HENRY'S REJOINDER. 91 political maxims found in the Virginia Bill of Rights and founded most of his objections to the Constitution on them. It was in the discussion of such general propositions, that he spoke with greatest power. He was seldom correct, either in his description or interpretation of administrative functions, and yet, it was against the administrative features of the new plan that Anti-Federalist attack was chiefly directed. His defense of the Articles of Confederation might have led a person, unfamiliar with the history of the country, to believe that they embodied one of the most perfect political systems and that only a more consistent respect for the maxims of liberty was necessary in order to remedy any defects they might have. Thus he preferred requisitions to taxes, direct or indirect,2 and equal representation, to proportional. At this time the navigation of the Mississippi was the subject of adjudication between the United States and Spain. Seven States in Congress, Henry asserted, had voted in favor of giving control of the river to Spain for a long period, which the six Southern States opposed. The danger, he said, showed what a bare majority in Congress might do, and he used the illustration as an objection to empowering a mere majority to levy taxes. He saw no relief from the danger in the new plan, and, in its economical workings, only an increase of national expense.* The defects of the proposed system were so numerous, no union could be expected unless it was amended. New Hampshire and Rhode Island had rejected it; New York and North Carolina were reported to be strongly against it, and it was not likely, he said, 1 Id., 141. 2 Id., 148. 8 Id., 151-152. 5 Henry was speaking on the 9th of June, 1788. The news of the Ratification by New Hampshire had not then reached Vir 92 HENRY'S REJOINDER. that the former would ratify.1 Massachusetts had proposed amendments and the minority in Maryland had attempted to do so. The States which had ratified had done so strictly for selfish reasons, like Connecticut and New Jersey, being influenced by the prospective advantages of trade. Of course, the non-importing States would favor the plan as they were to participate in the profits hitherto exclusively enjoyed by their more successful rivals.2 The country had had a dictator, but not yet a President, nor was it likely that a set of Presidents would be found of the breed of the American dictator of 1781.3 Henry was by no means persuaded that separate confederacies would ruin the country. To his mind a consolidation of one power, ruling America with a strong hand, was the greatest evil to be feared, and he agreed with Mason that one government could not reign without absolute despotism over so extensive a country as ours. It was this conviction which led him to pronounce small confederacies only little evils. Virginia and North Carolina, if so disposed, could exist, separated from the rest of America; in proof of which he cited the cases of Maryland and Vermont, which had not been overrun when out of the Confederation. Though he did not advocate the confederation of Virginia and North Carolina, he clearly intimated that their union might be preferable to a Union under the Constitution. Virginia, the larg est State in the Union, the most populous, wealthy and influential, together with North Carolina, and possibly New York, both of whom were reported to be strongly against the plan, might yet dictate terms. New Hampshire and Rhode Island had refused to become federal. 5 6 4 4 Id., 161. 5 Id., 142. • Id., 157. HENRY'S ERRORS IN STATEMENT. 93 Evidently Henry had in mind Jefferson's letter, about nine States ratifying and four rejecting the Constitution. But Randolph corrected Henry's use of Jefferson's letter and interpreted it as meaning, not that he wished Virginia to reject the Constitution, but on the contrary wished it adopted by nine States in order to prevent a schism in the Union; a calamity, which Pendleton declared would be an incurable evil, "because friends falling out never cordially reunite."2 Particularly did Henry warn his colleagues against the power over elections, given to Congress and devised to deprive the people of their proper influence in the government, by destroying the force and effect of their suffrage.3 But it was useless to try to answer Henry in any way, because of his manner of attack; no man could tell at what point he would make assault or what provision he would discuss, for at no time throughout the debate did he adhere to the rule of procedure adopted at the beginning, and his vehemence and disregard of parliamentary rules did much to neutralize the effect of his words. Moreover, he never considered himself answered. His facts were in doubt, as for example, his statement that New Hampshire and Rhode Island had rejected the Constitution. Lee, of Westmoreland, corrected him, at this point; New Hampshire had only postponed her decision till that of Massachusetts could be known, and Rhode Island had "so rebelled against justice, and so knocked down the bulwark of probity, rectitude and truth, nothing rational or just could be expected from her." She had not called the convention to debate the Constitution, much less had she formally refused it, and he demanded Henry's 1 Id., 200. 304. 2 Id., 8 Id., 175. 94 RATIFICATION CONDITIONAL. evidence that New York and North Carolina had rejected it. Pennsylvania, Delaware and New Jersey were quite as capable of judging of the general welfare as was Virginia and they had not been tricked into a rejection ;1 none of the ratifying States had acted merely for local reasons. One of Henry's attacks was a withering criticism of Randolph's inconsistency in withholding his signature to the Constitution in Philadelphia and urging its adoption in Richmond. "What an alteration," said he, “a few months has brought about." The thrust went home and put Randolph on the defensive, much to the amusement of the Federalists. Even the strong rejoinder which Randolph made in self-defense did not explain away the inconsistency of his action.2 He declared that he still had objections to the Constitution, such as had appeared in his public letter, but he answered Henry, that he was now willing to take the Constitution, because he saw Virginia in such danger that even if the defects of the plan were greater, he would adopt it. There were strong suspicions among the Federalists that, at heart, Randolph had all along been a friend of the new plan, and Washington doubtless reflected their sentiments when he wrote to Lafayette, that if Randolph opposed the Constitution at all in the Richmond convention, he would do it feebly; for it was conjectured that he wished that he had been among the subscribing members." Ratification in Virginia, it was now apparent, would depend, as Randolph said, on amendments, though he 1 Id., 183-184. 2 Id., 187, et seq. 3 Id., 191. 4 Washington to Lafayette, April 28, 1788; Sparks, IX, 356; see also letter to John Jay, June 8, Id., 373. 5 Washington to Madison, October 10, 1787; Id., 269. JAMES MONROE'S OBJECTIONS. 95 conceived that the great question was the preservation of the Union.1 With him the chief reason for adoption by Virginia was the danger in which the State would stand if it rejected the plan and refused to enter the Union,2 of which thought a great portion of his argument for ratification was an elaboration. She would not be able to form an independent government, and having a long and exposed frontier, would be unable to protect herself. Though the argument was based on local and selfish grounds, it evidently had great weight with some of the doubtful delegates, most of whom were from Kentucky and Western Virginia, for all were convinced, except possibly Henry and a few of the extreme Anti-Federalists, that the Confederation was wholly inadequate to the needs of the State. Even in the "sweeping clause," as it was called by Henry, Randolph detected nothing formidable. It had been inserted, he said, only for greater caution, to prevent the possibility of encroaching upon the powers of Congress. Taking the various provisions of the article together, in which the powers of Congress were defined, the plain and obvious meaning was only to provide for the common defense and general welfare. 3 But Henry was not the only Anti-Federalist who attacked the Constitution; James Monroe earnestly supported him. His mind turned with yearning to the confederacies of old, and to that ideal confederacy which he thought ought to be formed for America.5 Experience had shown wherein the defects of the existing government lay; and these should be remedied. The grave danger 1 Elliot, III, 194; June 10, 1788. 2 Id., 195. s Id., 150, Constitution Article I, Clause 8, Section 18. 4 Id., 206. Id., 207, et seq. |