FOOTNOTES:

“That a committee of four be appointed to wait on Major General Gates, and to assure him of the high regard and esteem of this House; that the remembrance of his former glorious services cannot be obliterated by any reverse of fortune; but that this House, ever mindful of his great merit, will omit no opportunity of testifying to the world the gratitude which, as a member of[Pg 278]the American Union, this country owes to him in his military character.”[319]

On the 2d of January, 1781, the last day of the session, the House adopted, on Patrick Henry’s motion, a resolution authorizing the governor to convene the next meeting of the legislature at some other place than Richmond, in case its assembling in that city should “be rendered inconvenient by the operations of an invading enemy,”[320]a resolution reflecting their sense of the peril then hanging over the State.

Before the legislature could again meet, events proved that it was no imaginary danger against which Patrick Henry’s resolution had been intended to provide. On the 2d of January, 1781, the very day on which the legislature had adjourned, a hostile fleet conveyed into the James River a force of about eight hundred men under command of Benedict Arnold, whose eagerness to ravage Virginia was still further facilitated by the arrival, on the 26th of March, of two thousand men under General Phillips. Moreover, Lord Cornwallis, having beaten General Greene at Guilford, in North Carolina, on the 15th of March, seemed to be gathering force for a speedy advance into Virginia. That the roar of his guns would soon be heard in the outskirts of their capital, was what all Virginians then felt to be inevitable.[Pg 279]

Under such circumstances, it is not strange that a session of the legislature, which is said to have been held on the 1st of March,[321]should have been a very brief one, or that when the 7th of May arrived—the day for its reassembling at Richmond—no quorum should have been present; or that, on the 10th of May, the few members who had arrived in Richmond should have voted, in deference to “the approach of an hostile army,”[322]to adjourn to Charlottesville,—a place of far greater security, ninety-seven miles to the northwest, among the mountains of Albemarle. By the 20th of May, Cornwallis reached Petersburg, twenty-three miles south of Richmond; and shortly afterward, pushing across the James and the Chickahominy, he encamped on the North Anna, in the county of Hanover. Thus, at last, the single county of Louisa then separated him from that county in which was the home of the governor of the State, and where was then convened its legislature,—Patrick Henry himself being present and in obvious direction of all its business. The opportunity to bag such game, Lord Cornwallis was not the man to let slip. Accordingly, on Sunday, the 3d of June, he dispatched a swift expedition under Tarleton, to surprise and capture the members of the legislature, “to seize on the person of the governor,” and “to spread on his route devastation and terror.”[323]In this entire scheme, doubtless,[Pg 280]Tarleton would have succeeded, had it not been that as he and his troopers, on that fair Sabbath day, were hurrying past the Cuckoo tavern in Louisa, one Captain John Jouette, watching from behind the windows, espied them, divined their object, and mounting a fleet horse, and taking a shorter route, got into Charlottesville a few hours in advance of them, just in time to give the alarm, and to set the imperiled legislators a-flying to the mountains for safety.

Then, by all accounts, was witnessed a display of the locomotive energies of grave and potent senators, such as this world has not often exhibited. Of this tragically comical incident, of course, the journal of the House of Delegates makes only the most placid and forbearing mention. For Monday, June 4, its chief entry is as follows: “There being reason to apprehend an immediate incursion of the enemy’s cavalry to this place, which renders it indispensable that the General Assembly should forthwith adjourn to a place of greater security; resolved, that this House be adjourned until Thursday next, then to meet at the town of Staunton, in the county of Augusta,”—a town thirty-nine miles farther west, beyond a chain of mountains, and only to be reached by them or their pursuers through difficult passes in the Blue Ridge. The next entry in the journal is dated at Staunton, on the 7th of June, and, very properly, is merely a prosaic and business-like[Pg 281]record of the reassembling of the House according to the adjournment aforesaid.[324]

