SELECT ORATIONS •rl^^o. THE MACMILLAN COMPANY NEW YORK • BOSTON • CHICAGO ATLANTA • SAN FRANCISCO MACMILLAN & CO., Limited LONDON • BOMBAY • CALCUTTA MELBOURNE THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, Ltd. TORONTO SELECT ORATIONS ILLUSTRATING AMERICAN POLITICAL HISTORY SELECTED AND EDITED BY SAMUEL BANNISTER HARDING, Ph.D. PROFESSOR OF HISTORY IN INDIANA UNIVERSITY AUTHOR OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION IN MASSACHUSETTS; GREEK GODS, HEROES AND MEN (collaborated); THE CITY OF THE SEVEN HILLS (COLLABORATED); THE STORY OF THE MIDDLE AGES; ESSENTIALS IN MEDIiSVAL AND MODERN HISTORY, ETC. WITH AN INTRODUCTION ON ORATORICAL STYLE AND STRUCTURE, AND NOTES, BY TOHN MANTEL CLAPP, A.M. Professor of English in Lalce Forest University JBcto porfe THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 1909 t\^^ \\^ ^ Copyright, 1908, 1909 Bv SAMUEL BANNISTER HARDING 24824^ PREFACE A GREAT part of a people's history, where self-govern- ment prevails, may be found in the speeches of its public men. Such utterances are at once an index to the mental caliber of its electors and representatives, a measure of prevalent prejudices and predilections, and a synopsis of its political history. Pericles's oration over the first dead of the Peloponnesian war, and Demosthenes's orations against Philip of Macedon, have long been recognized as important documents in the study of Greek history. Cicero's orations against Verres and on the Catilinian conspiracy aid much to an understanding of the last period of the Roman re- public. And it is a commonplace to say that the framework at least of a knowledge of modern English history must be sought in the speeches delivered in Parliament and in pub- lic meetings. In our own country, where government pro- ceeds so largely in the open, this is especially true. Gov- ernment here is the concern of the people themselves, and on all questions of public policy they must be consulted and informed. Public speeches with us, while not the sole means, are an important means to the formation and expression of what Sir Robert Peel once somewhat cynically called "that great compound of folly, weakness, prejudice, wrong feel- ing, right feeling, obstinacy, and newspaper paragraphs, which is called public opinion." And the record of a peo- ple's varying public opinion in political matters, it may be asserted, gives the essence of its political history. "He who moulds public sentiment," said Lincoln in his first debate v vi Preface with Douglas, "goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions. He makes statutes and decisions pos- sible or impossible to be executed." The chief justification for the present volume of selec- tions is the lack hitherto of any adequate collection of Amer- ican political orations which comes within the compass of a single volume, and hence is usable for schools, clubs, and teachers' institutes. The preparation of the book was first proposed to the author by Mr. David W. Sanders, of Cov- ington, Ind., whose acquaintance among teachers showed him the opening for it; and the assistance which the author has received from Mr. Sanders as the work has progressed, in determining the general plan and scojje of the book, he wishes to acknowledge in the fullest manner. The purpose of the selections, it must be understood, is primarily historical: they are designed to illustrate the po- litical history and development of the United States. In every instance the tests applied in determining the inclu- sion or exclusion of a speech were these: Did it exert im- portant influence on political action or political opinion at the time it was delivered? And will it, better than other speeches of the period, enable us to penetrate back into the spirit of the time.'' Nevertheless, considerations of oratorical excellence were by no means disregarded, and it is believed that examples of the best public speaking of every epoch of our history will here be found, and in sufficient variety. With the aid of the Introduction, and the notes on the oratory of the several se- lections which are given at the back of the book, it is hoped that some place may also be found for the volume in classes in public speaking and the literary study of the oration. It is perhaps needless to say that the choice of the orations has been made without regard to the editor's personal opin- ion as to which party or whicli position on any given question Preface vii was right. One of the benefits which it is hoped may come from the reading of the selections is a growth in that wide tolerance of mind which sees that at no time does any one party have a monopoly of political truth, and that wise political action can come only from weighing all the argu- ments in view of all the circumstances of a given case. The wealth of material from which to select, and the reduction to the compass of a half-hour's reading of speeches which in some cases took several days to deliver, have been the chief difficulties of the task. It is hoped that a sufficiently large and rej)resentative list of names is pre- sented, though it is inevitable that the omission of some notable orators and orations will be lamented. The attempt has been made to confine the annotations to the narrowest limits possible, consistent with the aim of in- telligibility. Where practicable, the information needed has been given in the historical introductions prefixed to the diff"erent sections and to the separate orations. In conclusion the editor wishes publicly to express his ap- preciation of the kindness shown by his friend. Professor Clapp, in drawing upon his long experience in the teaching of English and public speaking to produce the introduction on "Oratorical Style and Structure," and the notes on the several orations, which form parts of this volume. S. B. H. Bloomington, Ind., July 28, IQOQ. CONTENTS Page Oratorical Style and Structure. By Professor John M. Clapp xiii I. THE REVOLUTION Introductory Sketch 1 1. James Otis: The Writs of Assistance (1761) ... . 5 2. John Adams: The Boston Massacre (1770) 11 3. Patrick Henry: Liberty or Death (1775) 24 4. John Dickinson: On Taking up Arms (1775).. 