FOOTNOTES:

It was not true, declared Henry, that the people were discontented under the Confederation—at least the common people were not; and it was the common people for whom he spoke. But, of course, sneered that consummate actor, "the middling and lower ranks of people have not those illuminated ideas" which the "well-born" are so happily possessed of; "they [the common people] cannot so readily perceive latent objects." It was only the "illuminated imaginations" and the "microscopic eyes of modern statesmen" that could see defects where there were none.

Henry hinted with great adroitness at the probable loss of the Mississippi, which was the sorest point with the members from Kentucky; and, having injected the poison, passed on to let it do its work against the time when he would strike with all his force. Then he appealed to state pride. "When I call this the most mighty state in the Union, do I not speak the truth? Does not Virginia surpass every state?" Of course! There was no danger, then, that Virginia would be left out of the Union, as the Constitutionalists had hinted might happen if Virginia rejected the Constitution; the other States would be glad to have her on her own terms.

Henry went over a variety of subjects and then returned to his favorite idea of the National Government as something foreign. Picking up a careless word of Randolph, who had spoken of the peopleas a "herd," Henry said that perhaps the words "We, the people," were used to recommend it to the masses, "to those who are likened to aherd; and by the operation of this blessed system are to be transformed from respectable, independent citizens, to abject, dependent subjects or slaves."[1215]Finally, when he felt that he had his hearers once more under his spell, Henry, exclaiming that a Bill of Rights was vital, asked for adjournment, which was taken, the great orator still holding the floor.

