Founders History: Patrick Henry, The Man For The Revolution Opposed The US Constitution

While Henry’s “Give Me Liberty” Speech Is Hailed, We Ignore Perhaps His More Important Warnings

[This government] ]will swallow the liberties of the people, without giving them previous notice

Patrick Henry 1788

That is the dire warning of the same man who delivered the fiery speech that became the pathos of the American Revolution, known to us as the “Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death” speech. On June 5th 1788 Patrick Henry delivered another speech probably more important for us to ponder. We think of Patrick Henry as the brilliant orator who rallied the hearts and minds of the colonists to form opposition to the British, ending ultimately with the birth of our nation and a new form of government. But we don’t know him as one the Founders who opposed the Constitution, as we are educated that the US Constitution is the culmination of the Declaration of Independence and a stronger version of the Article of Confederation.

I was surprised that Henry, so vociferous in his cries to fight the world’s super power to the death over the freedom and rights of the colonies, was opposed to the Constitution. I wasn’t taught this in school. But many were opposed to the Constitution in its initial form, and these were famous names such as Richard Henry Lee, John Dickinson, Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry. Our country had won so much, yet according to the men who would later come to be known as the Anti-Federalists, we risked squandering the opportunity which never had been achieved in the known history of mankind.

---

---

What was it about the Constitution that gave Henry pause? Were Bill of Rights enough to prevent the erosion of American freedom?

A Virginia Statesman

Patrick Henry was born in Hanover County, Virginia on May 29th 1736, to a Scottish father and prominent mother, native to Virginia. His mother’s family owned a plantation, yet Henry struck out on his own, and struck out at many business endeavors early in life. While having been afforded an education by his family, he did not excel at academics, yet managed to become an attorney and entered politics. Like many of colonial times, he had numerous children, and he was married twice, as his first wife Sarah Shelton died in 1775. Including the children from his second marriage to Dorothy Dandridge Henry sired 17 children total. While Henry died at the age of 66 in 1799, he actually survived many of his children. When researching many of our Founding Fathers I’ve noted that many of their children died in the infancy or in their very early years, but the youngest of Henry’s children to pass before their father was 19. While not necessarily Germaine to the thrust of this article, I find this an anomaly when compared to the early deaths of children during this era. It’s also a testimony to Henry’s energy and vigor. Give me liberty, then give me sex! Sorry, I broke through the fourth wall there and ruined the serious tone, but you have to give him credit for adding to the population of Virginia.

Children From Marriage to Sarah Shelton

• Martha “Patsy” – d. 1818, age 63

• John – d. 1791, age 34, predeceased Patrick by 8 years

• William – d. 1798, age 35, predeceased Patrick by 1 year

• Anne – d. 1799, age 31, predeceased Patrick by 15 days

• Elizabeth – d. 1842, age 73

• Edward – d. 1794, age 23, predeceased Patrick by 5 years

• Children From Marriage to DOROTHEA DANDRIDGE:

• Dorothea – d. 1854, age 75

• Sara – d. 1856, age 76

• Martha Cathrina – d. 1801, age 19

• Patrick – d. 1804, age 21

• Fayette – d. 1813, age 27

• Alexander Spotswood – d. 1851, age 65

• Nathaniel West – d. 1851, age 61

• Richard – d. 1793, age 17, predeceased Patrick by 6 years

• Edward Winston – d. 1872, age 78

• John – d. 1868, age 71

• Jane Robertson – d. 1798, predeceased Patrick by 4 days

https://histograms.wordpress.com/2018/05/23/the-two-wives-and-17-children-of-patrick-henry/

As with many attorneys and Founding Fathers during the colonial period, those with the gift oratory entered politics and the same held true for Henry. Perhaps it was the first wife and burden of a family that finally propelled Henry to focus, driving him to pass the bar exam in 1760 and gain notoriety as an attorney in Virginia. 10 years after marrying his first wife Sarah, Henry was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses in 1764. A staunch defender of rights of the colonists, Henry opposed British taxation by authoring the Virginia Stamp Act Resolutions.

“Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death”

“Give me liberty or give me death” was the rallying cry issued by Patrick Henry in a speech delivered on March 23rd 1775. In that speech Henry passionately and persuasively assesses that the colonies were past the point of reconciliation with the British Crown, and that accepting the British rule would consign the colonists to an existence akin to slavery, as their rights as British citizens had been ignored up to that point. There was no evidence provided thus far that the attitudes of the monarchy or Parliament would change, and while it was natural for the colonies to seek peaceful resolution, it was not to come.

Henry’s words were prophetic, as he stated that clearly war had already begun. These are prophetic, too, in another sense in that his speech presaged the Battles of Lexington and Concord by just a few weeks. When he gave his speech, the Shot Heard Round the World was yet to have been fired, but the sentiments in his oratory rang clearer once those battles ensued.