30 5. John Witherspoon: The Necessity of Confed- eration (1776) 39 II. THE CONSTITUTION ADOPTED Introductory Sketch 4-7 6. James Wilson: For the Constitution (1787) 52 7. Patrick Henry: Against the Constitution (1788) 66 8. James Madison: For the Constitution (1788) .... 88 9. Alexander Hamilton: For the Constitution (1788) 103 HI. NATIONAL GOVERNMENT ESTABLISHED Introductory Sketch 122 10. Fisher Ames: The Britisli Treaty (1796) 125 11, George Washington: Farewell Address (1796) . 150 ix X Contents Page 12. Thomas Jefferson: First Inaugural Address (1801) 164 13. John Randolph: Against War with Great Britain (1811) 172 14. William Pinkney: The Missouri Compromise (1820) 191 15. Daniel Webster: Reply to Hayne (1830) 212 IV. THE CONTEST OVER SLAVERY Introductory Sketch 242 16. John C. Calhoun: Slavery a Positive Good (1837) 247 17. Wendell Phillips: Eulogy of Garrison (1879). 258 18. Henry Clay: Compromise of 1850 (1850) 267 19. Charles Sumner: The Crime Against Kansas (1856) 292 20. Lincoln-Douglas Debate: Douglas's Opening Speech (1858) 309 21. Lincoln-Douglas Debate: Lincoln's Reply (1858) 322 22. William H. Seward: The Irrepressible Conflict (1858) 342 V. CIVIL WAR AND RECONSTRUCTION Introductory Sketch 358 23. Jefferson Davis: On Withdrawing from the Union (1861) 362 24. Abraham Lincoln: First Inaugural Address (1861) 370 Contents xi Page 25. Alexander H. Stephens: On the Confederate Constitution (1861) 382 26. Henry Ward Beecher: Liverpool Address (1863) 392 27. Abraham Lincoln: Gettysburg Address (1863). 414 28. Abraham Lincoln: Second Inaugural Address (1865) 417 29. Andrew Johnson: Presidential Plan of Recon- struction (1867) 421 30. Thaddeus Stevens: Radical View of Reconstruc- tion (1867) 434 31. Benjamin R. Curtis: Defense of President John- son (1868) 443 32. Carl Schurz: Plea for a General Amnesty (1872) 467 33. Henry W. Grady: The New South (1886) 489 34. Booker T. Washington: The Race Problem (1895) 501 Notes on Style and Structure. By Professor John M. Clapp 509 Oratorical Style and Structure As Professor Harding has said in his Preface, the pur- pose of this book is to furnish the student of American his- tory a series of contemporary discussions of what time has proved to be the principal questions of the day in our na- tional life. The interest of the collection lies in the fact that these are not mere records of contemporary opinion, such as one might find in old diaries or private letters, or in the news columns of periodicals. These publicly uttered opinions of the most influential men of the time were them- selves most important forces in making history. If we read them appreciatively we may not only know what our ances- tors thought, but we may feel the influences which led them to act as they did. To understand these speeches, of course, we must first of all understand the circumstances of their delivery. We must try to realize the attitude of contemporary listeners, to whom the future — what to us is now the past — was dark and un- certain, and who were swayed by impulses and traditions, prejudices and enthusiasms, which for us of to-day no longer exist. Professor Harding's introductory sketches, sympa- thetic and admirably compact, should be studied carefully in connection with every speech. Since, moreover, these com- positions are speeches, not essays — shaped primarily for the ear, not for the eye — they have characteristics of form, mat- ters of style and of structure, which we can recognize, and which will affect us, if we will allow for them, somewhat at least as they afi'ected contemporaries. xiii xiv Select Orations We may notice first the minuter points, the style. Dis- course addressed to the ear must make an immediate impres- sion. It must be, therefore, easily intelligible, vigorous, and smooth and easy in connection of ideas. These requirements give to sjioken language certain peculiarities which may be called essential, which appear in all sorts of talk, whatever the worth of the ideas expressed. They are found in the ha- rangues of the street fakir, in the rant of the "spellbinder," and no less in lectures, sermons, in such orations as those in this book, and, with some differences, in the language of the stage. The effort for clearness in spoken language produces usually plainness and simplicity in the choice of words, and directness in their arrangement. The words need not be short — the words of conversation are not always short — but they must not sound unusual or learned. Unusual, learned, technical words may occur here and there, but they can not be frequent. The phrases, particularly, the groups of words which strike the ear as units, must be simple. Consider the following examples, from the speeches in this book : "Will any man who entertains a wish for the safety of his country, trust the sword and the purse with a single as- sembly organized on principles so defective — so rotten? Though we might give to such a government certain powers with safety, yet to give them the full and unlimited powers of taxation and the national forces would be to establish a despotism ; the definition of which is, a government in which all power is concentrated in a single body." (Alexander Hamilton; p. 107.) "Of all men upon earth I am the least attached to any productions of my own mind. No man upon earth is more ready to surrender anytliing which I have proposed, and to accept in lieu of it anything that is better; but I put it to the candor of honorable Senators on the other side and upon Oratorical Style and Structure xv all sides of the House, whether their duty will be performed by simply limiting themselves to objections to any or to all of the series of resolutions that I have offered. If my plan of peace, and accommodation, and harmony, is not right, present us your plan." (Henry Clay; p. 287.) "To my mind it is either the most ignorant and shallow mistake of his duties, or the most brazen and impudent usur- pation of power. It is claimed for him by some as the com- mander-in-chief of the army and navy. How absurd that a mere executive officer should claim creative powers ! Though commander-in-chief by the Constitution, he would have noth- ing to command, either by land or water, until Congress raised both army and navy." (Thaddeus Stevens ; p. 438.) Widely as these extracts differ in idea, in spirit, and in the date of their utterance, in all of them the words are fa- miliar, and