But as to some of the things that happened in that interval of panic and of scrambling flight, popular tradition has not been equally forbearing; and while the anecdotes upon that subject, which have descended to our time, are very likely decorated by many tassels of exaggeration and of myth, they yet have, doubtless, some slight framework of truth, and do really portray for us the actual beliefs of many people in Virginia respecting a number of their celebrated men, and especially respecting some of the less celebrated traits of those men. For example, it is related that on the sudden adjournment of the House, caused by this dusty and breathless apparition of the speedful Jouette, and his laconic intimation that Tarleton was coming, the members, though somewhat accustomed to ceremony, stood not upon the order of their going, but went at once,—taking first to their horses, and then to the woods; and that, breaking up into small parties of fugitives, they thus made their several ways, as best they could, through the passes of the mountains leading to the much-desired seclusion of Staunton. One of these parties consisted of Benjamin Harrison, Colonel William Christian, John Tyler, and Patrick Henry. Late in the day, tired and hungry, they stopped their horses at the door of a small hut, in a gorge of the hills, and asked for food. An old woman,[Pg 282]who came to the door, and who was alone in the house, demanded of them who they were, and where they were from. Patrick Henry, who acted as spokesman of the party, answered: “We are members of the legislature, and have just been compelled to leave Charlottesville on account of the approach of the enemy.” “Ride on, then, ye cowardly knaves,” replied she, in great wrath; “here have my husband and sons just gone to Charlottesville to fight for ye, and you running away with all your might. Clear out—ye shall have nothing here.” “But,” rejoined Mr. Henry, in an expostulating tone, “we were obliged to fly. It would not do for the legislature to be broken up by the enemy. Here is Mr. Speaker Harrison; you don’t think he would have fled had it not been necessary?” “I always thought a great deal of Mr. Harrison till now,” answered the old woman; “but he’d no business to run from the enemy,” and she was about to shut the door in their faces. “Wait a moment, my good woman,” urged Mr. Henry; “you would hardly believe that Mr. Tyler or Colonel Christian would take to flight if there were not good cause for so doing?” “No, indeed, that I wouldn’t,” she replied. “But,” exclaimed he, “Mr. Tyler and Colonel Christian are here.” “They here? Well, I never would have thought it;” and she stood for a moment in doubt, but at once added, “No matter. We love these gentlemen, and I didn’t suppose they would ever run away from the British; but since they have, they shall[Pg 283]have nothing to eat in my house. You may ride along.” In this desperate situation Mr. Tyler then stepped forward and said, “What would you say, my good woman, if I were to tell you that Patrick Henry fled with the rest of us?” “Patrick Henry! I should tell you there wasn’t a word of truth in it,” she answered angrily; “Patrick Henry would never do such a cowardly thing.” “But this is Patrick Henry,” said Mr. Tyler, pointing to him. The old woman was amazed; but after some reflection, and with a convulsive twitch or two at her apron string, she said, “Well, then, if that’s Patrick Henry, it must be all right. Come in, and ye shall have the best I have in the house.”[325]

The pitiless tongue of tradition does not stop here, but proceeds to narrate other alleged experiences of this our noble, though somewhat disconcerted, Patrick. Arrived at last in Staunton, and walking through its reassuring streets, he is said to have met one Colonel William Lewis, to whom the face of the orator was then unknown; and to have told to this stranger the story of the flight of the legislature from Albemarle. “If Patrick Henry had been in Albemarle,” was the stranger’s comment, “the British dragoons never would have passed over the Rivanna River.”[326]

The tongue of tradition, at last grown quite reckless, perhaps, of its own credit, still further relates[Pg 284]that even at Staunton these illustrious fugitives did not feel entirely sure that they were beyond the reach of Tarleton’s men. A few nights after their arrival there, as the story runs, upon some sudden alarm, several of them sprang from their beds, and, imperfectly clapping on their clothes, fled out of the town, and took refuge at the plantation of one Colonel George Moffett, near which, they had been told, was a cave in which they might the more effectually conceal themselves. Mrs. Moffett, though not knowing the names of these flitting Solons, yet received them with true Virginian hospitality: but the next morning, at breakfast, she made the unlucky remark that there was one member of the legislature who certainly would not have run from the enemy. “Who is he?” was then asked. Her reply was, “Patrick Henry.” At that moment a gentleman of the party, himself possessed of but one boot, was observed to blush considerably. Furthermore, as soon as possible after breakfast, these imperiled legislators departed in search of the cave; shortly after which a negro from Staunton rode up, carrying in his hand a solitary boot, and inquiring earnestly for Patrick Henry. In that way, as the modern reporter of this very debatable tradition unkindly adds, the admiring Mrs. Moffett ascertained who it was that the boot fitted; and he further suggests that, whatever Mrs. Moffett’s emotions were at that time, those of Patrick must have been, “Give me liberty, but not death.”[327]

[Pg 285]Passing by these whimsical tales, we have now to add that the legislature, having on the 7th of June entered upon its work at Staunton, steadily continued it there until the 23d of the month, when it adjourned in orderly fashion, to meet again in the following October. Governor Jefferson, whose second year of office had expired two days before the flight of himself and the legislature from Charlottesville, did not accompany that body to Staunton, but pursued his own way to Poplar Forest and to Bedford, where, “remote from the legislature,”[328]he remained during the remainder of its session. On the 12th of June, Thomas Nelson was elected as his successor in office.[329]