FOOTNOTES:[1111]Though "practical," these methods were honorable, as far as the improper use of money was concerned.[1112]King to Langdon, June 10, 1788; King, i, 331.[1113]Hamilton to Madison, May 19, 1788;Works: Lodge, ix, 430. See alsoib., 432.[1114]Knox to King, June 19, 1788; King, i, 335.[1115]Hill to Thatcher, Jan. 1, 1788;Hist. Mag.(2d Series), vi, 261.[1116]King to Madison, May 25, 1788; King, i, 329.[1117]Hamilton to Madison, June 27, 1788;Works: Lodge, ix, 436. Virginia had ratified the Constitution two days before Hamilton wrote this letter, but the news did not reach New York until long afterward.[1118]Hamilton to Madison, June 8, 1788;Works: Lodge, ix, 432-34.[1119]Grigsby, i, 8. About three eighths of Virginia's population were slaves valued at many millions of dollars.[1120]Grigsby, i, footnote to 50; also 32; and see examples given by Judge Scott, in Scott, 235-38.[1121]Grigsby, i, footnote to 36; and see 29, 62, 339.[1122]Henry, ii, 339; and Rowland, ii, 223et seq.[1123]Rives, ii, 549.[1124]Randolph to the Speaker of the House of Delegates, Oct. 10, 1787; Elliott, i, 482-91; also Ford:P. on C., 261-76.[1125]Randolph to Page and others, Dec. 2, 1787;American Museum, iii, 61et seq.[1126]Ib.[1127]Lee to Randolph, Oct. 16, 1787; Elliott, i, 503. Upon the publication of this correspondence a young Richmond attorney, Spencer Roane, the son-in-law of Patrick Henry, in an article signed "Plain Dealer," published in theVirginia Gazette, attacked Randolph for inconsistency. "Good God! How can the first magistrate and father of a pure republican government ... before his proposed plan of amendment has been determined upon, declare that he will accept a Constitution which is to beget a monarchy or an aristocracy?... Can he foretell future events? How else can he at this time discover what the 'spirit of America' is?... How far will this principle carry him? Why, ... if the dominion of Shays, instead of that of the new Constitution, should be generally accepted, and become 'the spirit of America,' his Excellency would turn Shayite." (Plain Dealer to Randolph, Feb. 13, 1788; Ford:Essays on the Constitution, 385; alsoBranch Hist. Papers, 47.) Roane's letter is important as the first expression of his hostility to the Constitution. He was to become the determined enemy of Marshall; and, as the ablest judge of the Virginia Court of Appeals, the chief judicial foe of Marshall's Nationalism. (See vol.IIIof this work.)[1128]"The importunities of some to me in public and private are designed to throw me unequivocally and without condition, into the opposition." (Randolph to Madison, Feb. 29, 1788; Conway, 101.)[1129]Washington to Randolph, Jan. 8, 1788;Writings: Ford, xi, 204-06.[1130]Madison to Randolph, Jan. 10, 1788;Writings: Hunt, v, 79-84; and see same to same, Jan. 20, 1788 (ib., 86-88); and March 3, 1788 (ib., 113-14).[1131]"If he [Randolph] approves it at all, he will do it feebly." (Washington to Lafayette, April 28, 1788;Writings: Ford, xi, 255; and see Madison to Jefferson, April 22, 1788;Writings: Hunt, v, 121.)[1132]Randolph to Madison, Feb. 29, 1788; quoted in Conway, 101.[1133]"Randolph was still looked upon as an Anti-Federalist by the uninitiated." But his "position ... was evidently no secret to Washington." (Rowland, ii, 210. See alsoib., 225, 227, 231.)[1134]Ib.[1135]Randolph to Madison, Feb. 29, 1788; Conway, 101.[1136]Scott, 160.[1137]Washington to Carter, Dec. 14, 1787;Writings: Ford, xi, footnote to 210.[1138]Smith to Madison, June 12, 1788; Rives, ii, footnote to p. 544.[1139]Ib."The Baptist interest ... are highly incensed by Henry's opinions and public speeches." (Randolph to Madison, Feb. 29, 1788; Conway, 101.)[1140]Smith to Madison, June 12, 1788; Rives, ii, 544.[1141]Washington to Hamilton, Nov. 10, 1787;Writings: Ford, xi, footnote to p. 181.[1142]Washington to Trumbull, Feb. 5, 1788;Writings: Ford, 212. From the first Washington attributed much of the opposition throughout the country to the fact that popular leaders believed that the new National Government would lessen their importance in their respective States. "The governors elect or to be elected, the legislators, with a long tribe of others whose political importance will be lessened if not annihilated" were, said Washington, against a strong central Government. (Washington to Knox, Feb. 3, 1787; Sparks, ix, 230; and see Graydon, 340.)[1143]Washington to Lincoln, April 2, 1788;ib., xi, footnote to 239-40.[1144]"Letters of a Federal Farmer," no. 3; Ford:P. on C., 301.[1145]Ib., no. 5, 319.[1146]Washington to Armstrong, April 25, 1788;Writings: Ford, xi, 252; and to Petit, Aug. 16, 1788;ib., 300.[1147]Madison to Jefferson, April 22, 1788;Writings: Hunt, v, 120-22.[1148]Grigsby, i, 34-35; and footnote to 49.[1149]Grigsby, i, 64-66; and Elliott, iii, 1.[1150]Rowland, ii, 222.[1151]Henry, ii, 345. So angered were the Anti-Constitutionalists that they would not correct or revise Robertson's reports of their speeches. (Ib.)[1152]Elliott, iii, 1.[1153]Ib., 5-6; also, Journal of the Convention, 7-11.[1154]Grigsby, i, 69-70. In the descriptions of the dress, manners, and appearance of those who took part in the debate, Grigsby's account has been followed. Grigsby took infinite pains and gave many years to the gathering and verifying of data on these picturesque subjects; he was personally intimate with a large number of the immediate descendants of the members of the Convention and with a few who were eye-witnesses; and his reconstruction of the scenes in the Convention is believed to be entirely accurate.[1155]Elliott, iii, 3.[1156]Mason's clause-to-clause resolve was, "contrary to his expectations, concurred in by the other side." (Madison to Washington, June 4, 1788;Writings: Hunt, v, footnote to 124.) And see Washington's gleeful report to the New York Constitutionalists of Mason's error: "This [Mason's resolve] was as unexpected as acceptable to the federalists, and their ready acquiescence seems to have somewhat startled the opposite side for fear they had committed themselves." (Washington to Jay, June 8, 1788;Writings: Ford, xi, 271.)[1157]Elliott, iii, 4.[1158]Grigsby, i, 77.[1159]For a discussion of this tactical blunder of the opponents of the Constitution, see Grigsby, i, 72.[1160]Elliott, iii, 4.[1161]Grigsby, i, 75.[1162]Elliott, iii, 6.[1163]Ib.[1164]Grigsby, i, 77.[1165]Ib., 79.[1166]Ib., 78, 79, 140, 141, 246, 247.[1167]Elliott, iii, 7-21.[1168]Grigsby, i, 76.[1169]Elliott, iii, 21-23.[1170]Grigsby, i, 83-84.[1171]Madison was the real designer of the Virginia plan. (Rives, ii, chap. xxvii.)[1172]This was the point Washington had made to Randolph. It is interesting that, throughout the debate, Randolph, over and over again, used almost the exact language of Washington's letter.[1173]Elliott, iii, 23-29. Randolph's speech was apologetic for his change of heart. He was not "a candidate for popularity": he had "satisfied his conscience," etc.[1174]Madison to Washington, June 4, 1788;Writings: Hunt, v, 124.[1175]Jefferson to Short, Sept. 20, 1788; quoting a private letter from Virginia of July 12;Works: Ford, v, 431.[1176]Washington to Jay, June 8, 1788;Writings: Ford, xi, 271.[1177]Bland to Lee, June 13, 1788; Rowland, ii, 243-44. Evidently the opposition was slow to believe that Randolph had irrevocably deserted them; for Bland's letter was not written until Randolph had made his fourth extended speech ten days later.[1178]Scott, 160.[1179]Washington to Jay, June 8, 1788;Writings: Ford, xi, 271.[1180]From this delay Randolph's enemies have charged that his letter to Clinton was not posted in time. Much as Randolph had to answer for, this charge is unjust. Letters between Richmond and New York sometimes were two or three months on the way. (Seesupra, chap.VII.)[1181]Clinton to Randolph, May 8, 1788; Conway, 110-12.[1182]Clinton to Randolph, May 8, 1788; Conway, 110-12; Henry, ii, 363; Rowland, ii, 276-79; and seeinfra, chap.XII.[1183]Randolph's change was ascribed to improper motives. Mason was almost offensive in his insinuations during the debate and Henry openly so, as will appear. Randolph's last words to the Convention were explanatory and defensive.Washington made Randolph his first Attorney-General and he exercised great power for a time. "The Government is now solely directed by Randolph," complained Jefferson. (Conway, 140.) While Washington certainly did not appoint Randolph as a reward for his conduct in the struggle over the Constitution, it is a reasonable inference that he would not have been made a member of the Cabinet if he had not abandoned his opposition, supported the Constitution, and suppressed Clinton's letter.Virginia had the head of the Cabinet in Jefferson as Secretary of State; Washington himself was from Virginia; and since there were numerous men from other States as well as or better equipped than Randolph for the Attorney-Generalship, his selection for that place is, at least, noteworthy. It gave Virginia the Presidency and two members of a Cabinet which numbered only four in all.When the Attorney-Generalship was tendered to Randolph, he wrote to Madison bitterly resenting "the load of calumny which would be poured upon" him if he should accept. "For," writes Randolph, "it has been insinuated ... that my espousal of the Constitution had alienated even its friends from me, who would not elect me to the house of representatives. The insinuation has been carried so far as to apply it to the disposal of offices under the government." (Randolph to Madison, July 19, 1789; Conway, 127-28.)[1184]Rowland, ii, 308.[1185]Elliott, iii, 29-34.[1186]Elliott, iii, 34-35.[1187]Grigsby, i, 99.[1188]Those who supported the Constitution were called "Federalists" and its opponents "Anti-Federalists"; but, for sake of clearness, the terms "Constitutionalists" and "Anti-Constitutionalists" are employed in these chapters.[1189]Madison to Washington, June 4, 1788;Writings: Hunt, v, footnote to 123-24.[1190]Grigsby, i, footnote to 46.[1191]Grigsby, i, 101-02. Scenes of a similar character occurred several times in both Senate and House between 1900 and 1911, when one of our elder statesmen, who plainly was nearing the end of life, rose to speak. More than one notable contest, during that decade, was decided by the sympathetic votes of aged friends who answered the call of long years of affection.[1192]Elliott, iii, 35-41.[1193]Seeinfra, chap,III; also Grigsby, i, 105-06.[1194]Ib., 106-09.[1195]Elliott, iii, 41-43.[1196]Elliott, iii, 44. The word "revolution" is printed "resolution" in Elliott'sDebates. This is a good example of the inaccuracy of Elliott's reprint of Robertson's stenographic report. In Robertson'sDebates, published in 1805, the word is correctly printed "revolution." I have cited Elliott only because it is accessible. Even Robertson's report is admittedly meager and unsatisfactory; all the more, therefore, is it to be regretted that Elliott's reprint should be so inaccurate.[1197]At this point the reporter, unable to follow Henry's speech, notes that he "strongly and pathetically expatiated on the probability of the President's enslaving America and the horrid consequences that must result." (Elliott, iii, 60.)[1198]Henry had not heard of the Constitutionalists' bargain with Hancock in Massachusetts.[1199]Elliott, iii, 43-64.[1200]General Posey, a Revolutionary officer, who was for the Constitution, afterwards said that Henry's speech made him believe that the Constitution would destroy liberty. Another intelligent man who heard Henry's speech said that when the great orator pictured the President at the head of the army, he felt his own wrists for the shackles, and that his place in the gallery suddenly seemed like a dungeon. (Grigsby, i, 118-19.)[1201]Grigsby, i, 121.[1202]Elliott, iii, 64-86. In the debate, much was made of this famous case. Yet Philips was not executed under the provisions of the law Randolph referred to. When arrested, he was indicted, tried, and convicted in the General Court; and he was hanged by sentence of the court, December 4, 1778.Although, at that time, Randolph was Attorney-General of Virginia and actually prosecuted the case; and although Henry was Governor and ordered the arrest of Philips (Henry, i, 611-13), yet, ten years later, both had forgotten the facts, and Randolph charged, and Henry in reply admitted, that Philips had been executed under the bill of attainder without trial. (Jefferson to Wirt, Oct. 14, 1814;Works: Ford, xi, 407.) The bill of attainder was drawn by Jefferson. It appears inib., ii, 330-36.[1203]Again, Randolph's speech was marred by the note of personal explanation that pervaded it. "The rectitude of my intentions"; "ambition and popularity are no objects with me"; "I expect, in the course of a year, to retire to that private station which I most sincerely and cordially prefer to all others,"—such expressions gave to his otherwise aggressive and very able appeal a defensive tone.[1204]Grigsby, i, 130. Madison's apparel at this Convention was as ornate as his opinions were, in his opponents' eyes, "aristocratic."[1205]Elliott, iii, 86. See entire speech,ib., 86-96.[1206]Bushrod Washington to Washington, June 6, 1788;Writings: Sparks, ix, 378. But Madison gave Henry an opening through which that veteran orator drove like a troop of horse, as far as practical and momentary effect was concerned. Madison described the new government as partly National and partly Federal. (Elliott, iii, 94; and see Henry's use of this,ib., 171; alsoinfra.)[1207]Elliott, iii, 97-103.[1208]Elliott, iii, 104-14.[1209]Elliott, iii, 114.[1210]Ib., 114-28.[1211]Madison was equaled only by Hamilton in sheer intellectuality, but he was inferior to that colossus in courage and constructive genius.[1212]Ib., 128-37.[1213]Madison to Hamilton, June 9, 1788; Hamilton MSS., Lib. Cong. Madison's four famous speeches in this Convention, are properly parts of one comprehensive exposition. (See Madison's own notes for the third of these speeches inWritings: Hunt, v, 148.) Mr. Hunt also prints accurately Robertson's report of the speeches themselves in that volume. They cannot be summarized here, but should be read in full.[1214]Seesupra, footnote to 393.[1215]Elliott, iii, 137-50.