are combined into easily grasped units of phrase, which have the directness, the idiomatic quality, of common conversation. This directness, which is perhaps the most characteristic feature of spoken language, differentiating it most surely from the language of writing, shows also in the sentence structure. The words follow, more closely than in writing, the normal order — subject, verb, object. The sen- tence as a whole may show inversion, may have what is called the periodic structure, but the clauses, one by one, are simple and light. Most of the sentences, it may be added, in most speeches, are short. This structure of phrase and sen- tence gives the style a quality which may be described as progressive completeness. The thought is built up in the listener's mind bit by bit, each item being clear and clearly connected with what precedes. This quality involves, of course, the corresponding defect of diffuseness. Talk has rarely the terseness of writing. Exactness, precision of phrase, which good talk must have as well as good writing, cannot in talk be gained briefly; the phrase of precise definition must be set in a background xvi Select Orations of repetition and illustration. The speaker must pass smoothly from one idea to another. The writer may really go further in a few bold leaps, by omitting transitions, and trusting to the reader's reflection to see the relations of the thought ; the speaker must travel all the road. But he travels it, generally, on the run. The plainness, the directness, the diff"useness of speech are not more char- acteristic than its eagerness, its swift, vigorous movement of thought. This comes from the excitement which the speaker always feels, which impels him to speak — an excitement, of course, which may or may not be worthy. As compared with writing, most talk — connected talk — has more will in it. The speaker is not content with telling you what his ideas are; he is bent on driving them in, making you agree with him and do as he wishes. And this eagerness gives not only energy, but a charm which is quite different from the more subtle charm of the quieter written language. Besides these essential qualities of spoken language, which are present in all talk, whether otherwise good or bad, there are two others which are almost always present, and which aid alike its intelligibility, its strength, and its attract- iveness. One of these is vividness, picturesqueness. The eagerness of speech leads generally to a vivid concreteness ; the words are full of pictures. The use of the concrete term, where writing might prefer the more general or the more abstract, may be seen in any of the orations in this book. The effort for picturesqueness leads also to a large use of figurative language, particularly of metaphor and personifi- cation ; sometimes, though less often, of extended similes and ajDostrophes. It should be noted, however, that picturesque- ness is not essential in spoken language. It may easily be overdone. It is most used in ornamental or vehement pass- ages, where the speaker gives the rein to his fancy or to his emotions ; and such passages, of course, are in most talk not Oratorical Style and Structure xvii the substance, but the exception. On serious occasions, un- due vividness of language may hindef real impressiveness. The speeches of Henry, Randolph, Phillips, Sumner, and Stevens, in this book, are undoubtedly weakened in this way. Finally, spoken language has usually a decided musical quality, a smooth, flowing sound. We find this, in some sense, in nearly all speeches, whether good or bad, affected or earnest, shallow or profound. It appears in the declama- tions of dramatic poetry, in the wonderful sermons of Jer- emy Taylor and Cardinal Newman, in the stately periods of Cicero and Burke, in the crisp rattle of Wendell Phillips or Macaulay, as well as in the glib flow of the street exhorter. In this book we find it in Lincoln, Calhoun, Jefferson Davis, no less truly than in Henry, Pinkney, Webster, and Grady. In our own day we find it alike in the utterances of President Eliot and of Mr. Bryan. The words seem to slide easily from the speaker's lips, and they fall agreeably upon the listener's ear; it is easy to listen to them, and easy also to read them. To read a printed oration, indeed, without al- lowing for this musical quality, is usually, though not al- ways, to miss a large part of its power upon the listener's attention and upon his agreeable recollection. Fortunately, good speeches generally force some realization of this rhythmical quality upon the interested reader. The direct- ness and eagerness of the style usually rouse in him sufiicient excitement to catch the pulse of the rhythm; he may not utter the words aloud as his eyes follow the printed lines, but he half-hears them, nevertheless. The student, however, who is examining orations more coolly, who is on his guard, indeed, against the very excitement which is the legitimate result of the speech, is in danger of missing this quality of most spoken language, and thus of wrongly estimating, rating too low or too high, these works which were planned for the ear of the listener. xviii Select Orations As to the style, then, we may say that all spoken language has these qualities of plainness, directness, difFuseness, and eagerness ; usually it has also vividness and musical flow. But there are many kinds of speeches, and each has peculiarities of its own. When we try to criticise the kinds represented in this book, we are at once involved in questions of structure. If we limit ourselves to connected formal dis- course, and if we disregard also special forms, such as the technical lecture and the sermon, which are not here repre- sented, we shall find useful the classification, still generally accepted, of Aristotle. Aristotle recognized three distinct kinds of speeches, dif- fering primarily according to the attitude of the listeners. One variety — we may mention it here first, though Aris- totle names it last — is what is now called the demonstrative or commemorative oration, the speech for a public occasion, such as an anniversary or a dinner, when there is no action contemplated, but when it seems proper for some one to "say something." In such speeches the listeners are not vitally