It was during this period of confusion and terror that, as Jefferson alleges, the legislature once more had before it the project of a dictator, in the criminal sense of that word; and, upon Jefferson’s private authority, both Wirt and Girardin long afterward named Patrick Henry as the man who was intended for this profligate honor.[330]We need not here repeat what was said, in our narrative of the closing weeks of 1776, concerning this terrible posthumous imputation upon the public and private character of Patrick Henry. Nearly everything which then appeared to the discredit of this charge in connection with the earlier date, is equally applicable[Pg 286]to it in connection with the later date also. Moreover, as regards this later date, there has recently been discovered a piece of contemporaneous testimony which shows that, whatever may have been the scheme for a dictatorship in Virginia in 1781, it was a great military chieftain who was wanted for the position; and, apparently, that Patrick Henry was not then even mentioned in the affair. On the 9th of June, 1781, Captain H. Young, though not a member of the House of Delegates, writes from Staunton to Colonel William Davies as follows: “Two days ago, Mr. Nicholas gave notice that he should this day move to have a dictator appointed. General Washington and General Greene are talked of. I dare say your knowledge of these worthy gentlemen will be sufficient to convince you that neither of them will, or ought to, accept of such an appointment.… We have but a thin House of Delegates; but they are zealous, I think, in the cause of virtue.”[331]Furthermore, the journal of that House contains no record of any such motion having been made; and it is probable that it never was made, and that the subject never came before the legislature in any such form as to call for its notice.

Finally, with respect to both the dates mentioned by Jefferson for the appearance of the scheme, Edmund Randolph has left explicit testimony to the effect that such a scheme never had any substantial existence at all: “Mr. Jefferson, in his[Pg 287]Notes on Virginia, speaks with great bitterness against those members of the Assembly in the years 1776 and 1781, who espoused the erection of a dictator. Coming from such authority, the invective infects the character of the legislature, notwithstanding he has restricted the charge to less than a majority, and acknowledged the spotlessness of most of them.… The subject was never before them, except as an article of newspaper intelligence, and even then not in a form which called for their attention. Against this unfettered monster, which deserved all the impassioned reprobation of Mr. Jefferson, their tones, it may be affirmed, would have been loud and tremendous.”[332]

For its autumn session, in 1781, the legislature did not reach an organization until the 19th of November,—just one month after the surrender of Cornwallis. Eight days after the organization of the House, Patrick Henry took his seat;[333]and after a service of less than four weeks, he obtained leave of absence for the remainder of the session.[334]During 1782 his attendance upon the House seems to have been limited to the spring session. At the organization of the House, on the 12th of May, 1783, he was in his place again, and during that session, as well as the autumnal one, his attendance was close and laborious. At both sessions of the House in 1784 he was present and in full force;[Pg 288]but in the very midst of these employments he was interrupted by his election as governor, on the 17th of November,—shortly after which, he withdrew to his country-seat in order to remove his family thence to the capital.

In the course of all these labors in the legislature, and amid a multitude of topics merely local and temporary, Patrick Henry had occasion to deal publicly, and under the peculiar responsibilities of leadership, with nearly all the most important and difficult questions that came before the American people during the later years of the war and the earlier years of the peace. The journal of the House for that period omits all mention of words spoken in debate; and although it does occasionally enable us to ascertain on which side of certain questions Patrick Henry stood, it leaves us in total ignorance of his reasons for any position which he chose to take. In trying, therefore, to estimate the quality of his statesmanship when dealing with these questions, we lack a part of the evidence which is essential to any just conclusion; and we are left peculiarly at the mercy of those sweeping censures which have been occasionally applied to his political conduct during that period.[335]

On the assurance of peace, in the spring of 1783, perhaps the earliest and the knottiest problem which had to be taken up was the one relating to that vast body of Americans who then bore the[Pg 289]contumelious name of Tories,—those Americans who, against all loss and ignominy, had steadily remained loyal to the unity of the British empire, unflinching in their rejection of the constitutional heresy of American secession. How should these execrable beings—the defeated party in a long and most rancorous civil war—be treated by the party which was at last victorious? Many of them were already in exile: should they be kept there? Many were still in this country: should they be banished from it? As a matter of fact, the exasperation of public feeling against the Tories was, at that time, so universal and so fierce that no statesman could then lift up his voice in their favor without dashing himself against the angriest currents of popular opinion and passion, and risking the loss of the public favor toward himself. Nevertheless, precisely this is what Patrick Henry had the courage to do. While the war lasted, no man spoke against the Tories more sternly than did he. The war being ended, and its great purpose secured, no man, excepting perhaps Alexander Hamilton, was so prompt and so energetic in urging that all animosities of the war should be laid aside, and that a policy of magnanimous forbearance should be pursued respecting these baffled opponents of American independence. It was in this spirit that, as soon as possible after the cessation of hostilities, he introduced a bill for the repeal of an act “to prohibit intercourse with, and the admission of British subjects into” Virginia,[336]—language[Pg 290]well understood to refer to the Tories. This measure, we are told, not only excited surprise, but “was, at first, received with a repugnance apparently insuperable.” Even his intimate friend John Tyler, the speaker of the House, hotly resisted it in the committee of the whole, and in the course of his argument, turning to Patrick Henry, asked “how he, above all other men, could think of inviting into his family an enemy from whose insults and injuries he had suffered so severely?”

