Patrick Henry Speaks Against Ratification of the Constitution (1788)
Patrick Henry, the noted Virginia delegate to the Constitutional Convention, opposed a federal form of government in the United States. Here, at a debate during the convention, Henry discusses his objections to the new form of government.
Mr. Chairman, the public mind, as well as my own, is extremely uneasy at the proposed change of government. Give me leave to form one of the number of those who wish to be thoroughly acquainted with the reasons of this perilous and uneasy situation, and why we are brought hither to decide on this great national question. I consider myself as the servant of the people of this commonwealth, as a sentinel over their rights, liberty, and happiness. I represent their feelings when I say that they are exceedingly uneasy at being brought from that state of full security, which they enjoyed, to the present delusive appearance of things. A year ago, the minds of our citizens were at perfect repose. Before the meeting of the late federal Convention at Philadelphia, a general peace and a universal tranquillity prevailed in this country; but, since that period, they are exceedingly uneasy and disquieted. When I wished for an appointment to this Convention, my mind was extremely agitated for the situation of public affairs. I conceived the republic to be in extreme danger. If our situation be thus uneasy, whence has arisen this fearful jeopardy? It arises from this fatal system; it arises from a proposal to change our governmenta proposal that goes to the utter annihilation of the most solemn engagements of the statesa proposal of establishing nine states into a confederacy, to the eventual exclusion of four states. It goes to the annihilation of those solemn treaties we have formed with foreign nations.
The present circumstances of Francethe good offices rendered us by that kingdomrequire our most faithful and most punctual adherence to our treaty with her. We are in alliance with the Spaniards, the Dutch, the Prussians; those treaties bound us as thirteen states confederated together. Yet here is a proposal to sever that confederacy. Is it possible that we shall abandon all our treaties and national engagements?and for what? I expected to hear the reasons for an event so unexpected to my mind and many others. Was our civil polity, or public justice, endangered or sapped? Was the real existence of the country threatened, or was this preceded by a mournful progression of events? This proposal of altering our federal government is of a most alarming nature! Make the best of this new governmentsay it is composed by any thing but inspirationyou ought to be extremely cautious, watchful, jealous of your liberty; for, instead of securing your rights, you may lose them forever. If a wrong step be now made, the republic may be lost forever. If this new government will not come up to the expectation of the people, and they shall be disappointed, their liberty will be lost, and tyranny must and will arise. I repeat it again, and I beg gentlemen to consider, that a wrong step, made now, will plunge us into misery, and our republic will be lost. It will be necessary for this Convention to have a faithful historical detail of the facts that preceded the session of the federal Convention, and the reasons that actuated its members in proposing an entire alteration of government, and to demonstrate the dangers that awaited us. If they were of such awful magnitude as to warrant a proposal so extremely perilous as this, I must assert, that this Convention has an absolute right to a thorough discovery of every circumstance relative to this great event. And here I would make this inquiry of those worthy characters who composed a part of the late federal Convention. I am sure they were fully impressed with the necessity of forming a great consolidated government, instead of a confederation. That this is a consolidated government is demonstrably clear; and the danger of such a government is, to my mind, very striking I have the highest veneration for those gentlemen; but, sir, give me leave to demand, What right had they to say, We, the people? My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask, Who authorized them to speak the language of, We, the people, instead of, We, the states? States are the characteristics and the soul of a confederation. If the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great, consolidated, national government, of the people of all the states. . . . It is not mere curiosity that actuates me: I wish to hear the real, actual, existing danger, which should lead us to take those steps, so dangerous in my conception.
Disorders have arisen in other parts of America; but here, sir, no dangers, no insurrection or tumult have happened; every thing has been calm and tranquil. But, notwithstanding this, we are wandering on the great ocean of human affairs. . . . 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. You must, therefore, forgive the solicitation of one unworthy member to know what danger could have arisen under the present Confederation, and what are the causes of this proposal to change our government. . . .