concerned, but are merely more or less interested spectators. Two of the speeches in this collection are clearly demonstra- tive orations : Jefferson Davis's farewell to the United States Senate, and Wendell Phillips's address at the funeral of Garrison. Lincoln's address at Gettysburg and Grady's at New York are not, I think, on the whole to be classed as demonstrative orations. Another kind of speech, of marked characteristics, is the judicial or forensic oration, the argument in a court of law as to a matter of fact, as to whether a certain action is in accordance with the provisions of the law. Here the listen- ers — tlie judge, that is, or the members of the jury — are concerned, but not personally. Their attitude is, or should be, cool and dispassionate. The speech consists of a chain of exactly detailed evidence, all bearing upon one proposi- Oratorical Style and Structure xix tion, namely, that the action in question does, or does not, correspond with the specific provisions of the law. In this collection there are three forensic orations: the arguments of Otis and Adams in colonial times, and the plea of Judge Curtis in defense of President Johnson. Portions, moreover, of the speeches of Pinkney and Webster show markedly the forensic manner. The other speeches of this book, twenty-seven in all (if we omit Washington's farewell address and Johnson's mess- age, which are rather essays, open letters, than speeches), are what Aristotle calls deliberative orations — of the class which he places first, and considers most important of the three kinds of speeches. Deliberative orations are addresses before popular audiences upon matters of public policy — discussions as to which course of action, among a number of possible courses, is best for the community — whether a na- tion, a city, or (for that matter) a club or society — to take. Here the listeners are very closely concerned. Whether as citizens in a political meeting, or as representatives in a leg- islative body, their own interests will be affected more or less deeply by every act of j^roposed legislation. They will wish the speeches discussing such action to be definite and comprehensive, sensible and fair. They will wish them to be simple, also, and easy to follow. They do not want mere logic. Not only are they unable to be cool and dispassion- ate, as is the judge in a court of law, but they are aware of the inadequacy of logic in matters of conduct, and they dis- trust elaborately involved reasoning. Now, the twenty-seven speeches in this book which I have called deliberative ora- tions are very similar in their nature and form. In the fif- teen delivered in legislative assemblies; in the five addresses at political meetings (by Douglas, Lincoln, Seward, Ste- phens and Beecher) ; in the five official enunciations of gov- ernmental policy (the declaration of the colonies in 1775, XX Select Orations Jefferson's inaugural in 1801, Lincoln's two inaugurals and Gettysburg address) ; and no less in Grady's speech at the New England dinner and Booker Washington's at the At- lanta Exposition — always we find that the speaker is trying to shape public policy upon a matter of great practical im- portance. Some of these speeches partake also of the na- ture of demonstrative orations, or of forensic orations, but, whatever their individual peculiarities, they all belong to what Trollope has characterized as "that continuous process of lucid explanation which we now call debate." They have on the whole the qualities of debate — directness and sim- plicity of presentation, avoidance not only of rant, but of or- nament of all kinds, and (in most of them) a remarkable moderation of statement. That is the note of the debate, as opposed to the harangue ; the speaker recognizes that among the hearers, or possible hearers, may be antagonists, who may challenge incorrectness, and he warily avoids prov- ocation. The directness of presentation, both in details and in ar- rangement of matter, is very striking. In addition to the passages already quoted, consider the following: "The people then, sir, erected this government. They gave it a Constitution; and in that Constitution they have enumerated the powers which they bestow upon it. They have made it a limited government. They have defined its authority. They have restrained it to the exercise of such powers as are granted; and all others, they declare, are re- served to the States, or the people. But, sir, they have not stopped here. If they had, they would have accomplished but half their work. No definition can be so clear as to avoid possibility of doubt; no limitation so precise as to ex- clude all uncertainty. Who, then, shall construe this grant of the people ? Who shall interpret their will, where it may be supposed tliey have left it doubtful ? With whom do they repose this ultimate right of deciding on the powers of the Oratorical Style and Structure xxi government? Sir, they have settled all this in the fullest manner. They have left it with the government itself, in its appropriate branches." (P. 233.) This sounds as direct as part of a discussion in a city council. It is more clear, more terse and vigorous in phras- ing, perhaps, than most such talk, but it is not more showy, and it is just as business-like. Yet this is from what is uni- versally regarded as the greatest of American orations, Webster's Reply to Hayne. And the greater part of that oration, which, if given in full, would fill some ninety pages of this book, is equally plain. Most of these speeches, it may be remarked, were deliv- ered extempore, though by no means impromptu. The gen- eral line of reasoning was pretty carefully planned in ad- vance, but the language — of most of the speech, at least — and the detail treatment, were prompted by the occasion. In a few of them, of course — Sumner's, Seward's, the three inaugurals, and the Gettysburg speech — the language is evi- dently carefully prepared. In those of Pinkney, Schurz, Grady, the language may have been prepared in advance, but tlie fact does not show. The argumentative structure, moreover, in nearly all these deliberative orations, whether short or long, is simple, though orderly and logical. There is very little intricate reasoning. Hamilton's address on the Federal Constitution