# Patrick Henry's Rhetorical Beginnings



## RamistThomist

*Patrick Henry\'s Rhetorical Beginnings*

A while back I picked up a little biography of Patrick Henry (Give me Liberty, David Vaughn, Nahsville: Cumberland House). It is part of the "leaders in action" series. Granted, it is aimed for young high-schoolers, and I could devote myself to more scholarly work, but these books are good for inspiration (As an aside, I heartedly recommend the book in this series on Stonewall Jackson ). Here are some wonderful excerpts from this book:

Concerning Henry's peformance on "The Stamp Act Resolution":

*Narrator*: Judge John Tyler, who was standing next to Jefferson in the lobby of the House, recalled Henry's 'treason' speech):

*Henry* : Caesar had his Brutus; Charles the First, his Cromwell; and George the Third his--

*Proto-Evangelicals and Proto-Neo-Cons*: "Treason," shouted the 'Speaker' (of the House). "Treason, treason," rose from all sides of the room. 

*Narrator*:The orator (Henry) paused in his stately defiance till these rude exclamations were ended and then, rearing himself with a look and bearing of still prouder and fiercer determination, he closed the sentence as to baffle his accusers, without the least flincihing from his own position,

*Henry* : "and if this be treason, make the most of it!" (p.53)..."

Commenting on "The Parson's Cause," Vaughn notes,

"The man and the hour had met" (p.45).

One of the great ironies of Henry was that we really do not know exactly what he said in many of his speeches. So thrilling were his words that his listeners were often to enthralled to write them down! Nevertheless, the general tenor is there and that will suffice.

[Edited on 5--18-05 by Draught Horse]

[Edited on 5--18-05 by Draught Horse]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Patrick Henry was a great man. One of my ancestors, James Maury, was on the other side of the litigation in the Parson's Cause. I wish I had been there to hear the arguments on both sides. 

He was an orator second to none, a defender of liberty, and one of the rare men of the Founding Father era who appears to me -- looking through the lens of history -- to be a man of true and sound Christian faith. 

One of my favorite quotes by Henry has to do with the Constitutional Convention: "I smell a rat" in Philadelphia.


----------



## RamistThomist

I wasn't making a judgment on the Parson's Cause but highlighting an element of Henry. I used the NeoCon thing to reveal modern Neo Cons, not that Virginians at that time were NeoCons.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

I'm not taking sides on the Parson's Cause either. But I still wish I could have been there to hear the oration or that they had tape recorders back then...


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

The Parson's Cause:







Give Me Liberty:


----------



## RamistThomist

Andrew,
Can you find the transcript to the Parson's Cause. I have been collating speeches from Henry, Davies, and others and I cannot find this one.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Andrew,
> Can you find the transcript to the Parson's Cause. I have been collating speeches from Henry, Davies, and others and I cannot find this one.



It's possible that the transcript for Patrick Henry's speech in the Parson's Cause is not extant. At the very least, it's difficult to find. There is an expanded edition of my ancestor's autobiography which contains James Maury's account of Patrick Henry's speech. 



> Reverend James Maury sued in Parson's Cause to collect that portion of salary which the defendant, through Patrick Henry, claimed was barred by an act of the House of Burgesses. The court instructed the jury that the burgesses' act, which had been subsequently disallowed by the Privy Council, was void ab initio and hence that the plaintiff deserved his full salary, but when the jury awarded damages of one penny, the court denied Maury's motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict contradicted the evidence (James Maury to John Camm, Dec. 12, 1763, in J. Fontaine, _Memoirs of a Huguenot Family_, A. Maury, ed. [Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1867], pp. 418-24 [discussing Parson's Cause (1763)]). This gives Maury´s account of Patrick Henry´s speech.



This book can be found through used book service like abebooks.com and addall.com/used as well as others. It may even be available through an inter-library loan. There are more possible leads here. Also, the Fontaine Maury Society website may be of some assistance. I hope this helps!


----------



## Puritanhead

I have _Patrick Henry: Life, Correspondence, and Speeches (3 Vols.)_... It's a good book... I want to get some other biographies of Henry... His brother had a plantation home that is right around the corner-- like a 1/4 mile from where I live. The two neighboring counties adjacent to mine-- are named Patrick and Henry! HEHE


----------



## Puritanhead

Anybody know of any good books on the Anti-Federalists and other Henry biographies?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> Anybody know of any good books on the Anti-Federalists and other Henry biographies?



