THE BATTLE IN VIRGINIA OVER THE NEW CONSTITUTION
The great convention at Philadelphia, after a session of four months,
came to the end of its noble labors on the 17th of September, 1787.
Washington, who had been not merely its presiding officer but its
presiding genius, then hastened back to Mt. Vernon, and, in his great
anxiety to win over to the new Constitution the support of his old
friend Patrick Henry, he immediately dispatched to him a copy of that
instrument, accompanied by a very impressive and conciliatory
letter,[362] to which, about three weeks afterwards, was returned the
following reply:--
RICHMOND, October 19, 1787.
DEAR SIR,--I was honored by the receipt of your favor,
together with a copy of the proposed federal Constitution, a
few days ago, for which I beg you to accept my thanks. They
are also due to you from me as a citizen, on account of the
great fatigue necessarily attending the arduous business of
the late convention.
I have to lament that I cannot bring my mind to accord with
the proposed Constitution. The concern I feel on this
account is really greater than I am able to express. Perhaps
mature reflections may furnish me with reasons to change my
present sentiments into a conformity with the opinions of
those personages for whom I have the highest reverence. Be
that as it may, I beg you will be persuaded of the
unalterable regard and attachment with which I shall be,
Dear Sir, your obliged and very humble servant,
P. HENRY.[363]
Four days before the date of this letter the legislature of Virginia
had convened at Richmond for its autumn session, and Patrick Henry had
there taken his usual place on the most important committees, and as
the virtual director of the thought and work of the House. Much
solicitude was felt concerning the course which he might advise the
legislature to adopt on the supreme question then before the
country,--some persons even fearing that he might try to defeat the
new Constitution in Virginia by simply preventing the call of a state
convention. Great was Washington's satisfaction on receiving from one
of his correspondents in the Assembly, shortly after the session
began, this cheerful report:--
"I have not met with one in all my inquiries (and I have
made them with great diligence) opposed to it, except Mr.
Henry, who I have heard is so, but could only conjecture it
from a conversation with him on the subject.... The
transmissory note of Congress was before us to-day, when
Mr. Henry declared that it transcended our powers to decide
on the Constitution, and that it must go before a
convention. As it was insinuated he would aim at preventing
this, much pleasure was discovered at the declaration."[364]
On the 24th of October, from his place in Congress, Madison sent over
to Jefferson, in Paris, a full account of the results of the
Philadelphia convention, and of the public feeling with reference to
its work: "My information from Virginia is as yet extremely
imperfect.... The part which Mr. Henry will take is unknown here. Much
will depend on it. I had taken it for granted, from a variety of
circumstances, that he would be in the opposition, and still think
that will be the case. There are reports, however, which favor a
contrary supposition."[365] But, by the 9th of December, Madison was
able to send to Jefferson a further report, which indicated that all
doubt respecting the hostile attitude of Patrick Henry was then
removed. After mentioning that a majority of the people of Virginia
seemed to be in favor of the Constitution, he added: "What change may
be produced by the united influence and exertions of Mr. Henry, Mr.
Mason, and the governor, with some pretty able auxiliaries, is
uncertain.... Mr. Henry is the great adversary who will render the
event precarious. He is, I find, with his usual address, working up
every possible interest into a spirit of opposition."[366]
Long before the date last mentioned, the legislature had regularly
declared for a state convention, to be held at Richmond on the first
Monday in June, 1788, then and there to determine whether or not
Virginia would accept the new Constitution. In view of that event,
delegates were in the mean time to be chosen by the people; and thus,
for the intervening months, the fight was to be transferred to the
arena of popular debate. In such a contest Patrick Henry, being once
aroused, was not likely to take a languid or a hesitating part; and of
the importance then attached to the part which he did take, we catch
frequent glimpses in the correspondence of the period. Thus, on the
19th of February, 1788, Madison, still at New York, sent this word to
Jefferson: "The temper of Virginia, as far as I can learn, has
undergone but little change of late. At first, there was an enthusiasm
for the Constitution. The tide next took a sudden and strong turn in
the opposite direction. The influence and exertions of Mr. Henry,
Colonel Mason, and some others, will account for this.... I am told
that a very bold language is held by Mr. Henry and some of his
partisans."[367] On the 10th of April, Madison, then returned to his
home in Virginia, wrote to Edmund Randolph: "The declaration of Henry,
mentioned in your letter, is a proof to me that desperate measures
will be his game."[368] On the 22d of the same month Madison wrote to
Jefferson: "The adversaries take very different grounds of opposition.