[1111]Though "practical," these methods were honorable, as far as the improper use of money was concerned.

[1112]King to Langdon, June 10, 1788; King, i, 331.

[1113]Hamilton to Madison, May 19, 1788;Works: Lodge, ix, 430. See alsoib., 432.

[1114]Knox to King, June 19, 1788; King, i, 335.

[1115]Hill to Thatcher, Jan. 1, 1788;Hist. Mag.(2d Series), vi, 261.

[1116]King to Madison, May 25, 1788; King, i, 329.

[1117]Hamilton to Madison, June 27, 1788;Works: Lodge, ix, 436. Virginia had ratified the Constitution two days before Hamilton wrote this letter, but the news did not reach New York until long afterward.

[1118]Hamilton to Madison, June 8, 1788;Works: Lodge, ix, 432-34.

[1119]Grigsby, i, 8. About three eighths of Virginia's population were slaves valued at many millions of dollars.

[1120]Grigsby, i, footnote to 50; also 32; and see examples given by Judge Scott, in Scott, 235-38.

[1121]Grigsby, i, footnote to 36; and see 29, 62, 339.

[1122]Henry, ii, 339; and Rowland, ii, 223et seq.

[1123]Rives, ii, 549.

[1124]Randolph to the Speaker of the House of Delegates, Oct. 10, 1787; Elliott, i, 482-91; also Ford:P. on C., 261-76.

[1125]Randolph to Page and others, Dec. 2, 1787;American Museum, iii, 61et seq.

[1126]Ib.

[1127]Lee to Randolph, Oct. 16, 1787; Elliott, i, 503. Upon the publication of this correspondence a young Richmond attorney, Spencer Roane, the son-in-law of Patrick Henry, in an article signed "Plain Dealer," published in theVirginia Gazette, attacked Randolph for inconsistency. "Good God! How can the first magistrate and father of a pure republican government ... before his proposed plan of amendment has been determined upon, declare that he will accept a Constitution which is to beget a monarchy or an aristocracy?... Can he foretell future events? How else can he at this time discover what the 'spirit of America' is?... How far will this principle carry him? Why, ... if the dominion of Shays, instead of that of the new Constitution, should be generally accepted, and become 'the spirit of America,' his Excellency would turn Shayite." (Plain Dealer to Randolph, Feb. 13, 1788; Ford:Essays on the Constitution, 385; alsoBranch Hist. Papers, 47.) Roane's letter is important as the first expression of his hostility to the Constitution. He was to become the determined enemy of Marshall; and, as the ablest judge of the Virginia Court of Appeals, the chief judicial foe of Marshall's Nationalism. (See vol.IIIof this work.)

[1128]"The importunities of some to me in public and private are designed to throw me unequivocally and without condition, into the opposition." (Randolph to Madison, Feb. 29, 1788; Conway, 101.)

[1129]Washington to Randolph, Jan. 8, 1788;Writings: Ford, xi, 204-06.

[1130]Madison to Randolph, Jan. 10, 1788;Writings: Hunt, v, 79-84; and see same to same, Jan. 20, 1788 (ib., 86-88); and March 3, 1788 (ib., 113-14).

[1131]"If he [Randolph] approves it at all, he will do it feebly." (Washington to Lafayette, April 28, 1788;Writings: Ford, xi, 255; and see Madison to Jefferson, April 22, 1788;Writings: Hunt, v, 121.)

[1132]Randolph to Madison, Feb. 29, 1788; quoted in Conway, 101.

[1133]"Randolph was still looked upon as an Anti-Federalist by the uninitiated." But his "position ... was evidently no secret to Washington." (Rowland, ii, 210. See alsoib., 225, 227, 231.)

[1134]Ib.

[1135]Randolph to Madison, Feb. 29, 1788; Conway, 101.

[1136]Scott, 160.

[1137]Washington to Carter, Dec. 14, 1787;Writings: Ford, xi, footnote to 210.

[1138]Smith to Madison, June 12, 1788; Rives, ii, footnote to p. 544.

