Patrick Henry: Top-6 Anti-Federalist Warnings
This government “will swallow the liberties of the people, without giving them previous notice.”
That’s one of many stark warnings Patrick Henry gave us in 1788. In a series of fiery speeches during the Virginia Ratifying Convention, he laid out some of the most powerful anti-Federalist arguments against the Constitution.
He predicted all kinds of abuses of power, “10,000 implied powers” (his words) and the eventual destruction of liberty. In this recent episode of our Path to Liberty podcast, we break down six categories of his most urgent warnings. And you can find highlights of all of them below, each filled with powerful quotes we can’t afford to ignore any longer.
6. IMPLIED vs EXPRESSLY DELEGATED POWER
Henry warned that parts of the system were ambiguous and poorly-defined, leaving power to implication. He argued this meant trusting people in power to do the right thing, rather than limiting power as promised to the public
Henry put it like this:
“Shew 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.”
Supporters of the constitution made the case that all powers not delegated, were automatically reserved. But Henry argued this was a new approach, unsupported by the Constitution, relying on implication and trust.
“This is the question. If you intend to reserve your unalienable rights, you must have the most express stipulation. For if implication be allowed, you are ousted of those rights. If the people do not think it necessary to reserve them, they will be supposed to be given up.”
He continued, pointing to the fact that Article II of the Articles of Confederation made clear that all power not expressly delegated would be reserved – and removing that kind of provision in the Constitution was a bad choice:
“It was expressly declared in our Confederation that every right was retained by the States respectively, which was not given up to the Government of the United States. But there is no such thing here. You therefore by a natural and unavoidable implication, give up your rights to the General Government.”
5. BILL OF RIGHTS
Patrick Henry repeatedly argued in favor of a Bill of Rights – with the emphasis on establishing, as under the Articles – as clear line in the sand between delegated and reserved powers:
“Mr. Henry then declared, a Bill of Rights indispensably necessary; that a general positive provision should be inserted in the new system, securing to the States and the people, every right which was not conceded to the General Government; and that every implication should be done away.”
He connected this lack of a declaration of reserved powers and rights with threats to “the great objects of religion, liberty of the press, trial by jury, interdiction of cruel punishments, and every other sacred right,” and urged others to reject ratification until they saw their rights “secured.”
Henry declared that he wouldn’t support the Constitution until he saw something “substantial come forth in the shape of a Bill of Rights.”
Henry, along with George Mason and others, made last-minute attempts to include a declaration of rights in Virginia’s ratification but failed by a vote of 80-88.
That, however, didn’t stop him from using his position as Governor to influence the next steps. He successfully pressed the state legislature to choose two anti-federalists for the new Senate, defeating James Madison. And then used a process we today call gerrymandering to force Madison to face off against James Monroe in an election for the House of Representatives. This ensured, because of the district and the popularity of his opponent, that Madison would have to promise to introduce a bill of rights in the first session of Congress.
It worked, but Patrick Henry was not happy with what they came up with, lamenting to Richard Henry Lee, “As to my opinion of the Amendments, I think they will tend to injure rather than to serve the Cause of Liberty.”
4. EXECUTIVE
Patrick Henry repeatedly railed against the power of the president, “with very extensive powers – the powers of a king.” He warned:
“If your American chief be a man of ambition, and abilities, how easy is it for him to render himself absolute(!) The army is in his hands, and, if he be a man of address, it will be attached to him; and it will be the subject of long meditation with him to seize the first auspicious moment to accomplish his design”
3. MILITIA
For Patrick Henry, the militia was “our ultimate safety,” and argued that “we can have no security without it.”
But, unlike most people today, he recognized that the militia was comprised of the whole body of the people and said “the great object is, that every man be armed.”
His chief concern was that giving Congress any power to organize and arm the militia would lead to a situation where congress might only organize and arm part of the militia – or maybe not at all.
“When this power is given up to Congress without limitation or bounds, how will your militia be armed? You trust to chance; for sure I am, that that nation which shall trust its liberties in other hands, cannot long exist.”
2. TAXING POWER/REQUISITIONS
In discussing the general welfare clause, Henry warned that this would actually end up as an “unlimited power of taxation.” Just imagine how he’d react to the 16th Amendment and the IRS!
Henry was one of the few who defended the requisition system under the Articles of Confederation, a system despised by Federalists and a primary reason for creating a government with more “energy” (aka power).
Basically, under this system, congress set an amount each state was supposed to pay, and then states would figure out how to make it happen. Henry made the case that different approaches to taxation in different states was an advantage on its own. But he also passionately argued that it created a system based on consent – something that went straight to the heart of the American Revolution:
“An English army was sent to compel us to pay money contrary to our consent. To force us by arbitrary and tyrannical coercion to satisfy their unbounded demands. We wished to pay with our own consent-Rather than pay against our consent, we engaged in that bloody contest, which terminated so gloriously. By requisitions we pay with our own consent; by their means we have triumphed in the most arduous struggle, that ever tried the virtue of man.”
The requisition system, argued Henry, was no failure as the Federalists claimed. Instead, it was an essential check on centralized power – and ensured a real system of federalism:
“Requisitions are attended with one singular advantage. They are attended by deliberation. They secure to the States the benefit of correcting oppressive errors. If our Assembly thought requisitions erroneous – If they thought the demand was too great, they might at least supplicate Congress to reconsider, that it was a little too much.”
1. CONSOLIDATION
All of these arguments supported Henry’s broader opposition to consolidation, or centralization of power. From the start of the convention, he argued:
“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?”
That now-famous phrase pointed to the foundation of all the other problems.
“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.”
For Patrick Henry, a national system – one consolidated system – could only exist under “absolute despotism.”
He warned, “Dangers are to be apprehended in whatever manner we proceed, but those of a consolidation of the most destructive.”
In what proved to be a chilling warning – Henry predicted that consolidation “must end in the destruction of our liberties.”
“If consolidation proves to be as mischievous to this country, as it has been to other countries, what will the poor inhabitants of this country do? This Government will operate like an ambuscade. It will destroy the State Governments, and swallow the liberties of the people, without giving them previous notice.”
THERE’S EVEN MORE
Patrick Henry didn’t stop at these six categories, not even close. He also railed against the treaty power, standing armies, which he called “a most dangerous power,” the judiciary, the supremacy clause, and even called the impeachment power a “sham.”
As we once again live under the largest government in history – that “great and mighty empire” that Patrick Henry said we’d get, his warnings are more important than ever.
Latest posts by Michael Boldin (see all)