June 16, 1788: Patrick Henry demands and gets a Bill of Rights

Mr. HENRY. Mr. Chairman, the necessity of a bill of rights appears to me to be greater in this government than ever it was in any government before.
... Let us consider the sentiments which have been entertained by the people of America on this subject. At the revolution, it must be admitted that it was their sense to set down those great rights which ought, in all countries, to be held inviolable and sacred. Virginia did so, we all remember. She made a compact to reserve, expressly, certain rights.

When fortified with full, adequate, and abundant representation, was she satisfied with that representation? No. She most cautiously and guardedly reserved and secured those invaluable, inestimable rights and privileges, which no people, inspired with the least glow of patriotic liberty, ever did, or ever can, abandon.
She is called upon now to abandon them, and dissolve that compact which secured them to her. She is called upon to accede to another compact, which most infallibly supersedes and annihilates her present one. Will she do it? 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.
How were the congressional rights defined when the people of America united by a confederacy to defend their liberties and rights against the tyrannical attempts of Great Britain? The states were not then contented with implied reservation. No, Mr. Chairman. 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.

Your own example furnishes an argument against it. If you give up these powers, without a bill of rights, you will exhibit the most absurd thing to mankind that ever the world saw — government that has abandoned all its powers — the powers of direct taxation, the sword, and the purse. You have disposed of them to Congress, without a bill of rights — without check, limitation, or control. And still you have checks and guards; still you keep barriers — pointed where? Pointed against your weakened, prostrated, enervated state government! You have a bill of rights to defend you against the state government, which is bereaved of all power, and yet you have none against Congress, though in full and exclusive possession of all power! You arm yourselves against the weak and defenceless, and expose yourselves naked to the armed and powerful. Is not this a conduct of unexampled absurdity? What barriers have you to oppose to this most strong, energetic government? To that government you have nothing to oppose. All your defence is given up. This is a real, actual defect. It must strike the mind of every gentleman.
When our government was first instituted in Virginia, we declared the common law of England to be in force.

That system of law which has been admired, and has protected us and our ancestors, is excluded by that system. Added to this, we adopted a bill of rights.
By this Constitution, some of the best barriers of human rights are thrown away. Is there not an additional reason to have a bill of rights?
By the ancient common law, the trial of all facts is decided by a jury of impartial men from the immediate vicinage. This paper speaks of different juries from the common law in criminal cases; and in civil controversies excludes trial by jury altogether. There is, therefore, more occasion for the supplementary check of a bill of rights now than then.
Congress, from their general, powers, may fully go into business of human legislation. They may legislate, in criminal cases, from treason to the lowest offence — petty larceny. They may define crimes and prescribe punishments. In the definition of crimes, I trust they will be directed by what wise representatives ought to be governed by.
But when we come to punishments, no latitude ought to be left, nor dependence put on the virtue of representatives. What says our bill of rights? — "that excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Are you not, therefore, now calling on those gentlemen who are to compose Congress, to prescribe trials and define punishments without this control? Will they find sentiments there similar to this bill of rights? You let them loose; you do more you depart from the genius of your country. That paper tells you that the trial of crimes shall be by jury, and held in the state where the crime shall have been committed. Under this extensive provision, they may proceed in a manner extremely dangerous to liberty: a person accused may be carried from one extremity of the state to another, and be tried, not by an impartial jury of the vicinage, acquainted with his character and the circumstances of the fact, but by a jury unacquainted with both, and who may be biased against him. Is not this sufficient to alarm men? How different is this from the immemorial practice of your British ancestors, and your own! I need not tell you that, by the common law, a number of hundredors were required on a jury, and that afterwards it was sufficient if the jurors came from the same county. With less than this the people of England have never been satisfied. That paper ought to have declared the common law in force.