[1139]Ib."The Baptist interest ... are highly incensed by Henry's opinions and public speeches." (Randolph to Madison, Feb. 29, 1788; Conway, 101.)

[1140]Smith to Madison, June 12, 1788; Rives, ii, 544.

[1141]Washington to Hamilton, Nov. 10, 1787;Writings: Ford, xi, footnote to p. 181.

[1142]Washington to Trumbull, Feb. 5, 1788;Writings: Ford, 212. From the first Washington attributed much of the opposition throughout the country to the fact that popular leaders believed that the new National Government would lessen their importance in their respective States. "The governors elect or to be elected, the legislators, with a long tribe of others whose political importance will be lessened if not annihilated" were, said Washington, against a strong central Government. (Washington to Knox, Feb. 3, 1787; Sparks, ix, 230; and see Graydon, 340.)

[1143]Washington to Lincoln, April 2, 1788;ib., xi, footnote to 239-40.

[1144]"Letters of a Federal Farmer," no. 3; Ford:P. on C., 301.

[1145]Ib., no. 5, 319.

[1146]Washington to Armstrong, April 25, 1788;Writings: Ford, xi, 252; and to Petit, Aug. 16, 1788;ib., 300.

[1147]Madison to Jefferson, April 22, 1788;Writings: Hunt, v, 120-22.

[1148]Grigsby, i, 34-35; and footnote to 49.

[1149]Grigsby, i, 64-66; and Elliott, iii, 1.

[1150]Rowland, ii, 222.

[1151]Henry, ii, 345. So angered were the Anti-Constitutionalists that they would not correct or revise Robertson's reports of their speeches. (Ib.)

[1152]Elliott, iii, 1.

[1153]Ib., 5-6; also, Journal of the Convention, 7-11.

[1154]Grigsby, i, 69-70. In the descriptions of the dress, manners, and appearance of those who took part in the debate, Grigsby's account has been followed. Grigsby took infinite pains and gave many years to the gathering and verifying of data on these picturesque subjects; he was personally intimate with a large number of the immediate descendants of the members of the Convention and with a few who were eye-witnesses; and his reconstruction of the scenes in the Convention is believed to be entirely accurate.

[1155]Elliott, iii, 3.

[1156]Mason's clause-to-clause resolve was, "contrary to his expectations, concurred in by the other side." (Madison to Washington, June 4, 1788;Writings: Hunt, v, footnote to 124.) And see Washington's gleeful report to the New York Constitutionalists of Mason's error: "This [Mason's resolve] was as unexpected as acceptable to the federalists, and their ready acquiescence seems to have somewhat startled the opposite side for fear they had committed themselves." (Washington to Jay, June 8, 1788;Writings: Ford, xi, 271.)

[1157]Elliott, iii, 4.

[1158]Grigsby, i, 77.

[1159]For a discussion of this tactical blunder of the opponents of the Constitution, see Grigsby, i, 72.

[1160]Elliott, iii, 4.

[1161]Grigsby, i, 75.

[1162]Elliott, iii, 6.

[1163]Ib.

[1164]Grigsby, i, 77.

[1165]Ib., 79.

[1166]Ib., 78, 79, 140, 141, 246, 247.

[1167]Elliott, iii, 7-21.

[1168]Grigsby, i, 76.

[1169]Elliott, iii, 21-23.

[1170]Grigsby, i, 83-84.

[1171]Madison was the real designer of the Virginia plan. (Rives, ii, chap. xxvii.)

[1172]This was the point Washington had made to Randolph. It is interesting that, throughout the debate, Randolph, over and over again, used almost the exact language of Washington's letter.

[1173]Elliott, iii, 23-29. Randolph's speech was apologetic for his change of heart. He was not "a candidate for popularity": he had "satisfied his conscience," etc.

[1174]Madison to Washington, June 4, 1788;Writings: Hunt, v, 124.

[1175]Jefferson to Short, Sept. 20, 1788; quoting a private letter from Virginia of July 12;Works: Ford, v, 431.

[1176]Washington to Jay, June 8, 1788;Writings: Ford, xi, 271.

[1177]Bland to Lee, June 13, 1788; Rowland, ii, 243-44. Evidently the opposition was slow to believe that Randolph had irrevocably deserted them; for Bland's letter was not written until Randolph had made his fourth extended speech ten days later.

[1178]Scott, 160.

[1179]Washington to Jay, June 8, 1788;Writings: Ford, xi, 271.

[1180]From this delay Randolph's enemies have charged that his letter to Clinton was not posted in time. Much as Randolph had to answer for, this charge is unjust. Letters between Richmond and New York sometimes were two or three months on the way. (Seesupra, chap.VII.)

[1181]Clinton to Randolph, May 8, 1788; Conway, 110-12.

[1182]Clinton to Randolph, May 8, 1788; Conway, 110-12; Henry, ii, 363; Rowland, ii, 276-79; and seeinfra, chap.XII.

[1183]Randolph's change was ascribed to improper motives. Mason was almost offensive in his insinuations during the debate and Henry openly so, as will appear. Randolph's last words to the Convention were explanatory and defensive.Washington made Randolph his first Attorney-General and he exercised great power for a time. "The Government is now solely directed by Randolph," complained Jefferson. (Conway, 140.) While Washington certainly did not appoint Randolph as a reward for his conduct in the struggle over the Constitution, it is a reasonable inference that he would not have been made a member of the Cabinet if he had not abandoned his opposition, supported the Constitution, and suppressed Clinton's letter.Virginia had the head of the Cabinet in Jefferson as Secretary of State; Washington himself was from Virginia; and since there were numerous men from other States as well as or better equipped than Randolph for the Attorney-Generalship, his selection for that place is, at least, noteworthy. It gave Virginia the Presidency and two members of a Cabinet which numbered only four in all.When the Attorney-Generalship was tendered to Randolph, he wrote to Madison bitterly resenting "the load of calumny which would be poured upon" him if he should accept. "For," writes Randolph, "it has been insinuated ... that my espousal of the Constitution had alienated even its friends from me, who would not elect me to the house of representatives. The insinuation has been carried so far as to apply it to the disposal of offices under the government." (Randolph to Madison, July 19, 1789; Conway, 127-28.)

Washington made Randolph his first Attorney-General and he exercised great power for a time. "The Government is now solely directed by Randolph," complained Jefferson. (Conway, 140.) While Washington certainly did not appoint Randolph as a reward for his conduct in the struggle over the Constitution, it is a reasonable inference that he would not have been made a member of the Cabinet if he had not abandoned his opposition, supported the Constitution, and suppressed Clinton's letter.

Virginia had the head of the Cabinet in Jefferson as Secretary of State; Washington himself was from Virginia; and since there were numerous men from other States as well as or better equipped than Randolph for the Attorney-Generalship, his selection for that place is, at least, noteworthy. It gave Virginia the Presidency and two members of a Cabinet which numbered only four in all.

