Antifederalist No. 4Patrick 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.
Foreign Wars, Civil Wars, and Indian Wars --
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 theater 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
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 practiced 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 Allegheny 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.