falls easily into three steps : ( 1 ) Our troubles came from the defects of the confederation; (2) objections to the plan pre- sented in the Constitution are not valid; (3) if we reject this plan we may never have so good a plan. Pinkney's, on the Missouri question, falls into two parts : ( 1 ) A brief repudia- tion of the notion that the Union is in danger; (2) an exam- ination, one by one, of the clauses of the Constitution on which the opposition have based their case. The speeches of xxii Select Orations Webster, Clay, and Curtis, long and detailed as they are, are far from intricate in their reasoning. These American deliberative orations, in fact, seem even more simple, in both phrasing and arrangement, than the deliberative orations of most other times and countries, with the exception of the England of Brougham, Cobden, and Bright. The reason is, perhaps, that the English and the American public men were alike addressing a responsible audience; not a crowd, swayed by impulse, but a body of persons who had not only power, but the prudence and practical sense bred of experience in self-government. This audience, in both England and America, was no less than the entire body of citizens. That explains the similarity of style between the speeches of this collection delivered be- fore legislatures, and those delivered elsewhere. The audi- ence addressed was the same, ultimately, in all cases. Pinkney, Webster, and Schurz, just as truly as Lincoln, Stephens, and Beecher, were addressing not only the com- parative few within sound of their voices, but the hundreds of thousands who would read their speeches in the news- papers. Regard for this larger audience led, no doubt, to an extra degree of simplicity, and of caution as well. The speaker, whether in Congress or on the public platform, must make himself understood, not only by his listeners, but by his readers. He must, moreover, not only avoid the crit- icism of those who could rise at once to challenge his state- ments, but he must satisfy the judgment of the multitude of readers, who could weigh his speech, compare it with those of his opponents, and discover incorrectness of fact and weakness or fallacy of argument. The simplicity of these orations can hardly be too strongly emphasized. These were no declamations, designed to exhibit a sonorous voice, or graceful gestures, or a ma- jestic "stage presence." The speakers were not trying to Oratorical Style and Structure xxiii astonish their audience or to be admired for their elocution. They were busy men, trying to get their hearers to think as they did about some matter of importance, and then to take a certain course of action. That they were men of excep- tional personal dignity, that constant practice in public discussion had given them exceptional distinctness and grace of utterance, are incidental matters. Unfortunately, in too many so-called classes in oratory the attention of student and teacher has been directed mainly toward these inci- dentals. These serious discussions of important matters, the greater part of which is simple talk, uttered earnestly but quietly, have been made ridiculous by being regarded as vocal fireworks. To a large proportion of Americans of to- day, I fear, American political orations of the past are rep- resented mainly by Patrick Henry's "liberty or death" and the peroration of Webster's reply to Hayne, which have been recited, with appropriate "gestures," by generations of schoolboys who have had but faint notion of their mean- ing — who regard them, indeed, much as they regard "Spartacus to the Gladiators." I once knew a college fresh- man, a prize-winner at declamation contests, who contrived for himself a contest oration by piecing together the perora- tion of the seventh of March speech and the peroration of the reply to Hayne. Neither passage, alone, was quite long enough, he said, but the two together made a pretty fine speech ! It would be well if all schoolboys could know that Henry's speech was almost as exceptional then as it would be to-day, and that the version of it which we have was written by his biographers; that Webster had been worked up to that tremendous outburst of vehement fancy by sev- eral hours of intense and serious thinking aloud before an audience that was almost as interested and almost as capable of severe thought as himself. The moderation of these speeches is almost as notable as xxiv Select Orations their simplicity. The great men, on the great occasions, talked on the whole moderately, in spite of their strong feeling. Perhaps the most striking example is Henry Clay's great speech of 1850, — in one of the omitted passages of which, by the way, he rebukes the large and fashionable audience of the second day, telling them sharply that the occasion is too momentous to be treated as a show. This long speech, which would fill, altogether, eighty pages of this book, dealt with a subject on which he felt passionatel3% and, like nearly all the longer speeches of this collection, it is manifestly extempore in form. Yet it is not more remark- able for the intense feeling with which he appeals to one side after another, to be considerate and fair, than for the tact and moderation with which he handles his vast and compli- cated subject. Lincoln's answer to Douglas, at Ottawa — indeed, all the speeches from Lincoln in this book — will show the same quality in high degree. Beecher at Liverpool, Schurz on the amnesty bill, Booker Washington at Atlanta, furnish other examples of the instinctive moderation of the good deliberative oration, in which the speaker wisely refrains from Aveakening his case by over-statement. This quality of these deliberative orations may be realized better by comparing them with the productions of such a man as Wendell Phillips, whose work was that of an agi- tator, who could stir interest in public questions, but who could give little practical help toward their settlement. Even in his case, it may be remarked, the manner of utter- ance was quiet enough ; George William Curtis says that his delivery was merely that of "a gentleman conversing." But the language, the arrangement, the ideas, showed neither simplicity nor moderation; it was a torrent of epigram, antithesis, metaphor, poured from an extraordinarily active