In reply to this appeal, Patrick Henry declared that the question before them was not one of personal feeling; that it was a national question; and that in discussing it they should be willing to sacrifice all personal resentments, all private wrongs. He then proceeded to unfold the proposition that America had everything out of which to make a great nation—except people.

“Your great want, sir, is the want of men; and these you must have, and will have speedily, if you are wise. Do you ask how you are to get them? Open your doors, sir, and they will come in. The population of the Old World is full to overflowing; that population is ground, too, by the oppressions of the governments under which they live. Sir, they are already standing on tiptoe upon their native shores, and looking to your coasts with a wishful and longing eye.… But gentlemen object to any accession from Great Britain, and particularly to the return of the British refugees. Sir, I feel no objection to the return of those deluded[Pg 291]people. They have, to be sure, mistaken their own interests most wofully, and most wofully have they suffered the punishment due to their offences. But the relations which we bear to them and to their native country are now changed. Their king hath acknowledged our independence. The quarrel is over. Peace hath returned, and found us a free people. Let us have the magnanimity, sir, to lay aside our antipathies and prejudices, and consider the subject in a political light. Those are an enterprising, moneyed people. They will be serviceable in taking off the surplus produce of our lands, and supplying us with necessaries during the infant state of our manufactures. Even if they be inimical to us in point of feeling and principle, I can see no objection, in a political view, in making them tributary to our advantage. And, as I have no prejudices to prevent my making this use of them, so, sir, I have no fear of any mischief that they can do us. Afraid of them? What, sir [said he, rising to one of his loftiest attitudes, and assuming a look of the most indignant and sovereign contempt], shall we, who have laid the proud British lion at our feet, now be afraid of his whelps?”[337]

In the same spirit he dealt with the restraints on British commerce imposed during the war,—a question similar to the one just mentioned, at least in this particular, that it was enveloped in the angry prejudices born of the conflict just ended. The journal for the 13th of May, 1783, has this entry: “Mr. Henry presented, according to order, a bill ‘to repeal the several Acts of Assembly for[Pg 292]seizure and condemnation of British goods found on land;’ and the same was received and read the first time, and ordered to be read a second time.” In advocating this measure, he seems to have lifted the discussion clear above all petty considerations to the plane of high and permanent principle, and, according to one of his chief antagonists in that debate, to have met all objections by arguments that were “beyond all expression eloquent and sublime.” After describing the embarrassments and distresses of the situation and their causes, he took the ground that perfect freedom was as necessary to the health and vigor of commerce as it was to the health and vigor of citizenship. “Why should we fetter commerce? If a man is in chains, he droops and bows to the earth, for his spirits are broken; but let him twist the fetters from his legs, and he will stand erect. Fetter not commerce, sir. Let her be as free as air; she will range the whole creation, and return on the wings of the four winds of heaven, to bless the land with plenty.”[338]

Besides these and other problems in the foreign relations of the country, there remained, of course, at the end of the war, several vast domestic problems for American statesmanship to grapple with,—one of these being the relations of the white race to their perpetual neighbors, the Indians. In the autumn session of 1784, in a series of efforts said to have been marked by “irresistible earnestness and eloquence,” he secured the[Pg 293]favorable attention of the House to this ancient problem, and even to his own daring and statesmanlike solution of it. The whole subject, as he thought, had been commonly treated by the superior race in a spirit not only mean and hard, but superficial also; the result being nearly two centuries of mutual suspicion, hatred, and slaughter. At last the time had come for the superior race to put an end to this traditional disaster and disgrace. Instead of tampering with the difficulty by remedies applied merely to the surface, he was for striking at the root of it, namely, at the deep divergence in sympathy and in interest between the two races. There was but one way in which to do this: it was for the white race to treat the Indians, consistently, as human beings, and as fast as possible to identify their interests with our own along the entire range of personal concerns,—in property, government, society, and, especially, in domestic life. In short, he proposed to encourage, by a system of pecuniary bounties, the practice of marriage between members of the two races, believing that such ties, once formed, would be an inviolable pledge of mutual friendship, fidelity, and forbearance, and would gradually lead to the transformation of the Indians into a civilized and Christian people. His bill for this purpose, elaborately drawn up, was carried through its second reading and “engrossed for its final passage,” when, by his sudden removal from the floor of the House to the governor’s chair, the measure was[Pg 294]deprived of its all-conquering champion, and, on the third reading, it fell a sacrifice to the Caucasian rage and scorn of the members.

