Antifederalist No. 4
FOREIGN WARS, CIVIL WARS, AND INDIAN WARS-THREE BUGBEARS
Patrick Henry was a somewhat the antithesis to James Madison of
Federalist note. While every bit as emotional a writer, Henry
(who penned the well remembered "Give Me Liberty of Give Me
Death" phrase) opposed the new Constitution for many reasons. He
delivered long speeches to the Virginia Ratification convention
June 5, 7, and 9, 1788. The following is taken from Elliot's
Debates, 111, 46, 48, 141-42, 150-56.
If we recollect, on last Saturday, I made some observations
on some of those dangers which these gentlemen would fain
persuade us hang over the citizens of this commonwealth
[Virginia] to induce us to change the government, and adopt the
new plan. Unless there be great and awful dangers, the change is
dangerous, and the experiment ought not to be made. In
estimating the magnitude of these dangers, we are obliged to take
a most serious view of them--to see them, to handle them, and to
be familiar with them. It is not sufficient to feign mere
imaginary dangers; there must be a dreadful reality. The great
question between us is: Does that reality exist? These dangers
are partially attributed to bad laws, execrated by the community
at large. It is said the people wish to change the government.
I should be happy to meet them on that ground. Should the people
wish to change it, we should be innocent of the dangers. It is a
fact that the people do not wish to change their government. How
am I to prove it? It will rest on my bare assertion, unless
supported by an internal conviction in men's breasts. My poor
say-so is a mere nonentity. But, sir, I am persuaded that four
fifths of the people of Virginia must have amendments to the new
plan, to reconcile them to a change of their government. It is a
slippery foundation for the people to rest their political
salvation on my or their assertions. No government can flourish
unless it be founded on the affection of the people. Unless
gentlemen can be sure that this new system is founded on that
ground, they ought to stop their career.
I will not repeat what the gentlemen say-I will mention one
thing. There is a dispute between us and the Spaniards about the
right of navigating the Mississippi ... Seven states wished to
relinquish this river to them. The six Southern states opposed
it. Seven states not being sufficient to convey it away, it
remains now ours....
There is no danger of a dismemberment of our country, unless
a Constitution be adopted which will enable the government to
plant enemies on our backs. By the Confederation, the rights of
territory are secured. No treaty can be made without the consent
of nine states. While the consent of nine states is necessary to
the cession of territory, you are safe. If it be put in the
power of a less number, you will most infallibly lose the
Mississippi. As long as we can preserve our unalienable rights,
we are in safety. This new Constitution will involve in its
operation the loss of the navigation of that valuable river.
The honorable gentleman [either James Madison or Edmund
Randolph], cannot be ignorant of the Spanish transactions [the
Jay-Gardoqui negotiations]. A treaty had been nearly entered
into with Spain, to relinquish that navigation. That
relinquishment would absolutely have taken place, had the consent
of seven states been sufficient ... This new government, I
conceive, will enable those states who have already discovered
their inclination that way, to give away this river....
We are threatened with danger [according to some,] for the
non-payment of our debt due to France. We have information come
from an illustrious citizen of Virginia, who is now in Paris,
which disproves the suggestions of such danger. This citizen has
not been in the airy regions of theoretic speculation-our
ambassador [Thomas Jefferson] is this worthy citizen. The
ambassador of the United States of America is not so despised as
the honorable gentleman would make us believe. A servant of a
republic is as much respected as that of a monarch. The honorable
gentleman tells us that hostile fleets are to be sent to make
reprisals upon us. Our ambassador tells you that the king of
France has taken into consideration to enter into commercial
regulations, on reciprocal terms, with us, which will be of
peculiar advantage to us. Does this look like hostility? I might
go farther. I might say, not from public authority, but good
information, that his opinion is, that you reject this
government. His character and abilities are in the highest
estimation; he is well acquainted, in every respect, with this
country; equally so with the policy of the European nations. Let
us follow the sage advice of this common friend of our happiness.
It is little usual for nations to send armies to collect
debts. The house of Bourbon, that great friend of America, will
never attack her for her unwilling delay of payment. Give me
leave to say, that Europe is too much engaged about objects of
greater importance, to attend to us. On that great theatre of
the world, the little American matters vanish. Do you believe
that the mighty monarch of France, beholding the greatest scenes
that ever engaged the attention of a prince of that country, will
divert himself from those important objects, and now call for a
settlement of accounts with America? This proceeding is not
warranted by good sense. The friendly disposition to us, and the
actual situation of France, render the idea of danger from that
quarter absurd. Would this countryman of ours be fond of
advising us to a measure which he knew to be dangerous? And can
it be reasonably supposed that he can be ignorant of any
premeditated hostility against this country? The honorable
gentleman may suspect the account; but I will do our friend the
justice to say, that he would warn us of any danger from France.