The Anti-Federalist Papers are an important body of work in understanding constitutional legal theory. _The Anti-Federalist_ is a good summary of such men and their writings. I also recommend I Smell a Rat.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> I have _Patrick Henry: Life, Correspondence, and Speeches (3 Vols.)_... It's a good book... I want to get some other biographies of Henry... His brother had a plantation home that is right around the corner-- like a 1/4 mile from where I live. The two neighboring counties adjacent to mine-- are named Patrick and Henry! HEHE



Have you ever been to Scotchtown? There are quite a few places associated with this great man in this great commonwealth of ours.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Patrick Henry's "Give me liberty" speech can be heard here.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Incidentally, today, July 30, is the anniversary of the first meeting of the Virginia House of Burgesses which occurred in Jamestown, Virginia in 1619. It was the first legislative assembly to convene in the New World. My ancestor, Francis Fontaine, was appointed as chaplain for the House of Burgesses in 1727.


----------



## Puritanhead

Patrick Henry became a Federalist Party member shortly before his death-- for no other reason than his loathing of Jefferson and particularly Madison who controlled the Democratic-Republican Party machine in Virginia. He never changed his feelings on states' rights...


----------



## Puritanhead

Andrew I appreciate the info and web links. I've never been to Scotchtown... that's like heresy for a Virginian and Patrick Henry admirer. I need to go! Are there any books out there that address Henry's spiritual side and his faith? He was a devout Presbyterian and a passionate Christian particularly as he matured.

I have a friend from undergrad that loathes the Anti-Federalists... the Hamiltonian yankee buddy of mine smears them as Jacobins. Nonetheless, Hamilton is the centralizer who spoke incessantly of a "general will" and got slapped with the appellation "The Rousseau of the Right" by historian Cecelia Kenyon.

George Mason, the father of the Bill of Rights, said he "would sooner chop off his right hand than put it to the Constitution as it now stands." However, people including Anti-Federalist fans forget that the Anti-Federalist pull in Constitutional Convention tossed out the wholly national polity that Hamilton wanted, and the consensus was for a federal polity. The phraseology Anti-Federalist is a misnomer anyway. The so called Anti-Federalists after all wanted a federal polity where the states were equal as opposed to a consolidated national polity where the national Congress has a _general legislative power_ over virtually all objects of power like they do now. There is prescriptive wisdom in the Anti-Federalist critique as their predictions have proved omninously prophetic... Now, Congress has a general legislative power, because language like "necessary and proper" and "general welfare" was used to subvert that Constitution of expressed "enumerated objects" of power, which Madison spoke of so affectionately. Mason prophetically predicted a number of infractions that did occur when the consolidationists hijacked and subverted the spirit of the Constitution by construction. The Opinions on the Constitutionality of the National Bank where Randolph, Jefferson and Madison spar with Hamilton are an eye opener. The subversion started early. 

The nationalists that stood on the mantle of total consolidation needed secrecy because they could not accomplish their aims without it. The secrecy in which the 1787 Constitutional Convention proceedings were conducted served to cast fog on the Constitution almost from its impetus, though the consolidationist camp was summarily defeated in the convention, they worked afterwords to accomplish their ends through liberal construction of the Constitution. The true _federalists_ that primarily filled the Republican ranks in the 1790s, however, held sway and were very powerful against the fudiciary elite pushing for centralization. It is a mistake to characterize the entire Federalist Party as consolidationists, and there were complex political realignments after the Constitutional Convention in 1790s. There were some geniune Federalists that were not centralizing nationalists, but the Federalist Party obviously became essentially the party of hyper-sectionalist New Englanders and the "paper aristocracy" of the Hamiltonians. If one studies Hamilton in the Federalist papers-- and recognizes that the _Federalist Papers_ were really just a special pleading trying to win popular support in prominent Anti-Federalist George Clinton's New York State, you see a different picture. Publius' rhetoric is rich in states' rights platitudes. After reading the _Federalist Papers_ and comparing it with Hamilton's private correspondance and Hamilton's motions in the Conventions... one sees how influential the so called Anti-Federalists really were and that Publius either has a split personality or is compartmentalizing his views for pragmatic political reasons. A states' rights man can affectionately quote Hamilton in the _Federalist_ at times-- it seems Hamilton had a foot-shaped mouth, but the Real Hamilton was the one in the convention practically advocating a centralized unitary state on the model of Great Britain, and the one who labored for a central bank, spoilation of taxpayers, the onerous twenty-five percent excise tax that broke his party at the ballot box by 1800 while inspiring revolts throughout the 1790s. He setup the financial machinery of the B.U.S. doling out interest-bearing bonds and "bounties" to the "paper aristocracy," a phalanx of stock-jobbers, manufacturers, speculators, and the politically connected -- while saddling the taxpayers (usually yeoman farmers) with the burden for such debts. The Jefferson administration and Treasury Secretary Gallatin initiated a campaign for retirement of a sizable portion of the debt however.