It is proper to note, also, that during this period of service in the legislature Patrick Henry marched straight against public opinion, and jeoparded his popularity, on two or three other subjects. For example, the mass of the people of Virginia were then so angrily opposed to the old connection between church and state that they occasionally saw danger even in projects which in no way involved such a connection. This was the case with Patrick Henry’s necessary and most innocent measure “for the incorporation of all societies of the Christian religion which may apply for the same;” likewise, his bill for the incorporation of the clergy of the Episcopal Church; and, finally, his more questionable and more offensive resolution for requiring all citizens of the State to contribute to the expense of supporting some form of religious worship according to their own preference.

Whether, in these several measures, Patrick Henry was right or wrong, one thing, at least, is obvious: no politician who could thus beard in his very den the lion of public opinion can be accurately described as a demagogue.

With respect to those amazing gifts of speech by which, in the House of Delegates, he thus repeatedly swept all opposition out of his way, and made people think as he wished them to do, often in the very teeth of their own immediate interests[Pg 295]or prepossessions, an amusing instance was mentioned, many years afterward, by President James Madison. During the war Virginia had paid her soldiers in certificates for the amounts due them, to be redeemed in cash at some future time. In many cases, the poverty of the soldiers had induced them to sell these certificates, for trifling sums in ready money, to certain speculators, who were thus making a traffic out of the public distress. For the purpose of checking this cruel and harmful business, Madison brought forward a suitable bill, which, as he told the story, Patrick Henry supported with an eloquence so irresistible that it was carried through the House without an opposing vote; while a notorious speculator in these very certificates, having listened from the gallery to Patrick Henry’s speech, at its conclusion so far forgot his own interest in the question as to exclaim, “That bill ought to pass.”[339]

Concerning his appearance and his manner of speech in those days, a bit of testimony comes down to us from Spencer Roane, who, as he tells us, first “met with Patrick Henry in the Assembly of 1783.” He adds:—

“I also then met with R. H. Lee.… I lodged with Lee one or two sessions, and was perfectly acquainted with him, while I was yet a stranger to Mr. H. These two gentlemen were the great leaders in the House of Delegates, and were almost constantly opposed. Notwithstanding my habits of intimacy with Mr. Lee, I[Pg 296]found myself obliged to vote with P. H. against him in ’83, and against Madison in ’84, … but with several important exceptions. I voted against him (P. H.), I recollect, on the subject of the refugees,—he was for permitting their return; on the subject of a general assessment; and the act incorporating the Episcopal Church. I voted with him, in general, because he was, I thought, a more practical statesman than Madison (time has made Madison more practical), and a less selfish one than Lee. As an orator, Mr. Henry demolished Madison with as much ease as Samson did the cords that bound him before he was shorn. Mr. Lee held a greater competition.… Mr. Lee was a polished gentleman. His person was not very good; and he had lost the use of one of his hands; but his manner was perfectly graceful. His language was always chaste, and, although somewhat too monotonous, his speeches were always pleasing; yet he did not ravish your senses, nor carry away your judgment by storm.… Henry was almost always victorious. He was as much superior to Lee in temper as in eloquence.… Mr. Henry was inferior to Lee in the gracefulness of his action, and perhaps also in the chasteness of his language; yet his language was seldom incorrect, and his address always striking. He had a fine blue eye; and an earnest manner which made it impossible not to attend to him. His speaking was unequal, and always rose with the subject and the exigency. In this respect, he entirely differed from Mr. Lee, who always was equal. At some times, Mr. Henry would seem to hobble, especially in the beginning of his speeches; and, at others, his tones would be almost disagreeable; yet it was by means of his tones, and the happy modulation of his voice, that his[Pg 297]speaking perhaps had its greatest effect. He had a happy articulation, and a clear, distinct, strong voice; and every syllable was distinctly uttered. He was very unassuming as to himself, amounting almost to humility, and very respectful towards his competitor; the consequence was that no feeling of disgust or animosity was arrayed against him. His exordiums in particular were often hobbling and always unassuming. He knew mankind too well to promise much.… He was great at a reply, and greater in proportion to the pressure which was bearing upon him. The resources of his mind and of his eloquence were equal to any drafts which could be made upon them. He took but short notes of what fell from his adversaries, and disliked the drudgery of composition; yet it is a mistake to say that he could not write well.”[340]