When the Attorney-Generalship was tendered to Randolph, he wrote to Madison bitterly resenting "the load of calumny which would be poured upon" him if he should accept. "For," writes Randolph, "it has been insinuated ... that my espousal of the Constitution had alienated even its friends from me, who would not elect me to the house of representatives. The insinuation has been carried so far as to apply it to the disposal of offices under the government." (Randolph to Madison, July 19, 1789; Conway, 127-28.)

[1184]Rowland, ii, 308.

[1185]Elliott, iii, 29-34.

[1186]Elliott, iii, 34-35.

[1187]Grigsby, i, 99.

[1188]Those who supported the Constitution were called "Federalists" and its opponents "Anti-Federalists"; but, for sake of clearness, the terms "Constitutionalists" and "Anti-Constitutionalists" are employed in these chapters.

[1189]Madison to Washington, June 4, 1788;Writings: Hunt, v, footnote to 123-24.

[1190]Grigsby, i, footnote to 46.

[1191]Grigsby, i, 101-02. Scenes of a similar character occurred several times in both Senate and House between 1900 and 1911, when one of our elder statesmen, who plainly was nearing the end of life, rose to speak. More than one notable contest, during that decade, was decided by the sympathetic votes of aged friends who answered the call of long years of affection.

[1192]Elliott, iii, 35-41.

[1193]Seeinfra, chap,III; also Grigsby, i, 105-06.

[1194]Ib., 106-09.

[1195]Elliott, iii, 41-43.

[1196]Elliott, iii, 44. The word "revolution" is printed "resolution" in Elliott'sDebates. This is a good example of the inaccuracy of Elliott's reprint of Robertson's stenographic report. In Robertson'sDebates, published in 1805, the word is correctly printed "revolution." I have cited Elliott only because it is accessible. Even Robertson's report is admittedly meager and unsatisfactory; all the more, therefore, is it to be regretted that Elliott's reprint should be so inaccurate.

[1197]At this point the reporter, unable to follow Henry's speech, notes that he "strongly and pathetically expatiated on the probability of the President's enslaving America and the horrid consequences that must result." (Elliott, iii, 60.)

[1198]Henry had not heard of the Constitutionalists' bargain with Hancock in Massachusetts.

[1199]Elliott, iii, 43-64.

[1200]General Posey, a Revolutionary officer, who was for the Constitution, afterwards said that Henry's speech made him believe that the Constitution would destroy liberty. Another intelligent man who heard Henry's speech said that when the great orator pictured the President at the head of the army, he felt his own wrists for the shackles, and that his place in the gallery suddenly seemed like a dungeon. (Grigsby, i, 118-19.)

[1201]Grigsby, i, 121.

[1202]Elliott, iii, 64-86. In the debate, much was made of this famous case. Yet Philips was not executed under the provisions of the law Randolph referred to. When arrested, he was indicted, tried, and convicted in the General Court; and he was hanged by sentence of the court, December 4, 1778.Although, at that time, Randolph was Attorney-General of Virginia and actually prosecuted the case; and although Henry was Governor and ordered the arrest of Philips (Henry, i, 611-13), yet, ten years later, both had forgotten the facts, and Randolph charged, and Henry in reply admitted, that Philips had been executed under the bill of attainder without trial. (Jefferson to Wirt, Oct. 14, 1814;Works: Ford, xi, 407.) The bill of attainder was drawn by Jefferson. It appears inib., ii, 330-36.

Although, at that time, Randolph was Attorney-General of Virginia and actually prosecuted the case; and although Henry was Governor and ordered the arrest of Philips (Henry, i, 611-13), yet, ten years later, both had forgotten the facts, and Randolph charged, and Henry in reply admitted, that Philips had been executed under the bill of attainder without trial. (Jefferson to Wirt, Oct. 14, 1814;Works: Ford, xi, 407.) The bill of attainder was drawn by Jefferson. It appears inib., ii, 330-36.

[1203]Again, Randolph's speech was marred by the note of personal explanation that pervaded it. "The rectitude of my intentions"; "ambition and popularity are no objects with me"; "I expect, in the course of a year, to retire to that private station which I most sincerely and cordially prefer to all others,"—such expressions gave to his otherwise aggressive and very able appeal a defensive tone.

[1204]Grigsby, i, 130. Madison's apparel at this Convention was as ornate as his opinions were, in his opponents' eyes, "aristocratic."

[1205]Elliott, iii, 86. See entire speech,ib., 86-96.

[1206]Bushrod Washington to Washington, June 6, 1788;Writings: Sparks, ix, 378. But Madison gave Henry an opening through which that veteran orator drove like a troop of horse, as far as practical and momentary effect was concerned. Madison described the new government as partly National and partly Federal. (Elliott, iii, 94; and see Henry's use of this,ib., 171; alsoinfra.)

[1207]Elliott, iii, 97-103.

[1208]Elliott, iii, 104-14.

[1209]Elliott, iii, 114.

[1210]Ib., 114-28.

[1211]Madison was equaled only by Hamilton in sheer intellectuality, but he was inferior to that colossus in courage and constructive genius.

[1212]Ib., 128-37.

[1213]Madison to Hamilton, June 9, 1788; Hamilton MSS., Lib. Cong. Madison's four famous speeches in this Convention, are properly parts of one comprehensive exposition. (See Madison's own notes for the third of these speeches inWritings: Hunt, v, 148.) Mr. Hunt also prints accurately Robertson's report of the speeches themselves in that volume. They cannot be summarized here, but should be read in full.

[1214]Seesupra, footnote to 393.

[1215]Elliott, iii, 137-50.

There will undoubtedly be a greater weight of abilities against the adoption in this convention than in any other state. (Washington.)What are the objects of the National Government? To protect the United States and to promote the general welfare. (Marshall, in his first debate.)

There will undoubtedly be a greater weight of abilities against the adoption in this convention than in any other state. (Washington.)

What are the objects of the National Government? To protect the United States and to promote the general welfare. (Marshall, in his first debate.)