Some are opposed to the substance of the plan; others, to particular
modifications only. Mr. Henry is supposed to aim at disunion."[369] On
the 24th of April, Edward Carrington, writing from New York, told
Jefferson: "Mr. H. does not openly declare for a dismemberment of the
Union, but his arguments in support of his opposition to the
Constitution go directly to that issue. He says that three
confederacies would be practicable, and better suited to the good of
commerce than one."[370] On the 28th of April, Washington wrote to
Lafayette on account of the struggle then going forward; and after
naming some of the leading champions of the Constitution, he adds
sorrowfully: "Henry and Mason are its great adversaries."[371]
Finally, as late as on the 12th of June, the Rev. John Blair Smith, at
that time president of Hampden-Sidney College, conveyed to Madison, an
old college friend, his own deep disapproval of the course which had
been pursued by Patrick Henry in the management of the canvass against
the Constitution:--
"Before the Constitution appeared, the minds of the people
were artfully prepared against it; so that all opposition
[to Mr. Henry] at the election of delegates to consider it,
was in vain. That gentleman has descended to lower artifices
and management on the occasion than I thought him capable
of.... If Mr. Innes has shown you a speech of Mr. Henry to
his constituents, which I sent him, you will see something
of the method he has taken to diffuse his poison.... It
grieves me to see such great natural talents abused to such
purposes."[372]
On Monday, the 2d of June, 1788, the long-expected convention
assembled at Richmond. So great was the public interest in the event
that a full delegation was present, even on the first day; and in
order to make room for the throngs of citizens from all parts of
Virginia and from other States, who had flocked thither to witness the
impending battle, it was decided that the convention should hold its
meetings in the New Academy, on Shockoe Hill, the largest
assembly-room in the city.
Eight States had already adopted the Constitution. The five States
which had yet to act upon the question were New Hampshire, Rhode
Island, New York, North Carolina, and Virginia. For every reason, the
course then to be taken by Virginia would have great consequences.
Moreover, since the days of the struggle over independence, no
question had so profoundly moved the people of Virginia; none had
aroused such hopes and such fears; none had so absorbed the thoughts,
or so embittered the relations of men. It is not strange, therefore,
that this convention, consisting of one hundred and seventy members,
should have been thought to represent, to an unusual degree, the
intelligence, the character, the experience, the reputation of the
State. Perhaps it would be true to say that, excepting Washington,
Jefferson, and Richard Henry Lee, no Virginian of eminence was absent
from it.
Furthermore, the line of division, which from the outset parted into
two hostile sections these one hundred and seventy Virginians, was
something quite unparalleled. In other States it had been noted that
the conservative classes, the men of education and of property, of
high office, of high social and professional standing, were nearly all
on the side of the new Constitution. Such was not the case in
Virginia. Of the conservative classes throughout that State, quite as
many were against the new Constitution as were in favor of it. Of the
four distinguished citizens who had been its governors, since Virginia
had assumed the right to elect governors,--Patrick Henry, Jefferson,
Nelson, and Harrison,--each in turn had denounced the measure as
unsatisfactory and dangerous; while Edmund Randolph, the governor then
in office, having attended the great convention at Philadelphia, and
having there refused to sign the Constitution, had published an
impressive statement of his objections to it, and, for several months
thereafter, had been counted among its most formidable opponents.