In 1823, with access to the Yates notes, John Taylor produced what might be called the _classical republican_ critique of the Convention. John Taylor says it all right here...


> *Had the journal of the convention which framed the constitution of the United States, though obscure and incomplete, been published immediately after its ratification, it would have furnished lights towards a true construction, sufficiently clear to have prevented several trespasses upon its principles, and tendencies towards its subversion.* Perhaps it may not be yet too late to lay before the publick the important evidence it furnishes.



The proceedings which were conducted in secret were sealed, and the Yates notes didn't pop up until years later (1820s) and Madison's notes not until after Madison died I believe. Because, the proceedings were conducted in secrecy, people who hand powers like central banks and bounties voted down-- tried to usurp those powers. Had the proceedings been conducted in the open, those protesting Hamilton's scheming could rightly point to his defeat in the Convention. Judge John Marshall and Joseph Story, expositors of judicial nationalism were beneficiares of such secrecy, in their raw grab for power.

John Taylor highlights some of Hamilton's machinations in the Convention:


> June 18, it was moved by Mr. Dickinson, and resolved "that the articles of confederation ought to be revised and amended "so as to render the government of the United States, adequate to the exigencies, the preservation and the prosperity of the union." This was the first resolution in favour of a federal government in opposition to a national government, but it was speedily revoked.
> 
> *On the same day, Colonel Hamilton read a plan of government, containing, among others, the following proposals: "The supreme legislative power of the United States of America to be vested in two distinct bodies of men, the one to be called the assembly, and the other the senate," excluding the word Congress, "with power to pass all laws whatsoever, subject to the negative hereafter mentioned. The senate to consist of persons elected to serve during good behaviour. The supreme executive authority of the United States to be vested in a governor, to be elected to serve during good behaviour. To have a negative upon all laws about to be passed, and the execution of all laws passed. To have the intire direction of war when authorized or begun. To have the power of pardoning all offences, except treason, which he shall not pardon without the approbation of the senate. The senate to have the sole power of declaring war. All laws of the particular states, contrary to the constitution or laws of the United States, to be utterly void. And the better to prevent such laws being passed, the governor or president of each state shall be appointed by the general government, and shall have a negative upon the laws about to be passed in the state of which he is governor or president."*
> 
> It is needless to waste time in proving, that this project comprised a national government, nearly conforming to that of England; but it furnishes other remarks particularly applicable to our subject. Had it succeeded, would the proposed general governor of the United States, have been invested by "the intire direction of war," with powers to raise supplies, impress men, send militia out of the states, and make roads and canals. If any of the doctrines "that a power includes whatever may be necessary or convenient in its execution; that great power implies small power; or that power has a right to use all auxiliaries it may judge proper for advancing its designs, and to destroy all obstructions in its way," are true, then a power of intirely directing war, would have comprised many more powers than those hitherto supposed to have been tacitly annexed to the limited powers delegated by the constitution. But had this project been adopted, its prototype would have furnished many proofs that none of these doctrines are true, and might have defeated the usurpations of this great and powerful governor-general, upon the pretence that they were so. The political department, called king, in England, is invested with many very great powers, and among them, those both of declaring and directing war; and although many English kings have attempted, under cover of the appurtenances added by these doctrines to power, to extend their legitimate powers, such attempts, after producing resistance and sanguinary conflicts, have failed. One king may have lost his head for raising money unconstitutionally to build ships of war, and no king pretended he could appropriate the publick treasure to roads and canals, as deeming them appurtenant powers to his rights of declaring and directing war. These would have been formidable precedents towards preventing Colonel Hamilton's great governor-general from absorbing the powers of less powerful departments, and it seems to me that they are equally, and even more forcibly, applicable to our federal form of government. The integrity of our political departments is undoubtedly as necessary to preserve that form, as the integrity of the English departments can be to preserve a limited monarchy. Our specifications and restrictions of powers are more literal and intelligible than the English; and liberty at least, as essentially depends here, as it does in England, upon a resistance by one department against the encroachments of another.