. . . Under the same despised government, we commanded the respect of all Europe: wherefore are we now reckoned otherwise? The American spirit has fled from hence: it has gone to regions where it has never been expected; it has gone to the people of France, in search of a splendid governmenta strong, energetic government. Shall we imitate the example of those nations who have gone from a simple to a splendid government? Are those nations more worthy of our imitation? What can make an adequate satisfaction to them for the loss they have suffered in attaining such a governmentfor the loss of their liberty? If we admit this consolidated government, it will be because we like a great, splendid one. Some way or other we must be a great and mighty empire; we must have an army, and a navy, and a number of things. When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: liberty, sir, was then the primary object. We are descended from a people whose government was founded on liberty: our glorious forefathers of Great Britain made liberty the foundation of every thing. That country is become a great, mighty, and splendid nation; not because their government is strong and energetic, but, sir, because liberty is its direct end and foundation. We drew the spirit of liberty from our British ancestors: by that spirit we have triumphed over every difficulty. But now, sir, the American spirit, assisted by the ropes and chains of consolidation, is about to convert this country into a powerful and mighty empire. If you make the citizens of this country agree to become the subjects of one great consolidated empire of America, your government will not have sufficient energy to keep them together. Such a government is incompatible with the genius of republicanism. There will be no checks, no real balances, in this government. What can avail your specious, imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances? But, sir, we are not feared by foreigners; we do not make nations tremble. Would this constitute happiness, or secure liberty? I trust, sir, our political hemisphere will ever direct their operations to the security of those objects. . . .
. . . With respect to that part of the proposal which says that every power not granted remains with the people, it must be previous to adoption, or it will involve this country in inevitable destruction. To talk of it as a thing subsequent, not as one of your unalienable rights, is leaving it to the casual opinion of the Congress who shall take up the consideration of that matter. They will not reason with you about the effect of this Constitution. They will not take the opinion of this committee concerning its operation. They will construe it as they please. If you place it subsequently, let me ask the consequences. Among ten thousand implied powers which they may assume, they may, if we be engaged in war, liberate every one of your slaves if they please. And this must and will be done by men, a majority of whom have not a common interest with you. They will, therefore, have no feeling of your interests. It has been repeatedly said here, that the great object of a national government was national defence. That power which is said to be intended for security and safety may be rendered detestable and oppressive. If they give power to the general government to provide for the general defence, the means must be commensurate to the end. All the means in the possession of the people must be given to the government which is intrusted with the public defence. In this state there are two hundred and thirty-six thousand blacks, and there are many in several other states. But there are few or none in the Northern States; and yet, if the Northern States shall be of opinion that our slaves are numberless, they may call forth every national resource. May Congress not say, that every black man must fight? Did we not see a little of this last war? We were not so hard pushed as to make emancipation general; but acts of Assembly passed that every slave who would go to the army should be free. Another thing will contribute to bring this event about. Slavery is detested. We feel its fatal effectswe deplore it with all the pity of humanity. Let all these considerations, at some future period, press with full force on the minds of Congress. Let that urbanity, which I trust will distinguish America, and the necessity of national defence,let all these things operate on their minds; they will search that paper, and see if they have power of manumission. And have they not, sir? Have they not power to provide for the general defence and welfare? May they not think that these call for the abolition of slavery? May they not pronounce all slaves free, and will they not be warranted by that power? This is no ambiguous implication or logical deduction. The paper speaks to the point: they have the power in clear, unequivocal terms, and will clearly and certainly exercise it. As much as I deplore slavery, I see that prudence forbids its abolition. I deny that the general government ought to set them free, because a decided majority of the states have not the ties of sympathy and fellow-feeling for those whose interest would be affected by their emancipation. The majority of Congress is to the north, and the slaves are to the south.
In this situation, I see a great deal of the property of the people of Virginia in jeopardy, and their peace and tranquillity gone. I repeat it again, that it would rejoice my very soul that every one of my fellow-beings was emancipated. As we ought with gratitude to admire that decree of Heaven which has numbered us among the free, we ought to lament and deplore the necessity of holding our fellowmen in bondage. But is it practicable, by any human means, to liberate them without producing the most dreadful and ruinous consequences? We ought to possess them in the manner we inherited them from our ancestors, as their manumission is incompatible with the felicity of our country. But we ought to soften, as much as possible, the rigor of their unhappy fate. I know that, in a variety of particular instances, the legislature, listening to complaints, have admitted their emancipation. Let me not dwell on this subject. I will only add that this, as well as every other property of the people of Virginia, is in jeopardy, and put in the hands of those who have no similarity of situation with us. This is a local matter, and I can see no propriety in subjecting it to Congress.
Source: Jonathan Elliot, ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 2nd ed., 5 vols. (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1907).
Document Analysis
Why does Henry object so strongly to the phrase We the people found in the preamble to the Constitution?
How does Henry view the relationship between the new government and the institution of slavery?
Patrick Henry so opposes the phrase We the people because he believes it is not really the people behind it.He believes it is really the states behind all the work and government.It should be the states with the power, not the people.