FOOTNOTES:[311]Rives,Life of Madison, i. 189, note.[312]Jour. Va. House Del.54.[313]Jour. Va. House Del.27.[314]MS.[315]MS.[316]Jour. Va. House Del.14.[317]Jour. Va. House Del.14, 15, 18, 25, 28, 31, 39.[318]Jour. Va. House Del.7, 8, 10, 14, 24, 45, 50, 51.[319]Jour. Va. House Del.71.[320]Ibid.79.[321]Burk,Hist. Va.iv. 491.[322]Jour. Va. House Del.1.[323]Burk,Hist. Va.iv. 496-497.[324]Jour. Va. House Del.10.[325]L. G. Tyler,Letters and Times of the Tylers, i. 81-83, where it is said to be taken from Abel’sLife of John Tyler.[326]Peyton,Hist. Augusta Co.211.[327]Peyton,Hist. Augusta Co.211.[328]Randall,Life of Jefferson, i. 352.[329]Jour. Va. House Del.15.[330]Jefferson’s Writings, viii. 368; Wirt, 231; Girardin, in Burk.Hist. Va.iv. App. pp. xi.-xii.; Randall,Life of Jefferson, i. 348-352.[331]Calendar Va. State Papers, ii. 152.[332]MS.Hist. Va.[333]Jour. Va. House Del.for Nov. 27.[334]Jour. Va. House Del.for Dec. 21.[335]For example,Bland Papers, ii. 51; Rives,Life of Madison, i. 536; ii. 240, note.[336]Jour. Va. House Del.42.[337]John Tyler, in Wirt, 233, 236.[338]John Tyler, in Wirt, 237-238.[339]Howe,Hist. Coll. Va.222.[340]MS.

[311]Rives,Life of Madison, i. 189, note.

[312]Jour. Va. House Del.54.

[313]Jour. Va. House Del.27.

[314]MS.

[315]MS.

[316]Jour. Va. House Del.14.

[317]Jour. Va. House Del.14, 15, 18, 25, 28, 31, 39.

[318]Jour. Va. House Del.7, 8, 10, 14, 24, 45, 50, 51.

[319]Jour. Va. House Del.71.

[320]Ibid.79.

[321]Burk,Hist. Va.iv. 491.

[322]Jour. Va. House Del.1.

[323]Burk,Hist. Va.iv. 496-497.

[324]Jour. Va. House Del.10.

[325]L. G. Tyler,Letters and Times of the Tylers, i. 81-83, where it is said to be taken from Abel’sLife of John Tyler.

[326]Peyton,Hist. Augusta Co.211.

[327]Peyton,Hist. Augusta Co.211.

[328]Randall,Life of Jefferson, i. 352.

[329]Jour. Va. House Del.15.

[330]Jefferson’s Writings, viii. 368; Wirt, 231; Girardin, in Burk.Hist. Va.iv. App. pp. xi.-xii.; Randall,Life of Jefferson, i. 348-352.

[331]Calendar Va. State Papers, ii. 152.

[332]MS.Hist. Va.

[333]Jour. Va. House Del.for Nov. 27.

[334]Jour. Va. House Del.for Dec. 21.

[335]For example,Bland Papers, ii. 51; Rives,Life of Madison, i. 536; ii. 240, note.

[336]Jour. Va. House Del.42.

[337]John Tyler, in Wirt, 233, 236.

[338]John Tyler, in Wirt, 237-238.

[339]Howe,Hist. Coll. Va.222.

[340]MS.

[Pg 298]ToC

We have now arrived at the second period of Patrick Henry’s service as governor of Virginia, beginning with the 30th of November, 1784. For the four or five years immediately following that date, the salient facts in his career seem to group themselves around the story of his relation to that vast national movement which ended in an entire reorganization of the American Republic under a new Constitution. Whoever will take the trouble to examine the evidence now at hand bearing upon the case, can hardly fail to convince himself that the true story of Patrick Henry’s opposition to that great movement has never yet been told. Men have usually misconceived, when they have not altogether overlooked, the motives for his opposition, the spirit in which he conducted it, and the beneficent effects which were accomplished by it; while his ultimate and firm approval of the new Constitution, after it had received the chief amendments called for by his criticisms, has been passionately described as an example of gross political fickleness and inconsistency, instead of being, as it really was, a most logical proceeding on his part, and in[Pg 299]perfect harmony with the principles underlying his whole public career.

Before entering on a story so fascinating for the light it throws on the man and on the epoch, it is well that we should stay long enough to glance at what we may call the incidental facts in his life, for these four or five years now to be looked into.

Not far from the time of his thus entering once more upon the office of governor, occurred the death of his aged mother, at the home of his brother-in-law, Colonel Samuel Meredith of Winton, who, in a letter to the governor, dated November 22, 1784, speaks tenderly of the long illness which had preceded the death of the venerable lady, and especially of the strength and beauty of her character:—

“She has been in my family upwards of eleven years; and from the beginning of that time to the end, her life appeared to me most evidently to be a continued manifestation of piety and devotion, guided by such a great share of good sense as rendered her amiable and agreeable to all who were so happy as to be acquainted with her. Never have I known a Christian character equal to hers.”[341]