mind, and as inaccurate as it was striking. Phillips did not make good deliberative orations; he stirred, but he did not Oratorical Style and Structure xxv convince. It is significant to run over the list of speakers in this collection who show most of Phillips's vividness and vehemence — Henry, Randolph, Sumner, Douglas, Seward, Stevens — and consider how doubtful was their contribution to the real development of the country. The really good deliberative oration sought not to dazzle as a display, nor to excite the passions of its hearers, but to win the assent of plain-thinking, fair-minded people. The importance of such deliberative orations, throughout American history, has been very great. For many years they furnished the chief instruction on political subjects of the great mass of men, who studied them privately, or heard them read aloud, in thousands of households and village stores. To a considerable degree they filled the place of the newspaper editorials of to-day, and of the magazine articles on political and economic topics as well. A large number of them, of course, were not good, were lacking in the qualities which gave those here printed their pre-emi- nence. But this book by no means contains all the good speeches of this sort. Others might be given, nearly if not quite as meritorious and as influential, from Ames, Webster, Calhoun, Clay, Sumner, Lincoln, Stephens, Schurz, as well as from several men not here represented. In estimating them the reader of to-day must remember that we cannot judge altogether by their immediate effect upon their hearers, as we can with forensic orations. In a court of law, a man convinces judge or jury that a certain thing is the fact, and the verdict is immediate. These deliberative orations of nineteenth century America, however, dealing with princi- ples of public policy, rarely changed the votes of the hear- ers, nor did the speaker, probably, expect such immediate result. The speech was addressed to the mind of the public. The immediate vote of the Senate, as in the case of Schurz and the amnesty bill, or of the people of a State, as with xxvi Select Orations Lincoln in 1858, might go against the speaker, yet his views, when pondered and understood by the people, might ulti- mately win. If, now, these speeches were mainly directed at readers, and their greatest influence was after all upon readers, it is pertinent to ask: Why need they have been spoken at all? What do they gain from the oral formulation? The oral formulation at once helped the speaker to ex- press himself fitly, and helped the reader to understand and grasp and be affected by the thought. It is manifest, in the first place, that it was easier for a public man to talk — it took less time for preparation than writing would have done. It is manifest, also, that usually the public had some notion of the speaker's personality — of his appearance and manner of delivery. Printed speeches, which they knew to have been delivered, in which they could imagine the speaker as talking to them directly, would be more impressive than the same matter in the form of book or essay. But there are more important reasons. The qualities of the language of speech — plainness, directness, difFuseness, eagerness, and vividness and musical flow — are influential with inexpert readers; and these qualities, it is safe to say, would not have appeared, in nearly so great a degree, if these public men had expressed their views in written form — in books, pamphlets, magazine or newspaper articles. The language of speeches, in English, has for ages kept closer to the language of daily life than has the language of written prose. The standard language of written prose has had great changes of fashion during the last tliree hun- dred years, from Hooker to Milton and Browne, to Dryden, Addison, Johnson, Coleridge, Macaulay, Pater, But the language of speeches has remained much the same. Good- rich's Select British Eloquence will show this continuity of the language of speeches in England, from the seventeenth Oratorical Style and Structure xxvii century down. In this book ^ve may notice the similarity, in the details of language, between the law speeches of Otis and Adams, in 1760 and 1770, and that of Judge Curtis, in 1868; and even between Hamilton's speech, in 1788, and Booker Washington's, in 1895. The language of written prose, moreover, has been particularly lacking in plainness, directness, and eagerness ; whatever its compensating merits, it has been apt to be either obscure and heavy, or affected. To make our comparison a little more definite: We may be inclined to think that old orations are difficult reading, but I question whether the difficulty is not owing mainly to our lack of interest in the subject-matter; whether, so far as the style goes, old orations are not more interesting, more easily understood, at least, than old written prose dealing with similarly forgotten matter. Examination of a volume of the North American Review for 1830, or thereabouts, will show how heavy was the style of professional men of letters, of even second-rate literary gifts ; only a few articles are at all easy reading to-day. The men who have mastered the style of English written prose, so as habitually to write with plain- ness, directness, liveliness, have been few, in either America or England, and they have been men of high culture or of striking literary gifts, usually professional writers. Now, these American public men were not persons of exceptional culture or of remarkable literary talent, aside from their gift of talk; they were mostly practical men, engrossed in affairs. Their views of public questions, if given in writing instead of talk, would probably, in most cases, have taken a form much less intelligible and impressive to the vast body of readers. But the ultimate j ustification for the oral form lies in the stimulus to the speakers from the living presence of some part, at least, of the public they wished to convince. Public speaking, when, as with most of the speeches here recorded, xxviii Select Orations it is largely extempore, is much like conversation. The speaker feels the response of the listeners. What he has to say comes more freely, more pointedly, than when he has not this response. And the stimulus