There are many states in the north that oppose slavery.If Congress is given power over resources, then can they not call upon all black men to fight in a war?They cannot just be freed, they should be held as their forefathers held them but their conditions made better.The government cannot have power over the institution of slavery.
Why does Henry object so strongly to the phrase We the people found in the preamble to the Constitution? Patrick Henry dislikes the phrase "We the people" because he believes that the people shouldn't represent the country, the states should.
How does Henry view the relationship between the new government and the institution of slavery? Patrick Henry believes the new government was split on it's views about slavery. The North tried to get rid of it or at least cut down on it, and the South kept slavery how it was, intact.
1. He doesnt think that the people are the ones who control the confederation. he thinks that the states are the "characteristics and soul of the confederation".
2. He doesnt want the government to have power over slavery. If they had the power over them they could tell them to do whatever the want.
1. Henry objects so strongly to the phrase "We the people" found in the preambblem to the Constitution because he believe that it is not the people who has the power to stand out and vote on laws and government but the states represtentives. Patrick fears that the republic will fall if the constitution is put into power.
2> In the North very few if any states had slavery and the sound was strong on slavery. He believed the new government should not have control over the issue of slavery but the Constitution would have control over that issue.
Why does Henry object so strongly to the phrase We the people found in the preamble to the Constitution?
How does Henry view the relationship between the new government and the institution of slavery?
Henry objects so strongly to the phrase "We the people.." because it feels that it is not the people as a whole who come together to form a country, but the states. He thinks that all the states should come together and be one consolidated national government, of all of the people of the states.
Henry is worried that the new government will become very poweful and and release all the slaves to freedom. It seems like he is not sure where the boundaries between the state and the government begin. He is concerned that if a strong national government is created it will weaken the power of the states. He wants the same control to be given to the states as it was before, not switched around by the new Consitution.
Patrick Henry so opposes the phrase We the people because he believes it is not really the people behind it.He believes it is really the states behind all the work and government.It should be the states with the power, not the people.
There are many states in the north that oppose slavery.If Congress is given power over resources, then can they not call upon all black men to fight in a war?They cannot just be freed, they should be held as their forefathers held them but their conditions made better.The government cannot have power over the institution of slavery.
Ashley (and others that answered the question this way), WHY did Henry believe the states had that authority? Here in AP we don't simply want to find the answer. We want to analyze it, which means we want to break it down into components, study those facts, and then rebuild it (synthesis) into a theory that we can defend. By doing that, we understand it. Short, fact-finding answers are not the kind we're looking for here. We're super smart (all of you). You can do it!
He strongly objects to it because when they say "We the people" it implies that they represent ALL of the people in the colonies when in fact they only represent the states in general as they were by majority voted to represent each state and draw up the constitution and thus he thinks it should say "We the states".
He and the northern states and object to slavery itself and would like to see the freeing of slaves or a considerable cutback on slavery while the southern states advocate slavery because of their need of it.He sees that because of the significant need of slaves for our economy in the south and the lack of unity on the subject in all states that they should not be freed, at least not now, but instead they should be treated with more care in the future and that this matter not need be brought before the congress at this time.
Why does Henry object so strongly to the phrase We the people found in the preamble to the Constitution?
Henry objects so strongly to the phrase we the people because he figures that the people really have limited power. The people in control of the states have more power. They can actually make a difference or changes, compared to the average farmer during this time, who were only concerned with growing crops. He thinks the quote should be we the states because the people in control of the states united to make this important document not the people. So, it would only make sense to have the quote represent the people who actually spent their time making the document.
How does Henry view the relationship between the new government and the institution of slavery?
Henry views the relationship between the new government and slavery as shaky. He is convinced that the new government will become powerful in the north which will eventually lead to the freedom of slaves. He doesnt want the issue of slavery to be controlled by the states, but by the constitution, because if there is a written law there will be fewer arguments between the states on this particular issue.
1) Patrick Henry opposes the preambles phrase we the people because he believes that this will create a major change in the federal government.He believes that this phrase proposes a major alteration in the constitution.He states that the old republic was operating just fine and that it is the old confederation of thirteen colonies that has treaties and with France, Dutch, Prussia and the Spaniards. He disagrees that the power should be left with the people. He believes that the power truly belongs to the states and that the states should come together to form a strong republic.He states that the addition of the phrase we the people will give people unrealistic expectations and he is fearful that if those expectations are not met that there may be tyranny.Henry believes that the states are the soul of the confederation. .