Concerning the attitude of the legal profession,--a profession always
inclined to conservatism,--Madison had written to Jefferson: "The
general and admiralty courts, with most of the bar, oppose the
Constitution."[373] Finally, among Virginians who were at that time
particularly honored and trusted for patriotic services during the
Revolution, such men as these, Theodoric Bland, William Grayson, John
Tyler, Meriwether Smith, James Monroe, George Mason, and Richard Henry
Lee, had declared their disapproval of the document.
Nevertheless, within the convention itself, at the opening of the
session, it was claimed by the friends of the new government that they
then outnumbered their opponents by at least fifty votes.[374] Their
great champion in debate was James Madison, who was powerfully
assisted, first or last, by Edmund Pendleton, John Marshall, George
Nicholas, Francis Corbin, George Wythe, James Innes, General Henry
Lee, and especially by that same Governor Randolph who, after
denouncing the Constitution for "features so odious" that he could not
"agree to it,"[375] had finally swung completely around to its
support.
Against all this array of genius, learning, character, logical acumen,
and eloquence, Patrick Henry held the field as protagonist for
twenty-three days,--his chief lieutenants in the fight being Mason,
Grayson, and John Dawson, with occasional help from Harrison, Monroe,
and Tyler. Upon him alone fell the brunt of the battle. Out of the
twenty-three days of that splendid tourney, there were but five days
in which he did not take the floor. On each of several days he made
three speeches; on one day he made five speeches; on another day
eight. In one speech alone, he was on his legs for seven hours. The
words of all who had any share in that debate were taken down,
according to the imperfect art of the time, by the stenographer, David
Robertson, whose reports, however, are said to be little more than a
pretty full outline of the speeches actually made: but in the volume
which contains these abstracts, one of Patrick Henry's speeches fills
eight pages, another ten pages, another sixteen, another twenty-one,
another forty; while, in the aggregate, his speeches constitute nearly
one quarter of the entire book,--a book of six hundred and sixty-three
pages.[376]
Any one who has fallen under the impression, so industriously
propagated by the ingenious enmity of Jefferson's old age, that
Patrick Henry was a man of but meagre information and of extremely
slender intellectual resources, ignorant especially of law, of
political science, and of history, totally lacking in logical power
and in precision of statement, with nothing to offset these
deficiencies excepting a strange gift of overpowering, dithyrambic
eloquence, will find it hard, as he turns over the leaves on which are
recorded the debates of the Virginia convention, to understand just
how such a person could have made the speeches which are there
attributed to Patrick Henry, or how a mere rhapsodist could have thus
held his ground, in close hand-to-hand combat, for twenty-three days,
against such antagonists, on all the difficult subjects of law,
political science, and history involved in the Constitution of the
United States,--while showing at the same time every quality of good
generalship as a tactician and as a party leader. "There has been, I
am aware," says an eminent historian of the Constitution, "a modern
scepticism concerning Patrick Henry's abilities; but I cannot share
it.... The manner in which he carried on the opposition to the
Constitution in the convention of Virginia, for nearly a whole month,
shows that he possessed other powers besides those of great natural
eloquence."[377]
But, now, what were Patrick Henry's objections to the new
Constitution?
First of all, let it be noted that his objections did not spring from
any hostility to the union of the thirteen States, or from any
preference for a separate union of the Southern States. Undoubtedly
there had been a time, especially under the provocations connected
with the Mississippi business, when he and many other Southern
statesmen sincerely thought that there might be no security for their
interests even under the Confederation, and that this lack of security
would be even more glaring and disastrous under the new Constitution.
Such, for example, seems to have been the opinion of Governor Benjamin
Harrison, as late as October the 4th, 1787, on which date he thus
wrote to Washington: "I cannot divest myself of an opinion that ... if
the Constitution is carried into effect, the States south of the
Potomac will be little more than appendages to those to the northward
of it."[378] It is very probable that this sentence accurately
reflects, likewise, Patrick Henry's mood of thought at that time.