This is one of those occasions that the dates and events are essential to understand the mindset of the colonists. Virginia would become a key ally to Massachusetts, since many felt that Virginia could be next. New York, while supportive of Massachusetts rights, had a higher population of loyalists, and while with its proximity to British oppression with the Writs of Assistance being carried out, in 1775 they were not yet in support of independence.

Henry’s speech is described to have been so persuasive that it moved many toward the idea of independence from Britain. This gave rise to Henry’s reputation as the Voice of the Revolution.

The Failure of the Articles of Confederation

Once the Declaration of Independence was issued, the Continental Congress appointed John Dickinson to head the committee to draft the Articles of Confederation, the governing structure that the newly declared independent states would use to coordinate efforts during the war. This was more of an organizational charter for the states to jointly operate than a formation of a national government. Each state was considered a sovereign republic. In this form of government, the states were given primacy and the centralized government was subordinate to the states. Under the Articles of Confederation, Congress had narrowly enumerated powers only, and had no power to raise taxes, regulate commerce nor the power to organize and deploy an army.

This spelled financial trouble for the United States, as Congress had no mechanism to raise money to pay off the debts accrued from the War for Independence. Under the Articles of Confederation there was no central monetary policy. Each state issued its own currency. With Congress powerless to raise money or an army, there was no centralized process for enforcing or entering into new treaties, and the states individually entered into treaties with foreign countries without regard to fellow states. When Shay’s Rebellion erupted over taxes in Massachusetts, Congress had no means of sending troops, and a private militia from Boston was used to restore order. Essentially Congress had no ability to maintain the perpetual union promised by Articles of Confederation.

Washington, after touring the western front of the 13 states, wrote of his dismay of what he perceived to be dysfunctional government:

Who besides a tory could have foreseen, or a Briton predict them!” he wrote to War Secretary Henry Knox. “Notwithstanding the boasted virtue of America, we are far gone in every thing ignoble & bad.”

To Madison, who was already thinking about a new national political structure, Washington added, “Thirteen Sovereignties pulling against each other, and all tugging at the federal head, will soon bring ruin to the whole; whereas a liberal, and energetic Constitution, well guarded & closely watched, to prevent incroachments, might restore us to that degree of respectability & consequence, to which we had a fair claim.”

On January 18, 1784, Washington wrote to Virginia governor Benjamin Harrison that the government was “a half starved, limping Government, that appears to be always moving upon crutches, & tottering at every step.”6 Washington and other Americans had witnessed several crises during the United States’ early years under the Articles, leading to a belief among many that preventing the nation’s collapse required revisiting the Articles.

On June 27, 1786, John Jay confided in Washington that “Our affairs seem to lead to some crisis . . . I am uneasy and apprehensive—more so, than during the War.”

https://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/constitutional-convention/washingtons-constitution

Others concurred with Washington’s views, and in 1786 John Dickinson presided over a convention in Annapolis, where the attendees concluded that the country’s problems were far larger in scope than realized. For example, any changes to the Articles of Confederation required all 13 colonies to vote in the affirmative. The decision was made to reconvene in Philadelphia, and in 1781 the Constitutional Convention was held. This conference gave rise to the Federalists Papers written primarily by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay. These essays defended a new form of republican government with stronger centralized powers and what powers were not delineated as belonging to the federal government belonged to the states.

Always On Guard Against Loss of Liberty

The draft of the Constitution submitted to the 13 states for ratification had no provisions that designated how personal rights would be maintained. Nor did it expressly cite what authority the states would retain. In other words, no Bill of Rights were included in this primary edition, just Articles I-VII. Only a few short years earlier the states were in the battle for their lives and liberty, and since those hard won rights were not mentioned in the original document, the suspicions of many were rightly aroused. Despite the assurances of Madison and Hamilton that the powers of the federal government were few and defined, many like Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason and others argued that without narrowly delineated powers, the Constitution was consolidation and usurpation of power from the states, and the citizens. A Bill of Rights, which some attempted to require before the Constitution was submitted for ratification from states, would be the critical check one against a large, centralized system relegating the states to a subservient status.

Patrick Henry led the charge of statesmen who opposed this new form of republican government. While labeled Anti-Federalists, Herny, Richard Henry Lee and Jefferson stood for a system where the states would confer narrowly defined powers on a well constrained federal government. This would have the spirit of a confederacy, not a top down centralized authority with states as an afterthought.

With the first of many speeches at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, the first delivered on June 5th 1788, Patrick Henry laid out clear opposition to the Constitution sans a Bill of Rights.

Mr. Chairman ... I rose yesterday to ask a question which arose in my own mind. When I asked that question, I thought the meaning of my interrogation was obvious: The fate of this question and of America may depend on this: Have they said, we, the States? Have they made a proposal of a compact between states? If they had, this would be a confederation: It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, Sir, on that poor little thing-the expression, We, the people, instead of the States, of America. I need not take much pains to show that the principles of this system are extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous. Is this a monarchy, like England-a compact between prince and people, with checks on the former to secure the liberty of the latter? Is this a Confederacy, like Holland-an association of a number of independent states, each of which retains its individual sovereignty? It is not a democracy, wherein the people retain all their rights securely. Had these principles been adhered to, we should not have been brought to this alarming transition, from a Confederacy to a consolidated Government.