On bringing his family to the capital, in November, 1784, from the far-away solitude of Leatherwood, the governor established them, not within the city itself, but across the James River, at a place called Salisbury. What with children and with grandchildren, his family had now become[Pg 300]a patriarchal one; and some slight glimpse of himself and of his manner of life at that time is given us in the memorandum of Spencer Roane. In deference to “the ideas attached to the office of governor, as handed down from the royal government,” he is said to have paid careful attention to his costume and personal bearing before the public, never going abroad except in black coat, waistcoat, and knee-breeches, in scarlet cloak, and in dressed wig. Moreover, his family “were furnished with an excellent coach, at a time when these vehicles were not so common as at present. They lived as genteelly, and associated with as polished society, as that of any governor before or since has ever done. He entertained as much company as others, and in as genteel a style; and when, at the end of two years, he resigned the office, he had greatly exceeded the salary, and [was] in debt, which was one cause that induced him to resume the practice of the law.”[342]

During his two years in the governorship, his duties concerned matters of much local importance, indeed, but of no particular interest at present. To this remark one exception may be found in some passages of friendly correspondence between the governor and Washington,—the latter then enjoying the long-coveted repose of Mt. Vernon. In January, 1785, the Assembly of Virginia vested in Washington certain shares in two companies, just then formed, for opening and extending the navigation[Pg 301]of the James and Potomac rivers.[343]In response to Governor Henry’s letter communicating this act, Washington wrote on the 27th of February, stating his doubts about accepting such a gratuity, but at the same time asking the governor as a friend to assist him in the matter by his advice. Governor Henry’s reply is of interest to us, not only for its allusion to his own domestic anxieties at the time, but for its revelation of the frank and cordial relations between the two men:—

Richmond, March 12th, 1785.Dear Sir,—The honor you are pleased to do me, in your favor of the 27th ultimo, in which you desire my opinion in a friendly way concerning the act enclosed you lately, is very flattering to me. I did not receive the letter till Thursday, and since that my family has been very sickly. My oldest grandson, a fine boy indeed, about nine years old, lays at the point of death. Under this state of uneasiness and perturbation, I feel some unfitness to consider a subject of so delicate a nature as that you have desired my thoughts on. Besides, I have some expectation of a conveyance more proper, it may be, than the present, when I would wish to send you some packets received from Ireland, which I fear the post cannot carry at once. If he does not take them free, I shan’t send them, for they are heavy. Captain Boyle, who had them from Sir Edward Newenham, wishes for the honor of a line from you, which I have promised to forward to him.I will give you the trouble of hearing from me next[Pg 302]post, if no opportunity presents sooner, and, in the mean time, I beg you to be persuaded that, with the most sincere attachment, I am, dear sir, your most obedient servant,P. Henry.[344]General Washington.

Richmond, March 12th, 1785.

Dear Sir,—The honor you are pleased to do me, in your favor of the 27th ultimo, in which you desire my opinion in a friendly way concerning the act enclosed you lately, is very flattering to me. I did not receive the letter till Thursday, and since that my family has been very sickly. My oldest grandson, a fine boy indeed, about nine years old, lays at the point of death. Under this state of uneasiness and perturbation, I feel some unfitness to consider a subject of so delicate a nature as that you have desired my thoughts on. Besides, I have some expectation of a conveyance more proper, it may be, than the present, when I would wish to send you some packets received from Ireland, which I fear the post cannot carry at once. If he does not take them free, I shan’t send them, for they are heavy. Captain Boyle, who had them from Sir Edward Newenham, wishes for the honor of a line from you, which I have promised to forward to him.

I will give you the trouble of hearing from me next[Pg 302]post, if no opportunity presents sooner, and, in the mean time, I beg you to be persuaded that, with the most sincere attachment, I am, dear sir, your most obedient servant,

P. Henry.[344]

General Washington.

The promise contained in this letter was fulfilled on the 19th of the same month, when the governor wrote to Washington a long and careful statement of the whole case, urging him to accept the shares, and closing his letter with an assurance of his “unalterable affection” and “most sincere attachment,”[345]—a subscription not common among public men at that time.

On the 30th of November, 1786, having declined to be put in nomination for a third year, as permitted by the Constitution, he finally retired from the office of governor. The House of Delegates, about the same time, by unanimous vote, crowned him with the public thanks, “for his wise, prudent, and upright administration, during his last appointment of chief magistrate of this Commonwealth; assuring him that they retain a perfect sense of his abilities in the discharge of the duties of that high and important office, and wish him all domestic happiness on his return to private life.”[346]

This return to private life meant, among other[Pg 303]things, his return, after an interruption of more than twelve years, to the practice of the law. For this purpose he deemed it best to give up his remote home at Leatherwood, and to establish himself in Prince Edward County,—a place about midway between his former residence and the capital, and much better suited to his convenience, as an active practitioner in the courts. Accordingly, in Prince Edward County he continued to reside from the latter part of 1786 until 1795. Furthermore, by that county he was soon elected as one of its delegates in the Assembly; and, resuming there his old position as leader, he continued to serve in every session until the end of 1790, at which time he finally withdrew from all official connection with public life. Thus it happened that, by his retirement from the governorship in 1786, and by his almost immediate restoration to the House of Delegates, he was put into a situation to act most aggressively and most powerfully on public opinion in Virginia during the whole period of the struggle over the new Constitution.