2) Henry views the new government as a threat to the institution of slavery.He tells the group that if all things are left to the people to decide then the issue of slavery is in danger.He states that many people who do not own slaves and many who are opposed to slavery will be deciding on the fate of slaves.He states that it is possible that all slaves will be emancipated under this new government.Although he is not in favor of slavery himself he feels that the decision to abolish slavery should not be in the hands of men who do not share a common interest in the need for slavery .
1. Patrick Henry does not agree with the phrase "we the people" because he does not believe that the people have much say in the decisions and laws made by the federal government. He believes the power should be centered around the state governments because the fear of an overpowering central government still lingers in many people's minds, including his. Henry believed the states should have the authority to have more say in their government because the laws that are being passed will be affecting them directly.
2. Henry felt that Congress should abolish slavery and set all slaves free because he feels that slavery is a detestable act. Henry also states that the majority of the states do not use slavery and would not be affected by the abolishment of slavery. One more point that Henry makes is that most of the Congress is to the North where slavery is not common.
1. Why does Henry object so strongly to the phrase We the people found in the preamble to the Constitution?
To Henry the use of the phrase "We the people" doesn't accuratley represent the type of government they had. In his opinion the states held the power so in essence it should read "We the States". He even goes so far as to imply that if the power was in the hands of the people then it would deter from the real idea of the new America.
2. How does Henry view the relationship between the new government and the institution of slavery?
Henry believes the use of the new government in either the abolishment/further institution of slavery would be far more biased due to the number of Northern states that opposed it. Even if he himself didn't feel that slavery was ethical or morally correct he did not feel that the votes nor the decidion be decided solely by the new government.
Why does Henry object so strongly to the phrase We the people found in the preamble to the Constitution?
Patrick Henry believed that the new government and Constitution did not accurately represent the people. He says that since the congress is to create this new government and among themselves, write a constitution, they can (and most likely will) support themselves and each other on the pillars of this new strong government saying; They will construe it as they please. He also makes a point that although the Confederation had problems and some faults, that government based on liberty and not the government based on strength, commanded the respect of all Europe He says that instituting such a government would crush the spirit of Americans and the old ideals of liberty would die under tyrannical rule. He believed that if the new strong government crushed the American spirit than the nation would no longer be unified and would eventually split apart by stating your government will not have sufficient energy to keep them together.
How does Henry view the relationship between the new government and the institution of slavery?
If power of the new government lies with congress, and many in congress (who were from Northern states) opposed and detested slavery, what would happen to the southern planters of Virginia whos slaves reached two hundred and thirty-six thousand? Although he himself opposed slavery, he saw it as a necessity for the growing economy of such a badly bruised and debt ridden country. He reasoned that since congress had control over such matters as warfare and national welfare, why not the power the abolish slavery and remove this much need institution saying The paper speaks to the point: they have the power in clear, unequivocal terms, and will clearly and certainly exercise it.
His concern then turns from the issue of slavery to the people (White Virginian plantation owners) whos property would be jeopardy, and their peace and tranquility gone. He also states that government of the few, the upper class, the educated, and wealthy can be as detrimental to national welfare as the men in congress believed rule by the many would be. He says this in the case of slavery stating, But is it practicable, by any human means, to liberate them without producing the most dreadful and ruinous consequences? pertaining to the liberation of slaves by those few in congress, opposing the view of the many, causing what he believed would be disastrous outcomes.
1. When it came to we the people, Patrick Henry was a little touchy mostly because of the matter-of-fact sort of way the phrase was being tossed around. Is it a consolidated people of all the states which are the national government, Henry asks quite sardonically to the convention. States are the necessities of a confederation, the heart and soul, the nucleus he says. Why, the people, when its the sweat and blood of representatives like himself that go into running the country? 2. Henry feels the new government gives far too much leverage to the Congress in regards to slavery. Slavery, which goes largely overlooked in the Constitution, is far too large a franchise to be directly effected by the ways of the legislature. Even though he detests slavery, it would be stupid, stupid, stupid to discount the impact it has on society. The issue, which Northerners would no little about, should be left a local issue.
1. Patrick Henry disliked the phrase "We the people" because he beleived it's use in the Constitution was misleading. He beleived that by stating we the people they wasn't stating the true leaders, the states and states' representatives like him.
2. Patrick although opposing slavery knew it's effect on economy. He knows that free labor is possible after their country has been weakened by war and trying to stop that institution would not only split the country in beliefs, but also be a major blow to the economy.