affects not the style onh', but the structure. The response of the audience, favor- able or hostile, puzzled or satisfied, tells the speaker what points to stress, what is obscure, what needs additional illustration, and when he has said enough. It has been said that these orations on public questions filled in part the place of books and magazine articles for the great body of citizens. One may wonder whether they are not on the whole much more adequate and more correct, in both style and arrangement, than magazine articles or pamphlets would have been. It is unlikely that such elaborate discus- sions of complicated matters as the speeches of Ames, Pink- ney, Webster, Clay, or Schurz, in this book, could have been made at once so comprehensive, and so spirited and easy in movement, without the support and stimulus of a body of listeners. After all, however, the merit of these speeches, long and short alike, comes mainly from the mood of both audience (or readers) and speakers. It was a practical, serious mood, of attention to business. The speakers were not talking because they wanted to, but because they had to — because there was something of importance to be done, or prevented, and they must make this plain to their fellow-citizens. The audience, the readers, were concerned in the settlement of the same questions, and were seriously attentive to the ideas presented to them. The speakers, I have said, were chiefly men of affairs, not of remarkable culture, not usually of remarkable intellectual force, aside from their influence upon public business. A few of the speeches here given seem untrustworthy — erratic, fanatical, or disingenuous; but not one is merely the speech of a demagogue, not even that of Oratorical Style and Structure xxix Douglas in his debate with Lincoln, which perhaps comes nearest. Most of these men, in fact, were conspicuous chiefly for their good sense, their judgment. Nearly all of them were for many years in the public service, constantly directing legislative or administrative action, and talking repeatedly in explanation and defense of their conduct. The speeches given here are mostly those which they uttered on what chanced to be the most important matter with which they had to deal. It is pleasant to reflect that the great political speeches of American history have been made by such men. But it is wholesome for our American pride to remember that not all American speeches, which have been widely popular as speeches, are good. American demonstrative orations, for example, are generally inferior in artistic quality to those here printed. If we pass over the multitude of after-dinner speeches. Fourth of July and Decoration Day speeches, commencement addresses by educators and others, memorial speeches in Congress, lecture bureau ora- tions; if we compare the demonstrative orations by the speakers most widely renowned, some of them by men worthily represented in this book — the speeches of Robert G. IngersoU, George William Curtis, Wendell Phillips, Ed- ward Everett, Henry Clay, even Webster's Bunker Hill addresses — one must feel, I think, how much tawdry orna- ment there is in them, how inferior they are, in thought and manner, to our best deliberative orations. American audi- ences and speakers alike seem to have had little purely esthetic appreciation of oratory. Whatever may have been the case in other countries and times, it seems hardly too much to say that in America good speeches have been pro- duced only under the pressure of necessity, when the speaker has been aiming at a definite result in action. It is to be regretted that the limits of space do not permit XXX Select Orations of giving all these orations entire. In studying the strategy of a speech, the orator's use of the possibilities of the occa- sion, one finds that even the little things, the transitions from one sub-point to another, are interesting. In most cases, however, the omissions here are brief and really unimpor- tant, consisting usually of repetition and amplification of ideas fully indicated here. The cases where serious cuts have had to be made are in the speeches of Adams and Pinkney, which would fill, each, nearly forty pages of this book, and in those of Webster, Clay, Sumner, and Curtis, the shortest of which would fill seventy-five pages of this book, and occupied several hours in delivery. Most of the speeches, it will be noticed, range between ten and thirty pages of this size, and occupied from one to two hours in the delivery. It may be worth noting, moreover, that while those of the Revolutionary period 'were chiefly delivered in the legislatures and conventions of the various Colonies and States, and those of the first period of national life in Congress, most of the specimens here given of the important public utterances of the last fifty years or so were spoken on the public platform. John M. Clapp. Lake Fobest, III., July 20, 1909. SELECT ORATIONS The Revolution That there were two sides to the controversy between the colonies and the mother country is now generally recog- nized, although we as Americans still have difficulty in do- ing full justice to the arguments in behalf of Great Britain. Mr. Lecky, in his able and dispassionate review of these diiferences, says: "England was originally quite right in her contention that it was the duty of the colonists to con- tribute something to the support of the army which de- fended the unity of the Empire. She was quite right in her belief that in some of the colonial constitutions the executive was far too feeble^ that the line which divided liberty from anarchy was often passed, and that the result was pro- foundly and permanently injurious to the American char- acter. She was also, I think, quite right in ascribing a great part of the resistance of America to the disposition, so com- mon and so natural in dependencies, to shrink as much as possible from any expense that could possibly be thrown on the mother country, and in forming a very low estimate of those ambitious lawyers, newspaper writers, preachers, and pamphleteers who, in New England at least, were la- boring with untiring assiduity to win popular applause by sowing dissension between England and her colonies. But the Americans were only too well justified in asserting that