Nevertheless, whatever may have been his thought under the sectional
suspicions and alarms of the preceding months, it is certain that, at
the date of the Virginia convention, he had come to see that the
thirteen States must, by all means, try to keep together. "I am
persuaded," said he, in reply to Randolph, "of what the honorable
gentleman says, 'that separate confederacies will ruin us.'" "Sir," he
exclaimed on another occasion, "the dissolution of the Union is most
abhorrent to my mind. The first thing I have at heart is American
liberty; the second thing is American union." Again he protested: "I
mean not to breathe the spirit, nor utter the language, of
secession."[379]
In the second place, he admitted that there were great defects in the
old Confederation, and that those defects ought to be cured by proper
amendments, particularly in the direction of greater strength to the
federal government. But did the proposed Constitution embody such
amendments? On the contrary, that Constitution, instead of properly
amending the old Confederation, simply annihilated it, and replaced
it by something radically different and radically dangerous.
"The federal convention ought to have amended the old
system; for this purpose they were solely delegated; the
object of their mission extended to no other consideration."
"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?" "Here is
a resolution 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, so inconsiderately by others." "A
number of characters, of the greatest eminence in this
country, object to this government for its consolidating
tendency. This is not imaginary. It is a formidable reality.
If consolidation proves to be as mischievous to this country
as it has been to other countries, what will the poor
inhabitants of this country do? This government will operate
like an ambuscade. It will destroy the state governments,
and swallow the liberties of the people, without giving
previous notice. If gentlemen are willing to run the hazard,
let them run it; but I shall exculpate myself by my
opposition and monitory warnings within these walls."[380]
But, in the third place, besides transforming the old confederacy into
a centralized and densely consolidated government, and clothing that
government with enormous powers over States and over individuals, what
had this new Constitution provided for the protection of States and of
individuals? Almost nothing. It had created a new and a tremendous
power over us; it had failed to cover us with any shield, or to
interpose any barrier, by which, in case of need, we might save
ourselves from the wanton and fatal exercise of that power. In short,
the new Constitution had no bill of rights. But "a bill of rights," he
declared, is "indispensably necessary."
"A general positive provision should be inserted in the new
system, securing to the States and the people every right
which was not conceded to the general government." "I trust
that gentlemen, on this occasion, will see the great objects
of religion, liberty of the press, trial by jury,
interdiction of cruel punishments, and every other sacred
right, secured, before they agree to that paper." "Mr.
Chairman, the necessity of a bill of rights appears to me to
be greater in this government than ever it was in any
government before. I have observed already that the sense of
European nations, and particularly Great Britain, is against
the construction of rights being retained which are not
expressly relinquished. I repeat, that all nations have
adopted the construction, that all rights not expressly and
unequivocally reserved to the people are impliedly and
incidentally relinquished to rulers, as necessarily
inseparable from delegated powers.... Let us consider the
sentiments which have been entertained by the people of
America on this subject. At the Revolution, it must be
admitted that it was their sense to set down those great
rights which ought, in all countries, to be held inviolable
and sacred. Virginia did so, we all remember. She made a
compact to reserve, expressly, certain rights.... She most
cautiously and guardedly reserved and secured those
invaluable, inestimable rights and privileges which no
people, inspired with the least glow of patriotic liberty,
ever did, or ever can, abandon. She is called upon now to
abandon them, and dissolve that compact which secured them
to her.... Will she do it? This is the question. If you
intend to reserve your unalienable rights, you must have the
most express stipulation; for, if implication be allowed,
you are ousted of those rights. If the people do not think
it necessary to reserve them, they will be supposed to be
given up.... If you give up these powers, without a bill of
rights, you will exhibit the most absurd thing to mankind
that ever the world saw,--a government that has abandoned
all its powers,--the powers of direct taxation, the sword,
and the purse. You have disposed of them to Congress,
without a bill of rights, without check, limitation, or
control. And still you have checks and guards; still you
keep barriers--pointed where? Pointed against your weakened,
prostrated, enervated, state government! You have a bill of
rights to defend you against the state government--which is
bereaved of all power, and yet you have none against
Congress--though in full and exclusive possession of all
power. You arm yourselves against the weak and defenceless,
and expose yourselves naked to the armed and powerful. Is
not this a conduct of unexampled absurdity?"[381]
Again and again, in response to his demand for an express assertion,
in the instrument itself, of the rights of individuals and of States,
he was told that every one of those rights was secured, since it was
naturally and fairly implied. "Even say," he rejoined, "it is a
