No and Hamilton proved this by instigating the whiskey rebellion.
"Let not gentlemen be told that it is not safe to reject this government. Wherefore is it not safe? We are told there are dangers, but those dangers are ideal; they cannot be demonstrated."
I'm not sure if the knows it but he is making the case against the "Great Nationers", i.e. those who wanted America to be a great country comparable to France or England. Whenever I read one of their statements the phrase "Nations do not make one great" comes to mind. Henry should have developed this thought more. The commercial interests of Hamilton do not outweigh the danger of what ensures the maximization of our national strength. Henry covers far too many topics in this speech and would have been better to find two or three and stick to them and explain his thinking in reasonable terms. Instead he states his emotions and that does little to sway people.
"If one third of these be unworthy men....."
Henry brings up a key objection that came up during the constitutional convention, tyranny of the minority. We saw the corruption of this with the Ben Nelson's Cornhusker Kickback. If the majority really, really need a change to the constitution it enables the minority to be bribed to go along with it. That is against most every notion of how a Republic ought to work. Again though, Henry figures out the superficial problem, i.e. a minority can stop a good idea, but then fails to develop it.
My thought is that we went far enough with the Separation of Powers and the principle of negation, i.e. the Senate can ignore a law passed by the House, the President can veto it or the supreme court can strike it down and the people retain their liberty.
"the assent of the people, in their collective capacity, is not necessary to the formation of a federal government."
Okay, now he hits on one of my favorite thoughts. The constitution was, as Madison envisioned it, to be ratified by the people. The House had proportional representation, the Senate came from the House and the House appointed the President. People and Checks. Got it. Coming out of the CC, we had a Senate of the states, an Electoral College and ratification by the state governments. It's not unexpected that the large states, Virginia and New York, who had all the size they needed, had not ratified until after eight other states had. Why should they trade their satisfactory state government for an unknown Federal Government?
Henry is spot on with his observation that this is a compact between influential men from states, not the people, and that people happily living out their daily lives would ask, "Tell me again why I need a National Government?" Or as he said, "to every other member of society you will find the same tranquil ease and content; you will find no alarms or disturbances. Why, then, tell us of danger, to terrify us into an adoption of this new form of government?" I'm left wondering why we needed this Federal Government but again Henry did not go far enough with this idea.
"and that Virginia shall depend on Congress even for passports"
EVEN passports! He is hitting on my thought. One fundamental, natural, God given right is for any individual to stand up and say, "I am sick of you turkeys and going to go live in Virginia." It was this right that this new government took away because we would never be able to move away from our government without leaving America.
"The honorable gentleman has told us that these powers, given to Congress, are accompanied by a judiciary which will correct all. On examination, you will find this very judiciary oppressively constructed; your jury trial destroyed, and the judges dependent on Congress."
Truth. The forethought of Judicial Deference.
"The federal sheriff may commit what oppression, make what distresses, he pleases, and ruin you with impunity; for how are you to tie his hands? Have you any sufficiently decided means of preventing him from sucking your blood by speculations, commissions, and fees? Thus thousands of your people will be most shamefully robbed: our state sheriffs, those unfeeling blood-suckers, have, under the watchful eye of our legislature, committed the most horrid and barbarous ravages on our people."
Hammer, meet nail.
"The Senate, by making treaties, may destroy your liberty and laws for want of responsibility."
The great theoretical flaw of the constitutional convention.
Later he tries to make his case against the Constitution by using Switzerland but it doesn't work.
"Remember, sir, that the number of our representatives is out ten, whereof six is a majority. Will those men be possessed of sufficient information? A particular knowledge of particular districts will not suffice. They must be well acquainted with agriculture, commerce, and a great variety of other matters throughout the continent"
No, no they would not. As it turned out our congress is made up of lawyers who know little of science or banking. Given their inability to decide these issues they have ceded their power to make laws to the Executive branch who appoint experts to make laws for them.
In the end I don't think he made his key point well enough, that the promises of a Federal Government did not outweigh the potential dangers and the government of Virgina was good enough to wait for a better constitution.
Ratification proves the point. It was a government of the states, by the states and for the states or at least for those people who attended the CC.
"Was Henry on target? Was this avoidable?"
Yes he was. The Articles of Confederation suffered from the Free Rider problem (much like Freepathons) in that a state could vote for war (or vote against it) and not help pay off the debts afterward. Yet, by compelling states to pay off national debts, it empowers the "Great Nationers" who would use the Federal Government to create a "great" nation. Was it avoidable? I don’t know. I'll think about it. We may be coming to the end of our current Federal Government (if it can't stop adding debt) and it's important that we think through this now.
"federal sheriff. Did Henry foresee the IRS long before the 16th Amendment, or did he have something else in mind?"
No! That's my thought when reading this. He said what he thought. He saw all the symptoms but failed to make clear the disease. All men are sinners, even Washington and Madison. Eventually they will sin badly and the constitution contained no correction except by amendment and that, as he points out, is subject to the will of a minority. Also, there is no punishment for the wicked (line 313). He almost goes out and puts it all together but he doesn't say that commercial interests (banks) would take away our liberties and feel free to do so without regard to punishment. Horse stealing used to be punishable by death but if the banks financially ruin our country they have no worries. He puts all the pieces out but fails to build his case in a methodical, impersonal manner without emotion.
"Henry never foresaw that bureaucrats under the Executive would eventually become the nation’s lawmakers. What would Henry propose to fix these problems today?"
Dare I say a Second Amendment remedy? Nah, that's too vitriolic. But that would take care of the moral hazard created by not punishing people who take away our liberties. Henry could be physically direct when he wanted.
"That this has happened is simply a matter of history. What could have been done to prevent this?"
Oddly enough, a stronger House of representatives. I've written before about the need for Federal Regulations carrying the power of law to be ratified by congress one by one. Now I wonder if every law should be ratified by every new congress. It surely would put the power of nullification front and center. Granted it would be practically impossible.
"Should Congress be limited as to what it can keep from the people whom they represent?"
Limited but then again, wikileaks makes the alternative case. Unfortunately this one is a matter of judgment and only those who know the secrets can say if they should not be secret.
"Is this something that needs to be fixed?"
Not yet but if our country financially fails then our Senate, with the President, could end our form of government.
"Would the federal government have been more prone to the destruction of liberty in the absence of the Bill of Rights than with it? How long would it have taken for it to reach the current state of liberty or lack thereof? "
Can't say. This is a theoretical. Unfortunately the Bill of Rights has given activist judges the ability to extend law rather than negate it. Then again the First and Second Amendments remain fairly powerful magic against those who would take away our liberty.
Those are the thoughts off the top of my head, for what they are worth.
Henry was a talented lawyer and the best orator of his age. He put both to use in order to sabotage national relief from the awful Articles. In classic lawyer fashion:
1. Contest the standing of the opposing party. The Virginia Assembly provided for delegates to discuss alterations to the Articles. The Constitution was not the Articles. According to Henry, the VA ratifying convention was therefore illegitimate.
2. Reject the basis of the plaintiff’s suit, throw it out. Henry denied problems even existed under the Articles in Virginia. Why should Virginians care about conditions in other states? Thus, there is no reason for VA to consider a replacement of the Articles.
Various delegates to the VA ratifying convention described serious difficulties under the the Articles. Henry's claim of "no problem" did not get very far.