American History & Civics › The Anti-Federalist Papers › Patrick Henry's Speech of June 4, 1788

Anti-Federalist writing · Patrick Henry in the Virginia convention

Patrick Henry's Speech of June 4, 1788

Patrick HenryJune 4, 1788Virginia ratifying convention, Richmond1053 words · about 5 minSkip to the text ↓

Who wrote it? Spoken by Patrick Henry. The words come from David Robertson’s shorthand record of the debates, published in 1788–89 and reprinted in Elliot’s Debates, so they are the reporter’s version of what Henry said.

Before you read

Virginia’s ratifying convention met in Richmond in June 1788. Patrick Henry, a former governor and the most famous orator of the Revolution, led the opposition. On the convention’s third day he gave this short first speech.

The main argument

Henry asks what danger made the change necessary, and who gave the Convention authority to speak for “We, the people” instead of “We, the states.” He says the plan would replace a confederation with a consolidated national government, and that the delegates were sent only to amend the Articles.

Passages to notice

  • ¶2 who authorized them to speak the language of, We, the people, instead of, We, the states? Henry’s famous challenge to the Preamble.
  • ¶2 what danger could have arisen under the present Confederation He asks why change is needed at all.

Questions

  1. Why does Henry object to the words “We, the people”? How does Madison answer in Federalist 39 and 40?
  2. Henry asks what the danger was. Make the Federalist case from Federalist 15 in two sentences.

1Mr. HENRY. Mr. Chairman, the public mind, as well as my own, is extremely uneasy at the proposed change of government. Give me leave to form one of the number of those who wish to be thoroughly acquainted with the reasons of this perilous and uneasy situation, and why we are brought hither to decide on this great national question. I consider myself as the servant of the people of this commonwealth, as a sentinel over their rights, liberty, and happiness. I represent their feelings when I say that they are exceedingly uneasy at being brought from that state of full security, which they enjoyed, to the present delusive appearance of things. A year ago, the minds of our citizens were at perfect repose. Before the meeting of the late federal Convention at Philadelphia, a general peace and a universal tranquillity prevailed in this country; but, since that period, they are exceedingly uneasy and disquieted. When I wished for an appointment to this Convention, my mind was extremely agitated for the situation of public affairs. I conceived the republic to be in extreme danger. If our situation be thus uneasy, whence has arisen this fearful jeopardy? It arises from this fatal system; it arises from a proposal to change our government—a proposal that goes to the utter annihilation of the most solemn engagements of the states—a proposal of establishing nine states into a confederacy, to the eventual exclusion of four states. It goes to the annihilation of those solemn treaties we have formed with foreign nations.

2The present circumstances of France—the good offices rendered us by that kingdom—require our most faithful and most punctual adherence to our treaty with her. We are in alliance with the Spaniards, the Dutch, the Prussians; those treaties bound us as thirteen states confederated together. Yet here is a proposal to sever that confederacy. Is it possible that we shall abandon all our treaties and national engagements?—and for what? I expected to hear the reasons for an event so unexpected to my mind and many others. Was our civil polity, or public justice, endangered or sapped? Was the real existence of the country threatened, or was this preceded by a mournful progression of events? This proposal of altering our federal government is of a most alarming nature! Make the best of this new government—say it is composed by any thing but inspiration—you ought to be extremely cautious, watchful, jealous of your liberty; for, instead of securing your rights, you may lose them forever. If a wrong step be now made, the republic may be lost forever. If this new government will not come up to the expectation of the people, and they shall be disappointed, their liberty will be lost, and tyranny must and will arise. I repeat it again, and I beg gentlemen to consider, that a wrong step, made now, will plunge us into misery, and our republic will be lost. It will be necessary for this Convention to have a faithful historical detail of the facts that preceded the session of the federal Convention, and the reasons that actuated its members in proposing an entire alteration of government, and to demonstrate the dangers that awaited us. If they were of such awful magnitude as to warrant a proposal so extremely perilous as this, I must assert, that this Convention has an absolute right to a thorough discovery of every circumstance relative to this great event. And here I would make this inquiry of those worthy characters who composed a part of the late federal Convention. I am sure they were fully impressed with the necessity of forming a great consolidated government, instead of a confederation. That this is a consolidated government is demonstrably clear; and the danger of such a government is, to my mind, very striking I have the highest veneration for those gentlemen; but, sir, give me leave to demand. What right had they to say. We, the people? My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask. 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. I have the highest respect for those gentlemen who formed the Convention, and, were some of them not here, I would express some testimonial of esteem for them. America had, on a former occasion, put the utmost confidence in them—a confidence which was well placed; and I am sure, sir, I would give up any thing to them; I would cheerfully confide in them as my representatives. But, sir, on this great occasion, I would demand the cause of their conduct. Even from that illustrious man who saved us by his valor, I would have a reason for his conduct: that liberty which he has given us by his valor, tells me to ask this reason; and sure I am, were he here, he would give us that reason. But there are other gentlemen here, who can give us this information. The people gave them no power to use their name. That they exceeded their power is perfectly clear. It is not mere curiosity that actuates me: I wish to hear the real, actual, existing danger, which should lead us to take those steps, so dangerous in my conception. Disorders have arisen in other parts of America; but here, sir, no dangers, no insurrection or tumult have happened; every thing has been calm and tranquil. But, notwithstanding this, we are wandering on the great ocean of human affairs. I see no landmark to guide us. We are running we know not whither. Difference of opinion has gone to a degree of inflammatory resentment in different parts of the country which has been occasioned by this perilous innovation. The federal Convention ought to have amended the old system; for this purpose they were solely delegated; the object of their mission extended to no other consideration. You must, therefore, forgive the solicitation of one unworthy member to know what danger could have arisen under the present Confederation, and what are the causes of this proposal to change our government.

Text: Jonathan Elliot, ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, 2nd ed., volume 3 (Philadelphia, 1836; reprinted 1888), the debates of June 4, 1788, as transcribed on Wikisource (“Debates in the Several State Conventions/Volume 3/June 4”). Only Henry’s speech is given; the debate continues with other speakers. Elliot’s report was taken down in shorthand by David Robertson, so it records Henry’s words as the reporter heard them. Checked against the Internet Archive’s scan of the 1888 printing. Public domain. The introduction and questions are written for Teddy Rook Book.

@teddyrookbook GitHub