Now appeared the practical political managers from other States. From Saturday afternoon until Monday morning there was great activity in both camps. The politicians of each side met in secret conference to plan the operations of the coming week and to devise ways and means of getting votes. For the Constitutionalists, Gouverneur Morris was on the ground from New York;[1216]Robert Morris and probably James Wilson, both from Philadelphia, had been in Virginia at the time of the elections and the former remained for the Convention.[1217]During the second week the Philadelphia financier writes Gates from Richmond, lamenting "the depredations on my purse," but "inclined to think the Constitution will be adopted by Virginia."[1218]

For the opposition, Oswald, publisher of the "Independent Gazetteer," came on from Philadelphia and arrived in Richmond at the close of the first week's debate. He at once went into secret conference with Henry, Mason, and the other Anti-Constitutionalist leaders. Madison reports to Hamilton that "Oswald of Philacame here on Saturday; and he has closet interviews with the leaders of the opposition."[1219]By the same mail Grayson advises the general Anti-Constitutionalist headquarters in New York that he is "sorry ... that our affairs in the convention are suspended by a hair." Randolph's conduct "has not injured us," writes Grayson, thus proving how poorly the Anti-Constitutionalists estimated the real situation. But they were practical enough to know that "there are seven or eight dubious characters whose opinions are not known" and upon whose decisions the fate of the Constitution "will ultimately depend." Grayson cautions Lamb not to let this get into the newspapers.[1220]

Just what was devised and decided by the leaders of both sides in these behind-the-doors meetings andwhat methods were used outside the Convention hall to influence votes, there is no means of learning exactly; though "the opposition" committee seems to have been occupied chiefly in drawing amendments.[1221]But the frequent references, particularly of the Constitutionalist speakers on the floor, to improper conduct of their adversaries "out of doors" show that both sides were using every means known to the politics of the day to secure support. In the debate itself Henry certainly was making headway.[1222]

On Monday, Henry and Mason made a dramatic entrance into the Convention hall. Walking arm in arm from their quarters in "The Swan,"[1223]they stopped on the steps at the doors of the New Academy and conferred earnestly for some minutes; so great was the throng that the two Anti-Constitutionalist chieftains made their way to their seats with great difficulty.[1224]When Henry rose to go on with his speech, the plan decided on during Sunday quickly was revealed. The great prize for which both sides now were fighting was the votes from Kentucky.[1225]Henry held up before them the near forfeiture to the Spanish of our right to navigate theMississippi.[1226]This, he said, was the work of seven Northern States; but under the Confederation they had been thwarted in their fell purpose by six Southern States; and the Mississippi still remained our own. But if the Constitution was adopted, what would happen? The Senate would be controlled by those same Northern States that had nearly succeeded in surrendering the great waterway and the West and South would surely be deprived of that invaluable commercial outlet. He asked the members of Congress who were in the Convention to tell the facts about the Mississippi business. Jefferson, he avowed, had counseled Virginia to "reject this government."[1227]

Henry answered the Constitutionalists' prophecy of foreign war, ridiculed danger from the Indians, proved that the Constitution would not pay Virginia's debts; and, in characteristic fashion, ranged at large over the field. The Constitution, he asserted, would "operate like an ambuscade ... destroy the state governments ... swallow the liberties of the people without" warning. "How are our debts to be discharged unless taxes are increased?" asked he; and demonstrated that under the Constitution taxes surely would be made heavier. Time and again he warned the Convention against the loss of liberty: "When the deprivation of our liberty was attempted, what did ... the genius of Virginia tell us? 'Sell all and purchase liberty!'... Republican maxims,... and the genius of Virginia landed you safe on the shore of freedom."

Once more he praised the British form of government—an oversight which a hawk-eyed young member of the Convention, John Marshall, was soon to use against him. Henry painted in darkest colors the secrecy of the Federal Convention. "Look at us—hear our transactions!—if this had been the language of the Federal Convention," there would have been no Constitution, he asserted, and with entire accuracy. Yet, the Constitution itself authorized Congress to keep its proceedings as secret as those of the Constitution's makers had been kept: "The transactions of Congress," said Henry, "may be concealed a century from the public."[1228]

Seizing Madison's description of the new Government as partly National and partly Federal, Henry brought to bear all his power of satire. He was "amused" at Madison's "treatise of political anatomy.... In the brain it is national; the stamina are federal; some limbs are federal, others national." Absurd! The truth was, said Henry, that the Constitution provided for "a great consolidation of government." Why not abolish Virginia's Legislature and be done with it? This National Government would do what it liked with Virginia.

As to the plan of ratifying first and amending afterwards, Henry declared himself "at a loss what to say. You agree to bind yourselves hand and foot—for the sake of what? Of being unbound. You gointo a dungeon—for what? To get out.... My anxiety and fears are great lest America by the adoption of this system [the Constitution], should be cast into a fathomless bottom."

Tradition has it that during this speech Henry, having frozen his hearers' blood by a terrific description of lost "liberty," with one of his sudden turns set both Convention and spectators into roars of laughter by remarking with a grimace, and as an aside, "why,they'll free your niggers."[1229]And then, with one of those lightning changes of genius, which Henry alone could make, he solemnly exclaimed, "I look on that paper [the Constitution] as the most fatal plan that could possibly be conceived to enslave a free people."[1230]

Lee, in reply, spoke of the lobbying going on outside the Convention. "Much is said by gentlemen out of doors," exclaimed Lee; "they ought to urge all their objections here." He taunted Henry, who had praised the militia, with not having been himself a soldier. "I saw what the honorable gentleman did not see," cried Lee, "our men fight with the troops of that King whom he so much admires."[1231]

When the hot-blooded young soldier had finished his aggressive speech, Randolph could no longer restrain himself. Henry's bold challenge of Randolph's change of front had cut that proud and sensitive nature to the heart. "I disdain," thundered he, "his aspersions and his insinuations." They were "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!" It was not to answer Henry that he spoke, snarled Randolph, "but to satisfy this respectable audience." Randolph then explained his conduct, reading part of the letter[1232]that had caused all the trouble, and dramatically throwing the letter on the clerk's table, cried "that it might lie there forthe inspection of the curious and malicious."[1233]Randolph spoke for the remainder of the day and consumed most of the next forenoon.[1234]

No soldier had yet spoken for the Anti-Constitutionalists; and it perhaps was Lee's fling at Henry that now called a Revolutionary officer to his feet against the Constitution. A tall, stiff, raw-boned young man of thirty years arose. Poorly educated, slow in his mental processes,[1235]James Monroe made a long, dull, and cloudy speech, finally declaring of the Constitution, "I think it a dangerous government"; and asking "why ... this haste—this wild precipitation?" Long as Monroe's speech was, he reminded the Convention that he had "not yetsaid all that I wish upon the subject" and that he would return to the charge later on.[1236]

Monroe did not help or hurt either side except, perhaps, by showing the members that all the Revolutionary veterans were not for the Constitution. Neither members nor spectators paid much attention to him, though this was no reflection on Monroe, for the Convention did not listen with patience to many speakers except Henry. When Henry spoke, every member was in his seat and the galleries were packed. But only the most picturesque of the other speakers could hold the audience for longer than half an hour; generally members walked about and the spectators were absent except when Henry took the floor.[1237]

As usual, the Constitutionalists were ready with their counter-stroke. Wythe in the chair recognized a tall, ungainly young man of thirty-two. He was badly dressed in a loose, summer costume, and his blazing black eyes and unkempt raven hair made him look more like a poet or an artist than a lawyer or statesman.[1238]He had bought a new coat the day the Convention met; but it was a most inexpensive addition to his raiment, for it cost but one pound, Virginia currency, then greatly depreciated.[1239]Heprobably was the best liked of all the members of the Convention. Sociable to extreme good-fellowship, "his habits," says Grigsby, "were convivial almost to excess";[1240]and it is more than likely that, considering the times, these habits in his intimate social intercourse with his fellow members helped to get more votes than his arguments on the floor, of which he now was to make the first.[1241]His four years' record as a soldier was as bright and clean as that of any man from any State who had fought under Washington.

