courts, -2d. Those which explain the general powers of congress, -3d. Those which immediately speak of slavery, 4th. Those that have reference to the object for which the Constitution was formed, in regard to the liberty of the individual; or rather the determination of the people that no Constitution should be formed that put the liberty of the individual in danger-the intelligent reader might perceive, at once, to which subject the extract belonged, and could apply it without being told; and it might be as well to pursue the course adopted, of going through with each convention in its order, and afterwards draw up a summary of the whole, and lay it as distinctly before him as possible; and then he might be able to judge of the conclusion as if a different course was pursued.

We consider each and all of the above as great questions, and of vital importance to the community, and which should be decided. They are questions that interest every person to know; for, upon their decision his individual rights, under the Constitution, may, or may not, be invaded. For if the rights of one individual, no matter whether he be white or black, can be taken from him, and that for no crime the man can be restrained as a slave, then may the rights of all, on the same principle, be taken away: no man is safe, no man can be safe. So far as individuals are concerned, the Constitution is a dead letter; its principles do not apply to them; they are to be recognized as in communities, as States; and the States, and indi

viduals of the State, if the Constitutions of the States say nothing to the contrary, may enslave as few or many of their people as they may choose. Is this so? We think not. These assertions might have applied, in some measure, to the Confederation; but they cannot be applied under the present arrangement. The Constitution, if we rightly interpret it, has to do with the individual; and, if the community, or the State, or individuals of the State, invade his rights, the Constitution steps in, or should step in, to restore them. What say the arguments of the gentlemen in Virginia who adopted it? We shall see.

In the convention of Virginia, Mr. Henry asked what right the national convention had to use the words "we the people." Governor Randolph answered him by saying, "It was for the people the government was formed;" "in the Confederation they had no voice." 2

Mr. Pendleton, in answer to Mr. Henry, among other observations, said,

"What was it that brought us from a state of nature to society but to secure happiness? and can society be formed without government? personify government, apply to it as a friend to assist you, and it will grant your request. This is the only government founded in real compact. There is no quarrel between government and liberty; the former is the shield and protector of the latter. The war is between government and licentiousness, factions, turbulence, and other violations of the rules of society, to preserve liberty. Where is

'Elliot's Reports, vol. ii. p. 47.

2

Idem, vol. ii. p. 51.

the cause of alarm? .... In the same plan we point out an easy and quiet method to amend what may be found amiss." 1

"But objection is made to the form; the expression, 'We the people,' is thought improper. Permit me to ask the gentleman who made this objection, who but the people can delegate powers? Who but the people have a right to form government? The expression is a common one, and a favorite one with me; the representatives of the people, by their authority, is a mode wholly inessential. If the objection be, that the union ought to be not of the people, but of the State governments, then I think the choice of the former very happy and proper. What have the State governments to do with it? Were they to determine, the people would not, in that case, be judges upon what terms it was adopted."

He then went on to show the imbecility of the Confederation, and the superiority of the Constitution over that in its effective character in forming peace, and in declaring war, and he concluded by saying, "For his part he was well satisfied with this part of the system," including in his remarks the representatives of the States, meaning the

senate.

Mr. Lee, of Westmoreland, spoke in favor of using the expression, "we the people," and he thought the house of representatives would be like the house of commons, in the year 1782, who resisted the will of the crown, and be able to protect our liberties.2

1 Elliot's Reports, vol. ii. p. 57.

2 Idem, vol. ii. p. 60.

Mr. Henry made quite a speech in answer, portions of which will be found among the extracts taken from his life, so far as relates to this subject. His whole speech turned on securing the individual and State rights; he was fearful of the results of the Constitution, of its power of taxation, of the powers of the president. But he wished for the union. His first wish was for American liberty, and his second, for American union ;" and he concluded his remarks by saying, "May you be fully apprized of the dangers of the latter, not by fatal experience, but by some abler advocate than I."

Gov. Randolph, in answer to Mr. Henry, who thought the country was in peace, and there was no reason to alter the government, said,

"There is no peace in this land; can peace exist with injustice, licentiousness, insecurity, and oppression ? These considerations, independent of many others which I have not yet enumerated, would be a sufficient reason for the adoption of this Constitution, because it secures the liberty of the citizen, his person, and property, and will invigorate and restore commerce and industry."

He went on in a long speech, giving his reasons why Virginia should adopt the Constitution, on account of her exposed situation, both on her coasts, by Indians, and the other States who had already adopted the Constitution, and from the slaves, which he said at that time "bore the immense proportion of 236,000 slaves to 352,000 whites." He was very eloquent in urging his reasons for the adoption of the Constitution. Mr. Randolph, un

doubtedly, had some desire the Constitution should be adopted because a greater power would be at command to suppress an insurrection of slaves, though we have no evidence but that he might have wished their individual freedom.

Mr. Madison, in answer to the objections made by Mr. Henry, respecting the consolidation of the government proposed to be adopted, said,

"Give me leave to say something of the nature of the government, and to show it is safe and just to vest it with the power of taxation. There are a number of opinions, but the principal question is, whether it be a federal or a consolidated government. In order to judge properly of the question before us we must consider it minutely in its principal parts. I conceive, myself, it is of a mixed nature; it is in a manner unprecedented; we cannot find one express example in the history of the world; it stands by itself. In some respects it is a government of a federal nature; in others, it is of a consolidated nature. Even if we attend to the manner in which the Constitution is investigated, ratified, and made the act of the people of America, I can say, notwithstanding what the honorable gentleman has alleged, that this govern. ment is not completely consolidated, nor is it entirely federal. Who are parties to it? The people; but not the people as composing one great body, but the people as composing thirteen sovereignties. Were it, as the gentleman asserts, a consolidated government, the assent of the majority of the people would be sufficient for its establishment; and, as a majority have adopted it already, the remaining States would be bound by the act of the majority, even if they unanimously reprobated it. Were it such a government as is suggested, it would be now binding on the people of this State, without having