Therein, we see the Real Hamilton who favored a centralized state, with a monarchial President, a general legislative power, a central bank, power to give subsidies to special interests, a veto over the States and appointed crony state governors from above, and lifetime Senators serving during good behavior. Even the perennial expositor of judicial nationalism, John Marshall noted, "No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States," as if pointing to Hamilton, "and of compounding the American people into one common mass." After ratification in the 1790s, Hamilton grumbled incessantly about the Constitution and his mutterings raised the ire of Madison and Jefferson who joined together against his machinations. Jefferson believed him to be in favor of a centralized government "bottommed on corruption."

The secrecy of the Convention proceedings was the work of the consolidationists who wanted their machinations conducted in secret, but the secrecy served to subvert what really emerged, which in the 1787 was a federal polity and not a national one-- despite the broad scope of powers granted to the general government.



> Secret proceedings of the convention, page 12. Mr. Martin. "So extremely solicitous were they, that their proceedings should not transpire, that the members were prohibited even from taking copies of resolutions, on which the convention were deliberating, or extracts of any kind from the journals, without formally moving for, and obtaining permission, by a vote of the convention, for that purpose."
> 
> The fact of this jealous secrecy is ascertained by the journal, and the perseverance in it for years. Even now, the veil is imperfectly removed; the journal has not come to the general knowledge of the publick, and it appears in a mutilated state. It stops or is impenetrably obscure, precisely at the period when the projected plan for a national form of government was supplanted by the federal system; and a suppression of the important steps by which this radical change was effected, must have taken place in the convention, or subsequently. Thus the vindicators of a federal construction of the constitution are deprived of a great mass of light, and the consolidating school have gotten rid of a great mass of detection. Secrecy is intended for delusion, and delusion is fraud. If it was dictated by an apprehension, that a knowledge of the propositions and debates, would have alarmed the settled preference of the states and of the publick, for a federal form of government, it amounts to an acknowledgement that these propositions and debates were hostile to that form and to the publick opinion. If, by an apprehension that a publication of the journal and debates, would produce a construction hostile to the rejected national form of government, it is an acknowledgment that constructions in favour of that form, are hostile to the constitution adopted.To avoid these consequences, and no others that I can discern, it was necessary to keep the people in the dark, and this stratagem to obtain a victory over their most sacred right in the ambuscade mode, can only be accounted for upon a supposition, that a real hostility of opinion existed between the publick and a party of politicians behind the curtain, which rendered it necessary that the people should be worked as puppets, first by the wire of concealment, and secondly by the wire of construction, into the catastrophe of a consolidated government, either national or monarchical.



After failing to accomplish their ends, and attaining a centralized unitary state in the Convention of 1787, the centralizing nationalists and those on the mantle of consolidation like Hamilton sought to achieve their aims by liberal "construction" of the Constitution. Hamilton favored an entrenched plutocracy of the fudiciary elite:



> All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and the well-born; the other the mass of the people... turbulent and changing, they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share in the Government.



In his frustrations with the Republicans and the strict constructionists, Hamilton called the Constitution a "frail and worthless fabric" and he called the people a "great beast." His off-the-cuff remarks and smears against the 1787 Constitution aroused the concern of Jefferson and Madison who continiously warned Washington.

John Taylor of Caroline further surmised,


> *Sovereignty is the highest degree of political power, and the establishment of a form of government, the highest proof which can be given of its existence. The states could not have reserved any rights by the articles of their union, if they had not been sovereign, because they could have no rights, unless they flowed from that source. In the creation of the federal government, the states exercised the highest act of sovereignty, and they may, if they please, repeat the proof of their sovereignty, by its annihilation. But the union possesses no innate sovereignty, like the states; it was not self-constituted; it is conventional, and of course subordinate to the sovereignties by which it was formed.* Could the states have imagined, when they entered into a union, and retained the power of diminishing, extending, or destroying the powers of the federal government, that they who "created and could destroy," might have this maxim turned upon themselves, by their own creature; and that this misapplication of words was able both to deprive them of sovereignty, and bestow it upon a union subordinate to their will, even for existence. I have no idea of a sovereignty constituted upon better ground than that of each state, nor of one which can be pretended to on worse, than that claimed for the federal government, or some portion of it. Conquest or force would give a much better title to sovereignty, than a limited deputation or delegation of authority. The deputations by sovereignties, far from being considered as killing the sovereignties from which they have derived limited powers, are evidences of their existence; and leagues between states demonstrate their vitality. The sovereignties which imposed the limitations upon the federal government, far from supposing that they perished by the exercise of a part of their faculties, were vindicated, by reserving powers in which their deputy, the federal government, could not participate; and the usual right of sovereigns to alter or revoke its commissions.