So when John Marshall began to speak, he was listened to with the ears of affection; and any point the opposition had made by the fact that Monroe the soldier had spoken against the Constitution was turned by Marshall's appearance even before he had uttered a word. The young lawyer was also accounted an "orator" at this time,[1242]a fact which added to the interest of his fellow members in his speech.

The question, Marshall said, was "whether democracy or despotism be most eligible."[1243]He was sure that the framers and supporters of the Constitution "intend the establishment and security of the former"; they are "firm friends of the liberty andthe rights of mankind." That was why they were for the Constitution. "We, sir, idolize democracy." The Constitution was, said he, the "best means of protecting liberty." The opposition had praised monarchy, but, deftly avowed Marshall, "We prefer this system to any monarchy"; for it provides for "a well regulated democracy."

He agreed with Henry that maxims should be observed; they were especially "essential to a democracy." But, "what are the ... maxims of democracy?... A strict observance of justice and public faith, and a steady adherence to virtue. These, Sir, are the principles of a good government,"[1244]declared the young Richmond Constitutionalist.

"No mischief, no misfortune, ought to deter us from a strict observance of justice and public faith," cried Marshall. "Would to Heaven," he exclaimed, "that these principles had been observed under the present government [the Confederation]." He was thinking now of his experience in the Legislature and appealing to the honesty of the Convention. If the principles of justice and good faith had been observed, continued he, "the friends of liberty would not be so willing now to part with it [the Confederation]."

Could Virginians themselves boast that their own Government was based on justice? "Can we pretend to the enjoyment of political freedom or security,when we are told that a man has been, by an act of Assembly, struck out of existence without a trial by jury, without examination, without being confronted with his accusers and witnesses, without the benefits of the law of the land?"[1245]Skillfully he turned against Henry the latter's excuse for the execution of Philips, and dramatically asked: "Where is our safety, when we are told that this act was justifiable because the person was not a Socrates?... Shall it be a maxim that a man shall be deprived of his life without the benefit of the law?"

As to the navigation of the Mississippi, he asked: "How shall we retain it? By retaining that weak government which has hitherto kept it from us?" No, exclaimed Marshall, but by a Government with "the power of retaining it." Such a Government, he pointed out, was that proposed in the Constitution. Here again the Constitutionalist managers displayed their skill. Marshall was the best man they could have chosen to appeal to the Kentucky members on the Mississippi question. His father, mother, and his family were now living in Kentucky, and his relative, Humphrey Marshall, was a member of the Convention from that district.[1246]Marshall himself was the legislative agent of the District of Kentucky in Richmond. The development of the West became a vital purpose with John Marshall, strengthening with the years; andthis was a real force in the growth of his views on Nationality.[1247]

Henry's own argument, that amendments could not be had after adoption, proved, said Marshall, that they could not be had before. In all the States, particularly in Virginia, there were, he charged, "many who are decided enemies of the Union." These were inspired by "local interests," their object being "disunion." They would not propose amendments that were similar or that all could agree upon. When the Federal Convention met, said Marshall, "we had no idea then of any particular system. The formation of the most perfect plan was our object and wish"; and, "it was imagined" that the States would with pleasure accept that Convention's work. But "consider the violence of opinions, the prejudices and animosities which have been since imbibed"; and how greatly they "operate against mutual concessions."

Marshall reiterated that what the Constitutionalists were fighting for was "a well-regulated democracy." Could the people themselves make treaties, enact laws, or administer the Government? Of course not. They must do such things through agents. And, inquired he, how could these agents act for the people if they did not have power to do so? That the people's agents might abuse power was no argument against giving it, for "the power of doing good is inseparable from that of doing some evil." If power were not given because it might be misused, "you can have no government."Thus Marshall stated that principle which he was to magnify from the Supreme Bench years later.

"Happy that country," exclaimed the young orator, "which can avail itself of the misfortunes of others ... without fatal experience!" Marshall cited Holland. The woes of that country were caused, said he, by "the want of proper powers in the government, the consequent deranged and relaxed administration, the violence of contending parties"—in short, by such a government, or rather absence of government, as America then had under the Confederation. If Holland had had such a government as the Constitution proposed, she would not be in her present sorry plight. Marshall was amused at Henry's "high-colored eulogium on such a government."

There was no analogy, argued he, between "the British government and the colonies, and the relation between Congress and the states. Wewere notrepresented in Parliament. Here [under the Constitution] we are represented." So the arguments against British taxation "do not hold against the exercise of taxation by Congress." The power of taxation by Congress to which Henry objected was "essentially necessary; for without it there will be no efficiency in the government." That requisitions on the States could not be depended on had been demonstrated by experience, he declared; the power of direct taxation was, therefore, necessary to the very existence of the National Government.

"The possibility of its being abused is urged as anargument against its expediency"; but, said Marshall, such arguments would prevent all government and result in anarchy. "All delegated powers are liable to be abused." The question was, whether the taxing power was "necessary to perform the objects of the Constitution?... What are the objects of national government? To protect the United States, and to promote the general welfare. Protection, in time of war, is one of its principal objects. Until mankind shall cease to have ambition and avarice, wars will arise."

Experience had shown, said Marshall, that one State could not protect the people or promote general welfare. "By the national government only" could these things be done; "shall we refuse to give it power to do them?" He scorned the assertion "that we need not be afraid of war. Look at history," he exclaimed, "look at the great volume of human nature. They will foretell you that a defenseless country cannot be secure. The nature of men forbids us to conclude that we are in no danger from war. The passions of men stimulate them to avail themselves of the weakness of others. The powers of Europe are jealous of us. It is our interest to watch their conduct and guard against them. They must be pleased with our disunion. If we invite them by our weakness to attack us, will they not do it? If we add debility to our present situation, a partition of America may take place."