As regards his attitude toward that great business, we need, first of all, to clear away some obscurity which has gathered about the question of his habitual views respecting the relations of the several States to the general government. It has been common to suppose that, even prior to the movement for the new Constitution, Patrick Henry had always been an extreme advocate of the rights of the States as opposed to the central authority[Pg 304]of the Union; and that the tremendous resistance which he made to the new Constitution in all stages of the affair prior to the adoption of the first group of amendments is to be accounted for as the effect of an original and habitual tendency of his mind.[347]Such, however, seems not to have been the case.

In general it may be said that, at the very outset of the Revolution, Patrick Henry was one of the first of our statesmen to recognize the existence and the imperial character of a certain cohesive central authority, arising from the very nature of the revolutionary act which the several colonies were then taking. As early as 1774, in the first Continental Congress, it was he who exclaimed: “All distinctions are thrown down. All America is thrown into one mass.” “The distinctions between Virginians, Pennsylvanians, New Yorkers, and New Englanders are no more. I am not a Virginian, but an American.” In the spring of 1776, at the approach of the question of independence, it was he who even incurred reproach by his anxiety to defer independence until after the basis for a general government should have been established, lest the several States, in separating from England, should lapse into a separation from one another also. As governor of Virginia from 1776 to 1779, his official correspondence with the president of Congress, with the board of war, and with the general of the army is pervaded by proofs of[Pg 305]his respect for the supreme authority of the general government within its proper sphere. Finally, as a leader in the Virginia House of Delegates from 1780 to 1784, he was in the main a supporter of the policy of giving more strength and dignity to the general government. During all that period, according to the admission of his most unfriendly modern critic, Patrick Henry showed himself “much more disposed to sustain and strengthen the federal authority” than did, for example, his great rival in the House, Richard Henry Lee; and for the time those two great men became “the living and active exponents of two adverse political systems in both state and national questions.”[348]In 1784, by which time the weakness of the general government had become alarming, Patrick Henry was among the foremost in Virginia to express alarm, and to propose the only appropriate remedy. For example, on the assembling of the legislature, in May of that year, he took pains to seek an early interview with two of his prominent associates in the House of Delegates, Madison and Jones, for the express purpose of devising with them some method of giving greater strength to the Confederation. “I find him,” wrote Madison to Jefferson immediately after the interview, “strenuous for invigorating the federal government, though without any precise plan.”[349]A more detailed account of the same interview was sent to Jefferson by another correspondent.[Pg 306]According to the latter, Patrick Henry then declared that “he saw ruin inevitable, unless something was done to give Congress a compulsory process on delinquent States;” that “a bold example set by Virginia” in that direction “would have influence on the other States;” and that “this conviction was his only inducement for coming into the present Assembly.” Whereupon, it was then agreed between them that “Jones and Madison should sketch some plan for giving greater power to the federal government; and Henry promised to sustain it on the floor.”[350]Finally, such was the impression produced by Patrick Henry’s political conduct during all those years that, as late as in December, 1786, Madison could speak of him as having “been hitherto the champion of the federal cause.”[351]

Not far, however, from the date last mentioned Patrick Henry ceased to be “the champion of the federal cause,” and became its chief antagonist, and so remained until some time during Washington’s first term in the presidency. What brought about this sudden and total revolution? It can be explained only by the discovery of some new influence which came into his life between 1784 and 1786, and which was powerful enough to reverse entirely the habitual direction of his political thought and conduct. Just what that influence was can now be easily shown.[Pg 307]

On the 3d of August, 1786, John Jay, as secretary for foreign affairs, presented to Congress some results of his negotiations with the Spanish envoy, Gardoqui, respecting a treaty with Spain; and he then urged that Congress, in view of certain vast advantages to our foreign commerce, should consent to surrender the navigation of the Mississippi for twenty-five or thirty years,[352]—a proposal which, very naturally, seemed to the six Southern States as nothing less than a cool invitation to them to sacrifice their own most important interests for the next quarter of a century, in order to build up during that period the interests of the seven States of the North. The revelation of this project, and of the ability of the Northern States to force it through, sent a shock of alarm and of distrust into every Southern community. Moreover, full details of these transactions in Congress were promptly conveyed to Governor Henry by James Monroe, who added this pungent item,—that a secret project was then under the serious consideration of “committees” of Northern men, for a dismemberment of the Union, and for setting the Southern States adrift, after having thus bartered away from them the use of the Mississippi.[353]

On the same day that Monroe was writing from New York that letter to Governor Henry, Madison was writing from Philadelphia a letter to Jefferson. Having mentioned a plan for strengthening the Confederation, Madison says:—[Pg 308]

Back to Index Next