natural implication,--why not give us a right ... in express terms, in
language that could not admit of evasions or subterfuges? If they can
use implication for us, they can also use implication against us. We
are giving power; they are getting power; judge, then, on which side
the implication will be used." "Implication is dangerous, because it
is unbounded; if it be admitted at all, and no limits prescribed, it
admits of the utmost extension." "The existence of powers is
sufficiently established. If we trust our dearest rights to
implication, we shall be in a very unhappy situation."[382]
Then, in addition to his objections to the general character of the
Constitution, namely, as a consolidated government, unrestrained by an
express guarantee of rights, he applied his criticisms in great
detail, and with merciless rigor, to each department of the proposed
government,--the legislative, the executive, and the judicial; and
with respect to each one of these he insisted that its intended
functions were such as to inspire distrust and alarm. Of course, we
cannot here follow this fierce critic of the Constitution into all the
detail of his criticisms; but, as a single example, we may cite a
portion of his assault upon the executive department,--an assault, as
will be seen, far better suited to the political apprehensions of his
own time than of ours:--
"The Constitution is said to have beautiful features; but
when I come to examine these features, sir, they appear to
me horribly frightful. Among other deformities, it has an
awful squinting; it squints towards monarchy. And does not
this raise indignation in the breast of every true American?
Your president may easily become king.... Where are your
checks in this government? Your strongholds will be in the
hands of your enemies. It is on a supposition that your
American governors shall be honest, that all the good
qualities of this government are founded; but its defective
and imperfect construction puts it in their power to
perpetrate the worst of mischiefs, should they be bad men.
And, sir, would not all the world, from the eastern to the
western hemispheres, blame our distracted folly in resting
our rights upon the contingency of our rulers being good or
bad? Show me that age and country where the rights and
liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of
their rulers being good men, without a consequent loss of
liberty.... If your American chief be a man of ambition and
abilities, how easy is it for him to render himself
absolute! The army is in his hands; and if he be a man of
address, it will be attached to him, and it will be the
subject of long meditation with him to seize the first
auspicious moment to accomplish his design. And, sir, will
the American spirit solely relieve you when this happens? I
would rather infinitely--and I am sure most of this
convention are of the same opinion--have a king, lords, and
commons, than a government so replete with such
insupportable evils. If we make a king, we may prescribe the
rules by which he shall rule his people, and interpose such
checks as shall prevent him from infringing them; but the
president, in the field, at the head of his army, can
prescribe the terms on which he shall reign master, so far
that it will puzzle any American ever to get his neck from
under the galling yoke.... Will not the recollection of his
crimes teach him to make one bold push for the American
throne? Will not the immense difference between being master
of everything, and being ignominiously tried and punished,
powerfully excite him to make this bold push? But, sir,
where is the existing force to punish him? Can he not, at
the head of his army, beat down every opposition? Away with
your president! we shall have a king. The army will salute
him monarch. Your militia will leave you, and assist in
making him king, and fight against you. And what have you to
oppose this force? What will then become of you and your
rights? Will not absolute despotism ensue?"[383]
Without reproducing here, in further detail, Patrick Henry's
objections to the new Constitution, it may now be stated that they all
sprang from a single idea, and all revolved about that idea, namely,
that the new plan of government, as it then stood, seriously
endangered the rights and liberties of the people of the several
States. And in holding this opinion he was not at all peculiar. Very
many of the ablest and noblest statesmen of the time shared it with
him. Not to name again his chief associates in Virginia, nor to cite
the language of such men as Burke and Rawlins Lowndes, of South
Carolina; as Timothy Bloodworth, of North Carolina; as Samuel Chase
and Luther Martin, of Maryland; as George Clinton, of New York; as
Samuel Adams, John Hancock, and Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts; as
Joshua Atherton, of New Hampshire, it may sufficiently put us into the
tone of contemporary opinion upon the subject, to recall certain grave
words of Jefferson, who, watching the whole scene from the calm
distance of Paris, thus wrote on the 2d of February, 1788, to an
American friend:--
"I own it astonishes me to find such a change wrought in the
opinions of our countrymen since I left them, as that three
fourths of them should be contented to live under a system
which leaves to their governors the power of taking from
them the trial by jury in civil cases, freedom of religion,
freedom of the press, freedom of commerce, the habeas corpus
laws, and of yoking them with a standing army. That is a
degeneracy in the principles of liberty, to which I had
given four centuries, instead of four years."[384]
Holding such objections to the proposed Constitution, what were
Patrick Henry and his associates in the Virginia convention to do?
