might be made on the subject, will be sufficient to evince that a division of the United States into a number of separate confederacies, would probably be an unsatisfactory and an unsuccessful experiment. The remaining system, which the American States may adopt, is a union of them under one confederate republic. It will not be necessary to employ much time or many arguments to show that this is the most eligible system that can be proposed./ By adopting this system, the vigor and decision of a wide-spread monarchy may be joined to the freedom and beneficence of a contracted republic. The extent of territory, the diversity of climate and soil, the number and greatness and connection of lakes and rivers with which the United States are intersected and almost surrounded, all indicate an enlarged government to be fit and advantageous for them. The principles and dispositions of their citizens indicate that in this government liberty shall reign triumphant. Such indeed have been the general opinions and wishes entertained since the era of our independence. If those opinions and wishes are as well founded as they have been general, the late convention were justified in proposing to their constituents one confederate republic, as the best system of a national government for the United States.

There are three simple species of government: monarchy, where the supreme power is in a single person; aristocracy, where the supreme power is in a select assembly, the members of which either fill up, by election, the vacancies in their own body, or succeed to their places in it by inheritance, property, or in respect of some personal right or qualification; a republic or democracy, where the people at large retain the supreme power, and act either collectively or by representation. Each of these species of government has its advantages and disadvantages.

The advantages of a monarchy are strength, despatch, secrecy, unity of counsel. Its disadvantages are tyranny, expense, ignorance of the situation and wants of the peo

ple, insecurity, unnecessary wars, evils attending elections

or successions.

The advantage of aristocracy is wisdom, arising from experience and education. Its disadvantages are dissensions among themselves, oppression to the lower orders.

The advantages of democracy are-liberty, equal, cautious, and salutary laws, public spirit, frugality, peace, opportunities of exciting and producing the abilities of the best citizens. Its disadvantages are dissensions, the delay and disclosure of public counsels, the imbecility of public measures retarded by the necessity of numerous consent.

A government may be composed of two or more of the simple forms above mentioned. Such is the British government. It would be an improper government for the United States, because it is inadequate to such an extent of territory, and because it is suited to an establishment of different orders of men. A more minute comparison between some parts of the British constitution and some parts of the plan before us, may, perhaps, find a proper place in a subsequent period of our business.

What is the nature and kind of that government which has been proposed for the United States by the late convention? In its principle it is purely democratical; but that principle is applied in different forms, in order to obtain the advantages and exclude the inconveniences of the simple modes of government.

If we take an extended and accurate view of it, we shall find the streams of power running in different directions, in different dimensions, and at different heights, watering, adorning, and fertilizing the fields and meadows through which their courses are led; but if we trace them, we shall discover that they all originally flow from one abundant fountain. In this constitution, all authority is derived from

THE PEOPLE.

Fit occasions will hereafter offer for particular remarks on the different parts of the plan. I have now to ask pardon of the house for detaining them so long.

7. PATRICK HENRY, oF VIRGINIA.-AGAINST THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION

(In the Virginia ratifying Convention, at Richmond, June 5, 1788.)

THE MOST brilliant and dramatic fight against the Federal Constitution occurred in Virginia, where Patrick Henry, George Mason, William Grayson, and James Monroe were arrayed in opposition, and James Madison, Edmund Randolph, and John Marshall fought in its favor. Jefferson wrote from Paris in a sense opposed to the Constitution; while Washington, from his home at Mt. Vernon, exerted his great influence in its favor.

Henry made six long speeches in the Convention, besides twice that number of shorter ones directed to particular clauses. All his great oratorical powers were called into action; in later life Madison said that when he [Madison] would make “a most conclusive argument in favor of the Constitution, Henry would rise to reply, and by some significant action, such as a pause, a shake of the head, or a striking gesture, before he uttered a word, would undo all that Madison had been trying to do for an hour before." (Grigsby, Virginia Convention of 1788, I, p. 83.) In considering Henry's views, it should be remembered that they were formed at a time when railroads, telegraphs, daily newspapers, and other agencies for disseminating information and forming and organizing public opinion, were unknown; and when therefore the people possessed far inferior checks upon the acts of their representatives than today.

The convention met on June 2, 1788, when eight of the necessary nine States had already ratified; and it sat for twenty-three days, ratifying the Constitution by the close vote of 89 to 79. Following the precedent set by Massachusetts, the convention recommended twenty amendments, and the addition of a bill of rights.

A stenographic (though imperfect) report of the debates. was taken, which may be found in volume three of Elliot's Debates. The speech which follows was delivered June 5th, and was Henry's first extended discussion of the subject. The reference in the first sentence is to Henry Lee of Westmoreland county ("Light-horse Harry") who immediately preceded Henry in the debate. He had spoken of "the éclat and brilliancy which have distinguished that gentleman, the honors with which he has been dignified, and the brilliant talents which he has so often displayed;" but had deprecated Henry's alarmist attitude towards the proposed Constitution.

[PATRICK HENRY, in the Virginia ratification convention, at Richmond,

June 5, 1788.]

R. CHAIRMAN: I am much obliged to the very worthy gentleman for his encomium. I wish I were pos

MR

sessed of talents, or possessed of anything that might enable me to elucidate this great subject. I am not free from suspicion; I am apt to entertain doubts. I rose yesterday to ask a question ["What right had they to say, 'We, the people,' instead of 'We, the States'?"], which arose in my own mind. When I asked that question, I thought the meaning of my interrogation was obvious: the fate of this question and of America may depend on this. Have they said, "We, the States?" Have they made a proposal of a compact between States? If they had, this would be a confederation: it is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, sir, on that poor little thing the expression, "We, the people," instead of, "the

States" of America. I need not take much pains to show, that the principles of this system are extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous. Is this a monarchy, like England-a compact between prince and people; with checks on the former to secure the liberty of the latter? Is this a confederacy, like Holland—an association of a number of independent states, each of which retains its individual sovereignty? It is not a democracy, wherein the people retain all their rights securely. Had these principles been adhered to, we should not have been brought to this alarming transition, from a confederacy to a consolidated government. We have no detail of those great considerations which, in my opinion, ought to have abounded before we should recur to a government of this kind. Here is a revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain. It is as radical, if in this transition our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the States relinquished: and can not we plainly see that this is actually the case? The rights of conscience, trial by jury, liberty of the press, all your immunities and franchises, all pretensions to human rights and privileges, are rendered insecure if not lost, by this change so loudly talked of by some and inconsiderately by others. Is this tame relinquishment of rights worthy of freemen? Is it worthy of that manly fortitude that ought to characterize republicans? It is said eight States have adopted this plan. I declare that if twelve States and an half had adopted it, I would, with manly firmness and in spite of an erring world, reject it. You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your government.

Having premised these things, I shall, with the aid of my judgment and information, which I confess are not extensive, go into the discussion of this system more minutely. Is it necessary for your liberty, that you should abandon those great rights by the adoption of this system?