Even little waffling Jimmy Madison, for his compromises and flaws, set the record straight at times:



> With respect to the words _general welfare,_ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers (enumerated in the Constitution) connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.



Now, the Tenth Amendment stands on its nose and is a hollow platitude. Hamilton's stooges indeed made the Constitution "a frail and worthless fabric," by liberal construction.

[Edited on 7-30-2005 by Puritanhead] 

[Edited on 8-2-2005 by Puritanhead]

[Edited on 8-8-2005 by Puritanhead]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> Andrew I appreciate the info and web links. I've never been to Scotchtown... that's like heresy for a Virginian and Patrick Henry admirer. I need to go! Are there any books out there that address Henry's spiritual side and his faith? He was a devout Presbyterian and a passionate Christian particularly as he matured.



There is an old book which has been helpful to me: Arnold, Samuel Greene, _The Life of Patrick Henry, of Virginia_, 1854, which quotes Patrick Henry thus:



> The rising greatness of our country...is greatly tarnished by the general prevalence of deism, which, with me, is but another name for vice and depravity....I hear it is said by the deists that I am one of their number; and indeed that some good people think I am no Christian. This thought gives me much more pain than the appellation of Tory (being called a traitor), because I think religion of infinitely higher importance than politics....Being a Christian...is a character which I prize far above all this world has or can boast.





> Even little waffling Jimmy Madison, for his compromises and flaws, set the record straight at times:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With respect to the words _general welfare,_ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers (enumerated in the Constitution) connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, the Tenth Amendment stands on its nose and is a hollow platitude. Hamilton's stooges indeed made the Constitution "a frail and worthless fabric," by liberal construction.
> 
> [Edited on 7-30-2005 by Puritanhead]
Click to expand...


Thanks for this quote. I often hear reference made to the general welfare clause as justification for socialistic government. Blah! It's nice to see a reminder about the context. As Jefferson said, "In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution."

BTW, I live near Patrick Henry College whose motto is _Pro Christo et Libertate_.


----------



## Puritanhead

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> As Jefferson said, "In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution."
> 
> ...
> _Pro Christo et Libertate_.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

William Wirt's _Sketches of the Life and Character of Patrick Henry_ (1817)


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Andrew,
> Can you find the transcript to the Parson's Cause. I have been collating speeches from Henry, Davies, and others and I cannot find this one.



I recently obtained a collection of letters by and to the Rev. James Maury, my ancestor who was at the center of the Parson's Cause. In one particular he summarizes the speech by Patrick Henry. I can send you a copy if you like, Jacob. It is interesting reading, but I find myself favoring Patrick Henry's cause over my ancestor.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Andrew,
> Can you find the transcript to the Parson's Cause. I have been collating speeches from Henry, Davies, and others and I cannot find this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I recently obtained a collection of letters by and to the Rev. James Maury, my ancestor who was at the center of the Parson's Cause. In one particular he summarizes the speech by Patrick Henry. I can send you a copy if you like, Jacob. It is interesting reading, but I find myself favoring Patrick Henry's cause over my ancestor.
Click to expand...


I would be interested, thank you


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Patrick Henry's "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death" speech was given on March 20, 1775.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Patrick Henry died on June 6, 1799.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> Patrick Henry's "Give me liberty" speech can be heard here.



New link.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> New link.


Why did Henry think he smelled a "rat" in the Constitutional Convention? Was he speaking of an individual or of the body and purpose? I figured he would have been on board with the strong hints of the Presbytery that Madison wove into the document.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

No Longer A Libertine said:


> Why did Henry think he smelled a "rat" in the Constitutional Convention? Was he speaking of an individual or of the body and purpose? I figured he would have been on board with the strong hints of the Presbytery that Madison wove into the document.