Were they to reject the measure outright? Admitting that it had some
good features, they yet thought that the best course to be taken by
Virginia would be to remit the whole subject to a new convention of
the States,--a convention which, being summoned after a year or more
of intense and universal discussion, would thus represent the later,
the more definite, and the more enlightened desires of the American
people. But despairing of this, Patrick Henry and his friends
concentrated all their forces upon this single and clear line of
policy: so to press their objections to the Constitution as to induce
the convention, not to reject it, but to postpone its adoption until
they could refer to the other States in the American confederacy the
following momentous proposition, namely, "a declaration of rights,
asserting, and securing from encroachment, the great principles of
civil and religious liberty, and the undeniable rights of the people,
together with amendments to the most exceptionable parts of the said
constitution of government."[385]
Such, then, was the real question over which in that assemblage, from
the first day to the last, the battle raged. The result of the battle
was reached on Wednesday, the 25th of June; and that result was a
victory for immediate adoption, but by a majority of only ten votes,
instead of the fifty votes that were claimed for it at the beginning
of the session. Moreover, even that small majority for immediate
adoption was obtained only by the help, first, of a preamble solemnly
affirming it to be the understanding of Virginia in this act that it
retained every power not expressly granted to the general government;
and, secondly, of a subsidiary resolution promising to recommend to
Congress "whatsoever amendments may be deemed necessary."
Just before the decisive question was put, Patrick Henry, knowing that
the result would be against him, and knowing, also, from the angry
things uttered within that House and outside of it, that much
solicitude was abroad respecting the course likely to be taken by the
defeated party, then and there spoke these noble words:--
"I beg pardon of this House for having taken up more time
than came to my share, and I thank them for the patience and
polite attention with which I have been heard. If I shall be
in the minority, I shall have those painful sensations which
arise from a conviction of being overpowered in a good
cause. Yet I will be a peaceable citizen. My head, my hand,
and my heart shall be at liberty to retrieve the loss of
liberty, and remove the defects of that system in a
constitutional way. I wish not to go to violence, but will
wait, with hopes that the spirit which predominated in the
Revolution is not yet gone, nor the cause of those who are
attached to the Revolution yet lost. I shall therefore
patiently wait in expectation of seeing that government
changed, so as to be compatible with the safety, liberty,
and happiness of the people."[386]
Those words of the great Virginian leader proved to be a message of
reassurance to many an anxious citizen, in many a State,--not least
so to that great citizen who, from the slopes of Mount Vernon, was
then watching, night and day, for signs of some abatement in the storm
of civil discord. Those words, too, have, in our time, won for the
orator who spoke them the deliberate, and the almost lyrical, applause
of the greatest historian who has yet laid hand on the story of the
Constitution: "Henry showed his genial nature, free from all
malignity. He was like a billow of the ocean on the first bright day
after the storm, dashing itself against the rocky cliff, and then,
sparkling with light, retreating to its home."[387]
Long after the practical effects of the Virginia convention of 1788
had been merged in the general political life of the country, that
convention was still proudly remembered for the magnificent exertions
of intellectual power, and particularly of eloquence, which it had
called forth. So lately as the year 1857, there was still living a man
