was ever asserted by authority in Virginia. The original
draft, in which the writer followed very closely the language used on
that subject by the Independents in the Assembly of Westminster, stood
as follows:--
"That religion, or the duty we owe our Creator, and the
manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason
and conviction, and not by force or violence; and,
therefore, that all men should enjoy the fullest toleration
in the exercise of religion, according to the dictates of
conscience, unpunished and unrestrained by the magistrate,
unless, under color of religion, any man disturb the peace,
the happiness, or the safety of society; and that it is the
mutual duty of all to practise Christian forbearance, love,
and charity towards each other."[251]
The historic significance of this stately assertion of religious
liberty in Virginia can be felt only by those who remember that, at
that time, the Church of England was the established church of
Virginia, and that the laws of Virginia then restrained the exercise
there of every form of religious dissent, unless compliance had been
made with the conditions of the toleration act of the first year of
William and Mary. At the very moment, probably, when the committee
were engaged in considering the tremendous innovation contained in
this article, "sundry persons of the Baptist church in the county of
Prince William" were putting their names to a petition earnestly
imploring the convention, "That they be allowed to worship God in
their own way, without interruption; that they be permitted to
maintain their own ministers and none others; that they may be
married, buried, and the like, without paying the clergy of other
denominations;" and that, by the concession to them of such religious
freedom, they be enabled to "unite with their brethren, and to the
utmost of their ability promote the common cause" of political
freedom.[252] Of course the adoption of the sixteenth article
virtually carried with it every privilege which these people asked
for. The author of that article, whether it was George Mason or
Patrick Henry, was a devout communicant of the established church of
Virginia; and thus, the first great legislative act for the reform of
the civil constitution of that church, and for its deliverance from
the traditional duty and curse of persecution, was an act which came
from within the church itself.
On Monday, the 24th of June, the committee, through Archibald Cary,
submitted to the convention their plan of a constitution for the new
State of Virginia; and on Saturday, the 29th of June, this plan passed
its third reading, and was unanimously adopted. A glance at the
document will show that in the sharp struggle between the aristocratic
and the democratic forces in the convention, the latter had signally
triumphed. It provided for a lower House of Assembly, whose members
were to be elected annually by the people, in the proportion of two
members from each county; for an upper House of Assembly to consist of
twenty-four members, who were to be elected annually by the people, in
the proportion of one member from each of the senatorial districts
into which the several counties should be grouped; for a governor, to
be elected annually by joint ballot of both houses, and not to
"continue in that office longer than three years successively," nor
then to be eligible again for the office until after the lapse of four
years from the close of his previous term; for a privy council of
eight members, for delegates in Congress, and for judges in the
several courts, all to be elected by joint ballot of the two Houses;
for justices of the peace to be appointed by the governor and the
privy council; and, finally, for an immediate election, by the
convention itself, of a governor, and a privy council, and such other
officers as might be necessary for the introduction of the new
government.[253]
In accordance with the last provision of this Constitution, the
convention at once proceeded to cast their ballots for governor, with
the following result:--
For Patrick Henry 60
For Thomas Nelson 45
For John Page 1
By resolution, Patrick Henry was then formally declared to be the
governor of the commonwealth of Virginia, to continue in office until
the close of that session of the Assembly which should be held after
the end of the following March.
On the same day on which this action was taken, he wrote, in reply to
the official notice of his election, the following letter of
acceptance,--a graceful, manly, and touching composition:--
TO THE HONORABLE THE PRESIDENT AND HOUSE OF CONVENTION.
GENTLEMEN,--The vote of this day, appointing me governor of
this commonwealth, has been notified to me, in the most
polite and obliging manner, by George Mason, Henry Lee,
Dudley Digges, John Blair, and Bartholomew Dandridge,
Esquires.
A sense of the high and unmerited honor conferred upon me by
the convention fills my heart with gratitude, which I trust
my whole life will manifest. I take this earliest
opportunity to express my thanks, which I wish to convey to
you, gentlemen, in the strongest terms of acknowledgment.
When I reflect that the tyranny of the British king and
parliament hath kindled a formidable war, now raging
throughout the wide-extended continent, and in the
operations of which this commonwealth must bear so great a
part, and that from the events of this war the lasting
happiness or misery of a great proportion of the human
species will finally result; that, in order to preserve this
commonwealth from anarchy, and its attendant ruin, and to
give vigor to our councils and effect to all our measures,
government hath been necessarily assumed and new modelled;
that it is exposed to numberless hazards and perils in its
infantine state; that it can never attain to maturity or
ripen into firmness, unless it is guarded by affectionate
assiduity, and managed by great abilities,--I lament my want
of talents; I feel my mind filled with anxiety and
uneasiness to find myself so unequal to the duties of that
important station to which I am called by favor of my fellow
citizens at this truly critical conjuncture. The errors of
my conduct shall be atoned for, so far as I am able, by
unwearied endeavors to secure the freedom and happiness of
our common country.
I shall enter upon the duties of my office whenever you,
gentlemen, shall be pleased to direct, relying upon the
known wisdom and virtue of your honorable house to supply my
defects, and to give permanency and success to that system
of government which you have formed, and which is so wisely
calculated to secure equal liberty, and advance human
happiness.
I have the honor to be, gentlemen, your most obedient and
very humble servant,
P. HENRY, JR.
WILLIAMSBURG, June 29, 1776.[254]
FOOTNOTES:
[231] 4 _Am. Arch._ vi. 390.
[232] The journal of this convention is in 4 _Am. Arch._ vi.
1509-1616.
[233] 4 _Am. Arch._ vi. 406.
[234] 5 _Am. Arch._ i. 95-97. Campbell, in his _History of Virginia_,
645, 646, commits a rather absurd error in attributing this letter to
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
[235] 4 _Am. Arch._ vi. 1524.
[236] Randolph's address at the funeral of Pendleton, in _Va. Gazette_
for 2 Nov. 1803, and cited by Grigsby, _Va. Conv. of 1776_, 203, 204.
[237] _S. Lit. Messenger_ for 1842; thence given in Campbell, _Hist.
Va._ 647, 648.
[238] _Works of John Adams_, iv. 201.
[239] 4 _Am. Arch._ vi. 462.
[240] 4 _Am. Arch._ vi. 1524.
[241] _Works of John Adams_, ix. 387.
[242] John Adams's pamphlet is given in his _Works_, iv. 189-200.
[243] The pamphlet is given in 4 _Am. Arch._ vi. 748-754.
[244] See the unfavorable comment of Rives, _Life and Times of
Madison_, i. 147, 148.
[245] Probably Thomas Ludwell Lee.
[246] _S. Lit. Messenger_ for 1842. Reprinted in Campbell, _Hist. Va._
647.
[247] _Works of John Adams_, iv. 201, 202.
[248] _Works of John Adams_, ix. 386-388.
[249] Kate Mason Rowland, _Life of Mason_, i. 228-241.
[250] Edmund Randolph, MS. _Hist. Va._ See, also, W. W. Henry, _Life
of P. Henry_, i. 422-436.
[251] Edmund Randolph, MS. _Hist. Va._ See, also, W. W. Henry, _Life
of P. Henry_, i. 422-436.
[252] 4 _Am. Arch._ vi. 1582.
[253] _Am. Arch._ vi. 1598-1601, note.
[254] 4 _Am. Arch._ vi. 1129, 1130.