The power of National taxation, therefore, was necessary, Marshall asserted. "There must be men and money to protect us. How are armies to beraised? Must we not have money for that purpose?" If so, "it is, then, necessary to give the government that power in time of peace, which the necessity of war will render indispensable, or else we shall be attacked unprepared." History, human nature, and "our own particular experience, will confirm this truth." If danger should come upon us without power to meet it, we might resort to a dictatorship; we once were on the point of doing that very thing, said he—and even Henry and Mason did not question this appeal of Marshall to the common knowledge of all members of the Convention.

"Were those who are now friends to this Constitution less active in the defense of liberty, on that trying occasion, than those who oppose it?" scathingly asked Marshall. "We may now ... frame a plan that will enable us to repel attacks, and render a recurrence to dangerous expedients unnecessary. If we be prepared to defend ourselves, there will be little inducement to attack us. But if we defer giving the necessary power to the general government till the moment of danger arrives, we shall give it then, and with anunsparing hand."

It was not true, asserted Marshall, that the Confederation carried us through the Revolution; "had not the enthusiasm of liberty inspired us with unanimity, that system would never have carried us through it." The war would have been won much sooner "had that government been possessed of due energy." The weakness of the Confederation and the conduct of the States prolonged the war. Only "the extreme readiness of the people to make their utmostexertions to ward off solely the pressing danger, supplied the place of requisitions." But when this danger was over, the requisition plan was no longer effective. "A bare sense of duty," said he, "is too feeble to induce men to comply with obligations."

It was plain, then, Marshall pointed out, that "the government must have the sinews of war some other way." That way was by direct taxation which would supply "the necessities of government ... in a peaceable manner"; whereas "requisitions cannot be rendered efficient without a civil war."

What good would it do for Congress merely to remonstrate with the States, as Henry had proposed, if we were at war with foreign enemies? There was no danger that Congress, under the Constitution, would not lay taxes justly, asserted Marshall; for if members of Congress laid unjust taxes, the people would not reëlect them. Under the Constitution, they were chosen by the same voters who elected members of the State Legislature. These voters, said he, "have nothing to direct them in the choice but their own good." Men thus elected would not abuse their power because that would "militate against their own interest.... To procure their reelection, it will be necessary for them to confer with the people at large, and convince them that the taxes laid are for their own good."

Henry had asked whether the adoption of the Constitution "would pay our debts." "It will compel the states to pay their quotas," answered Marshall. "Without this, Virginia will be unable to pay. Unless all the states pay, she cannot.... Economyand industry are essential to our happiness"; but the Confederation "takes away the incitements to industry, by rendering property insecure and unprotected." The Constitution, on the contrary, "will promote and encourage industry."

The statement of the Anti-Constitutionalists that the extent of the country was too great for a strong National Government was untrue, argued Marshall. Also, said he, this objection was from writers who criticized those governments "where representation did not exist." But, under the Constitution, representation would exist.

Answering Henry's objection, that there were no effective checks in the Constitution, Marshall inquired, "What has become of his enthusiastic eulogium on the American spirit?" There, declared Marshall, was the real check and control. "In this country, there is no exclusive personal stock of interest. The interest of the community is blended and inseparably connected with that of the individual. When he promotes his own, he promotes that of the community. When we consult the common good, we consult our own." In such considerations were found the greatest security from an improper exercise of power.

"Is not liberty secure with us, where the people hold all powers in their own hands, and delegate them cautiously, for short periods, to their servants, who are accountable for the smallest mal-administration?... We are threatened with the loss of our liberties by the possible abuse of power, notwithstanding the maxim that those who give may takeaway. It is the people that give power, and can take it back. What shall restrain them? They are the masters who give it, and of whom their servants hold it."

Returning to the subject of amendments, "what," asked Marshall, "shall restrain you from amending it, if, in trying it, amendments shall be found necessary.... When experience shall show us any inconvenience, we can then correct it.... If it be necessary to change government, let us change that government which has been found to be defective." The Constitution as it stood filled the great objects which everybody desired—"union, safety against foreign enemies, and protection against faction [party]—against what has been the destruction of all republics."

He turned Henry's unhappy praise of the British Constitution into a weapon of deadly attack upon the opposition. The proposed Constitution, said Marshall, was far better than the British. "I ask you if your House of Representatives would be better than it is, if a hundredth part of the people were to elect a majority of them? If your senators were for life, would they be more agreeable to you? If your President were not accountable to you for his conduct,—if it were a constitutional maxim, that he could do no wrong,—would you be safer than you are now? If you can answer, Yes, to these questions, then adopt the British constitution. If not, then, good as that government may be, this [Constitution] is better."

Referring to "the confederacies of ancient andmodern times" he said that "they warn us to shun their calamities, and place in our government those necessary powers, the want of which destroyed them." The ocean does not protect us from war; "Sir," exclaimed Marshall, "the sea makes them neighbors to us.... What dangers may we not apprehend to our commerce! Does not our naval weakness invite an attack on our commerce?" Henry had said "that our present exigencies are greater than they will ever be again." But, asked he, "Who can penetrate into futurity?"

Henry's objection that the National Government, under the Constitution, would "call forth the virtue and talents of America," to the disadvantage of the States, was, Marshall said, the best guarantee that the National Government would be wisely conducted. "Will our most virtuous and able citizens wantonly attempt to destroy the liberty of the people? Will the most virtuous act the most wickedly?" On the contrary, "the virtue and talents of the members of the general government will tend to the security instead of the destruction of our liberty.... The power of direct taxation is essential to the existence of the general government"; if not, the Constitution was unnecessary; "for it imports not what system we have, unless it have the power of protecting us in time of war."[1248]

This address to the Virginia Convention is of historic interest as John Marshall's first recorded utterance on the Constitution of which he was to become the greatest interpreter. Also, it is the first reportof Marshall's debating. The speech is not, solely on its merits, remarkable. It does not equal the logic of Madison, the eloquence of Randolph or Lee, or the brilliancy of Corbin. It lacks that close sequence of reasoning which was Marshall's peculiar excellence. In provoking fashion he breaks from one subject when it has been only partly discussed and later returns to it. It is rhetorical also and gives free rein to what was then styled "Marshall's eloquence."

The warp and woof of Marshall's address was woven from his military experience; he forged iron arguments from the materials of his own soldier life. Two thirds of his remarks were about the necessity of providing against war. But the speech is notable as showing, in their infancy, those views of government which, in the shaggy strength of their maturity, were to be so influential on American destiny.[1249]It also measures the growth of those ideas of government which the camp, the march, and the battlefield had planted in his mind and heart. The practical and immediate effect of the speech, which was what the Constitutionalists, and perhaps Marshall himself, cared most about, was to strengthen the soldier vote for the Constitution and to cause the Kentucky members to suspend judgment on the Mississippi question.

Back to Index Next