who, in his youth, had often looked in upon that famous convention,
and whose enthusiasm, in recalling its great scenes, was not to be
chilled even by the frosts of his ninety winters:--
"The impressions made by the powerful arguments of Madison
and the overwhelming eloquence of Henry can never fade from
my mind. I thought them almost supernatural. They seemed
raised up by Providence, each in his way, to produce great
results: the one by his grave, dignified, and irresistible
arguments to convince and enlighten mankind; the other, by
his brilliant and enrapturing eloquence to lead
whithersoever he would."[388]
Those who had heard Patrick Henry on the other great occasions of his
career were ready to say that his eloquence in the convention of 1788
was, upon the whole, fully equal to anything ever exhibited by him in
any other place. The official reports of his speeches in that
assemblage were always declared to be inferior in "strength and
beauty" to those actually made by him there.[389] "In forming an
estimate of his eloquence," says one gentleman who there heard him,
"no reliance can be placed on the printed speeches. No reporter
whatever could take down what he actually said; and if he could, it
would fall far short of the original."[390]
In his arguments against the Constitution Patrick Henry confined
himself to no systematic order. The convention had indeed resolved
that the document should be discussed, clause by clause, in a regular
manner; but in spite of the complaints and reproaches of his
antagonists, he continually broke over all barriers, and delivered his
"multiform and protean attacks" in such order as suited the workings
of his own mind.
In the course of that long and eager controversy, he had several
passages of sharp personal collision with his opponents, particularly
with Governor Randolph, whose vacillating course respecting the
Constitution had left him exposed to the most galling comments, and
who on one occasion, in his anguish, turned upon Patrick Henry with
the exclamation: "I find myself attacked in the most illiberal manner
by the honorable gentleman. I disdain his aspersions and his
insinuations. His asperity is warranted by no principle of
parliamentary decency, nor compatible with the least shadow of
friendship; and if our friendship must fall, let it fall, like
Lucifer, never to rise again."[391] Like all very eloquent men, he was
taunted, of course, for having more eloquence than logic; for "his
declamatory talents;" for his "vague discourses and mere sports of
fancy;" for discarding "solid argument;" and for "throwing those
bolts" which he had "so peculiar a dexterity at discharging."[392] On
one occasion, old General Adam Stephen tried to burlesque the orator's
manner of speech;[393] on another occasion, that same petulant warrior
bluntly told Patrick that if he did "not like this government," he
might "go and live among the Indians," and even offered to facilitate
the orator's self-expatriation among the savages: "I know of several
nations that live very happily; and I can furnish him with a
vocabulary of their language."[394]
Knowing, as he did, every passion and prejudice of his audience, he
adopted, it appears, almost every conceivable method of appeal. "The
variety of arguments," writes one witness, "which Mr. Henry generally
presented in his speeches, addressed to the capacities, prejudices,
and individual interests of his hearers, made his speeches very
unequal. He rarely made in that convention a speech which Quintilian
would have approved. If he soared at times, like the eagle, and seemed
like the bird of Jove to be armed with thunder, he did not disdain to
stoop like the hawk to seize his prey,--but the instant that he had
done it, rose in pursuit of another quarry."[395]
Perhaps the most wonderful example of his eloquence, if we may judge
by contemporary descriptions, was that connected with the famous scene
of the thunder-storm, on Tuesday, the 24th of June, only one day
before the decisive vote was taken. The orator, it seems, had gathered