In this business of legislation, your members of Congress will loose the restriction of not imposing excessive fines, demanding excessive bail, and inflicting cruel and unusual punishments. These are prohibited by your declaration of rights. What has distinguished our ancestors? — That they would not admit of tortures, or cruel and barbarous punishment. But Congress may introduce the practice of the civil law, in preference to that of the common law. They may introduce the practice of France, Spain, and Germany — of torturing, to extort a confession of the crime.
They will say that they might as well draw examples from those countries as from Great Britain, and they will tell you that there is such a necessity of strengthening the arm of government, that they must have a criminal equity, and extort confession by torture, in order to punish with still more relentless severity.
We are then lost and undone.
And can any man think it troublesome, when we can, by a small interference, prevent our rights from being lost? If you will, like the Virginian government, give them knowledge of the extent of the rights retained by the people, and the powers of themselves, they will, if they be honest men, thank you for it. Will they not wish to go on sure grounds? But if you leave them otherwise, they will not know how to proceed; and, being in a state of uncertainty, they will assume rather than give up powers by implication.

A bill of rights may be summed up in a few words. What do they tell us? — That our rights are reserved. Why not say so? Is it because it will consume too much paper? Gentlemen's reasoning against a bill of rights does not satisfy me. Without saying which has the right side, it remains doubtful. A bill of rights is a favorite thing with the Virginians and the people of the other states likewise. It may be their prejudice, hut the government ought to suit their geniuses; otherwise, its operation will be unhappy. A bill of rights, even if its necessity be doubtful, will exclude the possibility of dispute; and, with great submission, I think the best way is to have no dispute. In the present Constitution, they are restrained from issuing general warrants to search suspected places, or seize persons not named, without evidence of the commission of a fact, &c. There was certainly some celestial influence governing those who deliberated on that Constitution; for they have, with the most cautious and enlightened circumspection, guarded those indefeasible rights which ought ever to be held sacred!

The officers of Congress may come upon you now, fortified with all the terrors of paramount federal authority. Excisemen may come in multitudes; for the limitation of their numbers no man knows. They may, unless the general government be restrained by a bill of rights, or some similar restriction, go into your cellars and rooms, and search, ransack, and measure, every thing you eat, drink, and wear. They ought to be restrained Within proper bounds.
With respect to the freedom of the press, I need say nothing; for it is hoped that the gentlemen who shall compose Congress will take care to infringe as little as possible the rights of human nature. This will result from their integrity. They should, from prudence, abstain from violating the rights of their constituents. They are not, however, expressly restrained. But whether they will intermeddle with that palladium of our liberties or not, I leave you to determine."

Perhaps we have lived under a powerful federal government so long that people today have a very hard time imagining the attitude towards the federal government that prevailed at the time of our Founding. People then truly thought of their state as their "country".
The new government that was offered to the people by the Constitution was first met with great and broad suspicion. It was new, and it was much more powerful than the old Confederation.
The Anti-federalists were not a fringe group. Though the Constitution's undoubted merits came to be accepted by many people, the Anti-federalist argument that this new government must be limited by a Bill of Rights, as many state governments were, was accepted by the people and the proponents of the Constitution finally had to agree to add a Bill of Rights to limit the new government.
If they hadn't the Constitution would have been rewritten at a new conventin or rejected outright.

Anyway, here's the grand old orator. Not at the height of his power perhaps, but still carrying the day quite nicely.

Tonight I got a call from an man in India regarding my American Express bill. When he had concluded his business, he asked me to "update" my "employment" data with him on the telephone.

So, at that point I politely declined to disuss it, and I hung up.

I feel very uncomfortable discussing my private business with any AMEX contractor living and working in India. What do I know about his respect for my personal information or privacy? Regardless of AMEX's guarantees, that person lives under a different giovernment and different laws.

I know nothing abnout Indian Law or rights.

So, I am thinking I may send this card back to them now and get an American based debit card instead. I do not want my personal information going out to India.

Thank you.

Take the time to pick up a copy of the Anti-Federalist Papers. Sidney Yates, Melancton Smith, Patrick Henry and others sound off on problems that plague us today.