To Henry, Americans were relinquishing what many had died for just a few years earlier. Henry would not succumb to peer pressure and summarily decide just because the tide was favorable enacting the Constitution. Individual sovereignty was the crux of give me liberty or give me death. That was glaringly missing.

It is said eight States have adopted this plan. I declare that if twelve States and a half had adopted it, I would, with manly firmness, and in spite of an erring world, reject it.

https://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1786-1800/the-anti-federalist-papers/speech-of-patrick-henry-(june-5-1788).php

There was a clear divide at this point, with the Federalists which included Hamilton, Washington, John Adams, and the Anti-Federalist led by Thomas Jefferson, Sam Adams, Richard Henry Lee and Patrick Henry. The Federalists were for a strong national government, the Anti-Federalists for a state centric approach where the states federated their power to a weaker national government. After the ratification a few years later this division would deepen. The passing of the Alien and Sedition acts would drive James Madison from his Federalist party to support Thomas Jefferson using the 10th Amendment to nullify the federal government's ability to jail citizens who published criticisms in newspapers. This effort became the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. President John Adams would sign the Alien and Sedition Acts into law, in some ways nearly destroying the First Amendment. You might say loss of liberty can take less than a generation. I do find it puzzling and troubling that John Adams, the voice of Massachusetts and the key driver to enter the War of Independence for reasons of preserving liberties, would trample on the First Amendment so readily.

The Warnings We Should Still Heed

The American Revolution was more than the War for Independence, it was an assertion that the gifts of liberty were not the result of a magnanimous monarch, they were an expression of the qualities and abilities that each person inherently possessed prior to entering into a social contract. Yet in 1788 you had the Voice of the Revolution warning that the primary guiding principles that shepherded the colonies out from the yoke of the British, were about to be potentially discarded.

Now you have to ask yourself if the risks that Henry foresaw were mitigated permanently. I think that is the responsibility we all must shoulder, each generation needs to perform that duty.

Here are the criticisms that Henry identified:

Ambiguity of of Implied Powers - with no clear delineation of what powers were reserved explicitly to the states, there was room for ‘scope creep” where the federal government would become creative and identify a new opportunity for quickly solving problems for the states. This would essentially invent authority. This happened immediately when Hamilton used the implied powers concept as justification to grant Congress the authority to create a national bank. This wears staunchly opposed by Jefferson.

A Bill of Rights for Citizens - this was a direct consequence of implied powers, and Henry was the leader who pushed for enshrining the specific rights that were never to be infringed. Henry was skeptical that the Constitution would be amended, but luckily he was proven wrong. However, just because rights are enshrined on paper doesn’t guarantee that they will be honored. Covid should be a vivid reminder for us.

General Welfare Meant Unlimited Taxation As Well - Henry touted the consent based tax system established by the Articles of Confederation as a triumph, as taxes and their draconian enforcement were what sparked the Revolution. The ability to levy a tax from a higher, central authority meant the ability to enforce the collection of that tax. This is implied violence.

“An English army was sent to compel us to pay money contrary to our consent. To force us by arbitrary and tyrannical coercion to satisfy their unbounded demands. We wished to pay with our own consent-Rather than pay against our consent, we engaged in that bloody contest, which terminated so gloriously. By requisitions we pay with our own consent; by their means we have triumphed in the most arduous struggle, that ever tried the virtue of man.”

Consolidation Authorized As A Direct Contract Between Federal and People Excluded States - Henry asserted that the opening preamble was abolishing states rights. If each state was a sovereign power, then federated powers meant that the states conferred or consigned authority for the federal government to act as a proxy in specific cases, not as a higher authority in general.

“Who authorized them to speak the language of, We, the people, instead of, We, the states? States are the characteristics and the soul of a confederation. If the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great, consolidated, national government, of the people of all the states.”

These are valid questions which we should still demand to be answered today. It’s not a “set it and forget it” configuration that is self correcting. I think Patrick Henry’s assessment of the shift in mindset he perceived as alarming is something we should ask of ourselves even more today.

“If we admit this Consolidated Government it will be because we like a great splendid one. Some way or other we must be a great and mighty empire; we must have an army, and a navy, and a number of things: When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: Liberty, Sir, was then the primary object. We are descended from a people whose Government was founded on liberty: Our glorious forefathers of Great-Britain, made liberty the foundation of every thing. That country is become a great, mighty, and splendid nation; not because their Government is strong and energetic; but, Sir, because liberty is its direct end and foundation”

…

“But now, Sir, the American spirit, assisted by the ropes and chains of consolidation, is about to convert this country to a powerful and mighty empire:”

With how our government functions today, are we still operating under the preservation of our inalienable rights? In the end, who truly needs to be strong and energetic, we the people as we maximize our freedoms and hard earned opportunities, or administrations, agencies and bureaucracies?