up all his forces for what might prove to be his last appeal against
immediate adoption, and was portraying the disasters which the new
system of government, unless amended, was to bring upon his
countrymen, and upon all mankind: "I see the awful immensity of the
dangers with which it is pregnant. I see it. I feel it. I see beings
of a higher order anxious concerning our decision. When I see beyond
the horizon that bounds human eyes, and look at the final consummation
of all human things, and see those intelligent beings which inhabit
the ethereal mansions reviewing the political decisions and
revolutions which, in the progress of time, will happen in America,
and the consequent happiness or misery of mankind, I am led to believe
that much of the account, on one side or the other, will depend on
what we now decide. Our own happiness alone is not affected by the
event. All nations are interested in the determination. We have it in
our power to secure the happiness of one half of the human race. Its
adoption may involve the misery of the other hemisphere." Thus far the
stenographer had proceeded, when he suddenly stopped, and placed
within brackets the following note: "[Here a violent storm arose,
which put the House in such disorder, that Mr. Henry was obliged to
conclude.]"[396] But the scene which is thus quietly despatched by the
official reporter of the convention was again and again described, by
many who were witnesses of it, as something most sublime and even
appalling. After having delineated with overpowering vividness the
calamities which were likely to befall mankind from their adoption of
the proposed frame of government, the orator, it is said, as if
wielding an enchanter's wand, suddenly enlarged the arena of the
debate and the number of his auditors; for, peering beyond the veil
which shuts in mortal sight, and pointing "to those celestial beings
who were hovering over the scene," he addressed to them "an invocation
that made every nerve shudder with supernatural horror, when, lo! a
storm at that instant rose, which shook the whole building, and the
spirits whom he had called seemed to have come at his bidding. Nor did
his eloquence, or the storm, immediately cease; but availing himself
of the incident, with a master's art, he seemed to mix in the fight of
his ethereal auxiliaries, and, 'rising on the wings of the tempest, to
seize upon the artillery of heaven, and direct its fiercest thunders
against the heads of his adversaries.' The scene became insupportable;
and the House rose without the formality of adjournment, the members
rushing from their seats with precipitation and confusion."[397]
FOOTNOTES:
[362] _Writings of Washington_, ix. 265-266.
[363] MS.
[364] _Writings of Washington_, ix. 273.
[365] Madison, _Letters_, etc. i. 356.
[366] _Ibid._ i. 364-365.
[367] Madison, _Letters_, etc. i. 378.
[368] _Ibid._ i. 387.
[369] Madison, _Letters_, i. 388.
[370] Bancroft, _Hist. Const._, ii. 465.
[371] _Writings of Washington_, ix. 356.
[372] Rives, _Life of Madison_, ii. 544, note.
[373] Rives, _Life of Madison_, ii. 541.
[374] _Hist. Mag._ for 1873, 274.
[375] Elliot, _Debates_, i. 491; v. 502, 534-535.
[376] Elliot, _Debates_, iii.
[377] Curtis, _Hist. Const._ ii. 561, note.
[378] _Writings of Washington_, ix. 266, note.
[379] Elliot, _Debates_, iii. 161, 57, 63.
[380] Elliot, _Debates_, iii. 23, 52, 44, 156.
[381] Elliot, _Debates_, iii. 150, 462, 445-446.
[382] Elliot, _Debates_, iii. 149-150.
[383] Elliot, _Debates_, iii. 58-60.
[384] Bancroft, _Hist. Const._ ii. 459-460.
[385] Elliot, _Debates_, iii. 653.
[386] Elliot, _Debates_, iii. 652.
[387] Bancroft, _Hist. Const._ ii. 316-317.
[388] Rives, _Life of Madison_, ii. 610.
[389] Kennedy, _Life of Wirt_, i. 345.
[390] Spencer Roane, MS.
[391] Elliot, _Debates_, iii. 187.
[392] _Ibid._ iii. 406, 104, 248, 177.
[393] St. George Tucker, MS.
[394] Elliot, _Debates_, iii. 580.
[395] St. George Tucker, MS.
[396] Elliot, _Debates_, iii. 625.
[397] Wirt, 296-297. Also Spencer Roane, MS.