The Anti-Federalist Papers were published concurrently with the Federalist Papers, and each individual paper was intended to answer points raised by the other. My copy of the Anti-Federalist Papers has a chronology of publication for both sets of documents, and the best way to read them both is to follow strict chronology. This way you can see how one paper answers a point raised by the opponent in the last paper, and you can see the thrust and parry, the point and counterpoint, of the debate over ratification.

They are also online at the Constitution Society HERE.
Which also has the comparative chronology- which is indeed VERY helpful.

The Bill of Rights was their only true accomplishment though (besides raising points which as you say resonate today) and it's at least arguable that at the Virginia Convention Patrick Henry gave the speech that sealed the deal.

Yes, but he did mostly come around- with the combined influence of such as Patrick Henry, George Mason and Thomas Jefferson what else could he do?

"I do conceive that the Constitution may be amended; that is to say, if all power is subject to abuse, that then it is possible the abuse of the powers of the General Government may be guarded against in a more secure manner than is now done, while no one advantage arising from the exercise of that power shall be damaged or endangered by it. We have in this way something to gain, and, if we proceed with caution, nothing to lose. "

OTOH though the BOR has been a bulwark for liberty, that does not mean that it was the only way one could have been provided.
If it had not been there, perhaps the courts and the congress would have been more strict in implying powers from the Constitution.

Most rights were left undefined by the BOR- the unenumerated rights of the Ninth Amendment- though that fact seems to be actively disdained by the federal courts and congress.

I always love it when I'm scanning FR and run across a referene to my old friend Patrick Henry. I was just last night performing as Mr. Henry, and giving excepts from the same ratification debate as reproduced by you above, to an Elderhostel group at a hotel here in Richmond, VA. I have been interpreting Patrick Henry for the last 11 years, and I have been including more and more of the anti-ratification arguments in my presentation. I love this part:

"But I am fearful that I have lived long enough to become an old-fashioned fellow. Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man, may, in these refined enlightened days be deemed old fashioned: if so, I am contented to be so.

"If I shall be in the minority, I shall have those painful sensations, which arise from a conviction of being overpowered in a good cause. Yet, I will be a peaceable citizen! My head, my hand, and my heart shall be at liberty to retrieve the loss of liberty and remove the defects of the system, in a constitutional way."

I was reading "The Anti-Federalist Papers" a few nights ago, and would recommend them as required reading to anyone trying to get the whole picture of the American Experiment.

If you know of a group, convention or school that would enjoy a visit from Patrick Henry, please visit our website at:

http:/www.virginiapatriots.com

Regards,

Michael Wells
Virginia Patriots, Inc.

I believe the ninth amendment was the worst of the 10. Although its intent was to secure rights that were not defined by the constitution but were evident under the umbrella of Liberty (privacy, the right to remain silent while under arrest, the right to procreate) it has been abused to define rather odious social "rights" that were never the intent of the Founding Fathers.

What good is all this original "paper", when you are in a debt you can never be free of?

What good is a discussion of "rights', when your people are enslaved, and your children are all but ruined by corrupt indoctrination?

What the hell do you bother to talk about this "founding ideals" junk, when you cannot even understand you have been taken over, lock, stock, law, and money?

Your jobs are going overseas, the country is invaded by foreign peoples who never contributed a lick to building it.

Your political systems are "fixed", your armies are deployed as a mercenary forces, you are in debt up to your eyeballs, without recourse, and if you don't pay the land tax collector you are removed from your land no matter how long you have "owned" it or what you paid for it.

Your leaders are trying their best to establish another layer of Taxation for you at the UN.

Your "country" is "gone", And you are all debating Federalist papers.

Amazing.

Holy smokes that's you at St John's! You get great reviews.

I haven't been since I was a kid. I'll definitely go when it starts up again next year (been meaning to for a while) and say hi!
If I run across any work I'll sure send it your way.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.