Do you suppose the Spanish monarch will risk a contest with
the United States, when his feeble colonies are exposed to them?
Every advance the people make to the westward, makes them tremble
for Mexico and Peru. Despised as we are among ourselves, under
our present government, we are terrible to that monarchy. If
this be not a fact, it is generally said so.
We are, in the next place, frightened by dangers from
Holland. We must change our government to escape the wrath of
that republic. Holland groans under a government like this new
one. A stadtholder, sir, a Dutch president, has brought on that
country miseries which will not permit them to collect debts with
fleets or armies ... This President will bring miseries on us
like those of Holland. Such is the condition of European
affairs, that it would be unsafe for them to send fleets or
armies to collect debts.
But here, sir, they make a transition to objects of another
kind. We are presented with dangers of a very uncommon nature.
I am not acquainted with the arts of painting. Some gentlemen
have a peculiar talent for them. They are practised with great
ingenuity on this occasion. As a counterpart to what we have
already been intimidated with, we are told that some lands have
been sold, which cannot be found; and that this will bring war on
this country. Here the picture will not stand examination. Can
it be supposed, if a few land speculators and jobbers have
violated the principles of probity, that it will involve this
country in war? Is there no redress to be otherwise obtained,
even admitting the delinquents and sufferers to be numerous? When
gentlemen are thus driven to produce imaginary dangers, to induce
this Convention to assent to this change, I am sure it will not
be uncandid to say that the change itself is really dangerous.
Then the Maryland compact is broken, and will produce perilous
consequences. I see nothing very terrible in this. The adoption
of the new system will not remove the evil. Will they forfeit
good neighborhood with us, because the compact is broken? Then
the disputes concerning the Carolina line are to involve us in
dangers. A strip of land running from the westward of the
Alleghany to the Mississippi, is the subject of this pretended
dispute. I do not know the length or breadth of this disputed
spot. Have they not regularly confirmed our right to it, and
relinquished all claims to it? I can venture to pledge that the
people of Carolina will never disturb us. . . . Then, sir, comes
Pennsylvania, in terrible array. Pennsylvania is to go in
conflict with Virginia. Pennsylvania has been a good neighbor
heretofore. She is federal--something terrible--Virginia cannot
look her in the face. If we sufficiently attend to the actual
situation of things, we shall conclude that Pennsylvania will do
what we do. A number of that country are strongly opposed to it.
Many of them have lately been convinced of its fatal tendency.
They are disgorged of their federalism. . . . Place yourselves in
their situation; would you fight your neighbors for considering
this great and awful matter? . . . Whatever may be the
disposition of the aristocratical politicians of that country, I
know there are friends of human nature in that state. If so, they
will never make war on those who make professions of what they
are attached to themselves.
As to the danger arising from borderers, it is mutual and
reciprocal. If it be dangerous for Virginia, it is equally so for
them. It will be their true interest to be united with us. The
danger of our being their enemies will be a prevailing argument
in our favor. It will be as powerful to admit us into the Union,
as a vote of adoption, without previous amendments, could
possibly be.
Then the savage Indians are to destroy us. We cannot look
them in the face. The danger is here divided; they are as
terrible to the other states as to us. But, sir, it is well known
that we have nothing to fear from them. Our back settlers are
considerably stronger than they. Their superiority increases
daily. Suppose the states to be confederated all around us; what
we want in numbers, we shall make up otherwise. Our compact
situation and natural strength will secure us. But, to avoid all
dangers, we must take shelter under the federal government.
Nothing gives a decided importance but this federal government.
You will sip sorrow, according to the vulgar phrase, if you want
any other security than the laws of Virginia....
Where is the danger? If, sir, there was any, I would recur
to the American spirit to defend us; that spirit which has
enabled us to surmount the greatest difficulties--to that
illustrious spirit I address my most fervent prayer to prevent
our adopting a system destructive to liberty. Let not gentlemen
be told that it is not safe to reject this government. Wherefore
is it not safe? We are told there are dangers, but those dangers
are ideal; they cannot be demonstrated....
The Confederation, this despised government, merits, in my
opinion, the highest encomium--it carried us through a long and
dangerous war; it rendered us victorious in that bloody conflict
with a powerful nation; it has secured us a territory greater
than any European monarch possesses--and shall a government which
has been thus strong and vigorous, be accused of imbecility, and
abandoned for want of energy? Consider what you are about to do
before you part with the government. Take longer time in
reckoning things; revolutions like this have happened in almost
every country in Europe; similar examples are to be found in
ancient Greece and ancient Rome--instances of the people losing
their liberty by their own carelessness and the ambition of a
few. We are cautioned . . . against faction and turbulence. I
acknowledge that licentiousness is dangerous, and that it ought
to be provided against. I acknowledge, also, the new form of
government may effectually prevent it. Yet there is another
thing it will as effectually do--it will oppress and ruin the
people.