Dennis Woods, _Discipling the Nations - The Government Upon His Shoulder_:



> Patrick Henry's Opposition
> 
> Patrick Henry, however, was cut from a different cloth. He was one of the most forthright Christian statesmen of the founding era. Not only did Patrick Henry oppose ratification of the Constitution, he refused the invitation to attend. Why?
> 
> Constitutional historian Forrest McDonald makes this observation: "Neither Sam Adams nor John Hancock of Massachusetts nor Richard Henry Lee and Patrick Henry of Virginia chose to come (Henry did not because, he said, "I smelt a rat"; the others offered no excuses)."
> 
> Henry complained of the illegality of the Convention in ignoring the explicit instructions of Congress not to scrap the Articles of Confederation. "The Federal Convention ought to have amended the old system," he protested, "for this purpose they were solely delegated: the object of their mission extended to no other consideration."
> 
> Delegate William Paterson of New Jersey had advanced the same objection during the first three weeks of the Convention. "If the confederacy was radically wrong," he argued, "let us return to our states, and obtain larger powers, not assume them of ourselves....If the subsisting confederation is so radically defective as not to admit of amendment, let us say so and report its insufficiency, and wait for enlarged powers." Paterson's plan to correct the weaknesses in the Articles of Confederation was rejected by the Convention after about three weeks.
> 
> Further, by calling for independent ratifying conventions in each state the Constitutional Convention was making an end run around local governmental bodies. In so doing they sidestepped the strong resistance they knew existed in many of the duly constituted state legislatures. The ratification procedure was explicitly illegal because the Articles of Confederation clearly specified that any changes must be approved by Congress and every state legislature (Article XIII).
> 
> The delegates had been given writs which authorized their assembly "for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of confederation, and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations..." Article XIII of the Articles forbade that "any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the united states, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every state" (emphasis added). Article VII of the Constitution ignored Congress, declaring that approval of nine state conventions would abolish the Articles: "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution...."
> 
> The states as states were thus completely bypassed in an appeal to "the people"; the state legislatures were excluded from the confirmation process. Were the state legislatures happy about this? Hardly. The procedure specified called for the state legislatures to name the times and places of their corresponding ratifying conventions. Edmund Morgan recounts an instance where 19 anti-Federalists in the Philadelphia legislature deserted the capitol before the vote. This prevented further business for lack of a quorum. Two of them were located by the Sergeant-of-Arms and carried forcibly by a mob back to the state house to complete the quorum.
> 
> In effect, the procedure chosen amounted to a bloodless coup against the existing order, as some of the anti-Federalist tracts argued. All of the proceedings were shrouded in secrecy by an oath of silence. The veil of secrecy was not pierced until after the death of the last delegate (Madison) when their notes were finally made public. Looking back from the perspective of 200 years, Edmund Morgan notes,
> 
> It [ratification] was obtained by the narrowest of margins and by methods that cannot be defended. The prospect was not calculated to please local politicians, and as the convention had anticipated, they were among the loudest objectors to the new plan. Again and again they warned that its adoption would be the death knell not only of the state governments but of the popular liberties which the constitutions of those governments protected.
> 
> For 24 days in the Virginia ratifying convention, Patrick Henry led the opposition against ratification of the Constitution. According to Long, "In the Virginia Ratifying Convention in 1788, Patrick Henry protested with vehemence against the proposed new Constitution's lack of sufficient safeguards against governmental abuses due to human weaknesses among its officials, saying:"
> 
> Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men, without a consequent loss of liberty! I say that the loss of that dearest privilege has ever followed, with absolute certainty, every such mad attempt.
> 
> He recognized the danger of establishing power even ostensibly limited power in the hands of men apart from the possibility of recourse to God and Divine Law. This is the essence, indeed the very definition of tyranny: ruling apart from any reference to the Law of God.
> 
> Hamilton and others down played the threat that the new government would not respect the limits placed upon it "as was being asserted by those who were extremely fearful of any central government with substantial powers and were arguing in favor of stricter and clear limits on Federal power. Chief among these were Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee and Samuel Adams." The prophetic foresight of these Christian statesmen is all too obvious as we survey the wreckage of the American Republic over two centuries later.
> 
> John Eidsmoe calls attention to the fact that "Henry did succeed in persuading the delegates to approve resolutions calling for amendments to the Constitution in the form of a bill of rights. Henry also advised those of his supporters who threatened violence if the Constitution was ratified, to peaceably submit to the new Constitution, and to work for passage of amendments which would safeguard personal liberty."
> 
> Unfortunately, even the safeguards of the Bill of Rights, for which Henry so eloquently argued, have been inadequate to overrule the inherent secularism of the body of the Constitution. These bulwarks have failed to withstand the winds of 20th Century skepticism because they are built on a foundation of sand (Matt. 7:24-27). In the teeth of this intrinsic secularism, modern Christians protest in vain that the First Amendment was never intended to separate God and government.


----------