the suppression of several of their industries and the monopoly by England of some of the chief branches of 2 Select Orations their trade, if they did not benefit the mother country, at least imposed sacrifices on her colonies fully equivalent to a considerable tax. They were also quite justified in con- tending that the power of taxation was essential to the im- portance of their Assemblies, and that an extreme jealousy of any encroachment on this prerogative was in perfect ac- cordance with the traditions of English liberty. They had before their eyes the hereditary revenue, the scandalous pension list, the monstrous abuses of patronage, in Ireland, and they were quite resolved not to suffer similar abuses in America. The judges only held their seats during the royal pleasure. Ministerial patronage in the colonies, as else- where, was often grossly corrupt, and in the eyes of the colonists the annual grant was the one efficient control upon maladministration." {History of England in the Eighteenth Century, IV, p. 111.) Moreover, important differences existed between the views of the English constitution which prevailed at home and in the colonies. The English government held the present-day view, that Parliament possesses an absolute legal supremacy over all British subjects; that throughout the whole of the Empire its statutes are law; and that no person or court any- where has power to nullify those statutes on the ground of unconstitutionality or otherwise. (Dicey, Law of the Constitution, ch. i.) The members of the House of Com- mons were not regarded as local representatives, but as in- dividually and collectively representing every person owing allegiance to the king — every blade of grass, every clod of earth. Consequently, the colonies were thouglit to be rep- resented quite as much as the great manufacturing towns of Leeds, Birmingham, and the like, which until 1832 elected no separate representatives to Parliament. The American colonists, on the other hand, held to an The Revolution 3 older idea, which had been advanced in the controversy be- tween Crown and Parliament in the seventeenth century and then laid aside, namely, that there were certain funda- mental laws which even Parliament could not alter; and this idea was strengthened by the new democratic doc- trines embodied in the writings of Locke, Rousseau, and others, with their emphasis on a "social compact" as the basis of all government. The colonists also regarded representation as necessarily local, not general; and they could not see how they were represented by persons in whose election they had no right of participation. It may freely be conceded that legally the British minis- ters were right in their interpretation of the constitution, and the colonists wrong; but this by no means invalidates the justice of the American claims from a political and eco- nomic standpoint. It is noteworthy that although the su- premacy of Parliament throughout the British Empire is now miiversally admitted, no attempt is made to assert that supremacy in the taxing of any of the self-governing colo- nies. The oratorical material from which to choose in illus- trating the Revolution is limited. Many important speeches were unreported, and of others we have only fragmentary accounts, preserved by tradition. Washington was a man of action, not a speaker. Jefferson was an indifferent orator, and preferred to express himself with the pen. And Samuel Adams, in spite of the flood of newspaper articles which he wrote, and resolutions and other state papers which he inspired, seems seldom to have attempted a speech of any length: the oration on American independ- ence, published in his name in London, in 1776, and now often met with in oratorical reprints, has been shown by his biographer to be a forgery, (Wells, Life of Samuel Adams, II, pp. 439-40.) Nevertheless, there exists a sup- 4 Select Orations ply of valuable and interesting material sufficient for our purpose. James Otis's speech on the Writs of Assistance (176l) is here presented partly because of the great influence which it exerted at tlie time, and partly to show something of the legal views which underlay the American resistance. John Adams's defense of the soldiers concerned in the Bos- ton Massacre (1770) is valuable for its recital of the facts of that much misrepresented affair; and also for its evi- dence of the existence on the American side both of a mob spirit which might disgrace their cause by its excesses, and of a sober, sane, conservative leadership which dared risk unpopularity by opposing popular injustice. Patrick Henry's address on the necessity of arming the colony of Virginia (1775) is essential to any collection such as this, both because of the fiery patriotism which it reveals, and the flaming eloquence of its language. Following this comes the address, composed by John Dickinson and issued by Congress (1775), to show the reasons for the American taking up of arms. Finally, the section closes with the brief speech of Dr. Witherspoon (1776) on the necessity of confederation among the colonies — an address which brings us to the greatest achievement of the Revolutionary period next to independence itself, namely the formation of the Articles of Confederation, and which forms a good point of departure for the study of the next section, on the for- mation of the Federal Constitution. The following are among the most valuable books for this period: Trevelyan's American Revolution (3 vols.); Fiske's American Revolution (2 vols.) ; Hildreth's History of the United States, vol. II-III; Bancroft's History of the United States, vol. VI. Woodburn's Leahy's American Revolution, and Van Tyne's American Revolution, are the best short histories of the jDeriod. 1. JAMES OTIS, OF Massachusetts.— ON WRITS OF ASSISTANCE (Delivered in Boston, February, 1761.) The "navigation laws" of England, though by no means so unfavorable to the colonies as is often supposed, were nevertheless a prolific source of quarrel between the mother country and her dependencies, and for long periods were systematically evaded by smuggling. During the French and Indian War, New England merchants supplied French fleets, French garrisons, and French colonies with provisions ; and it was this disloyal traffic which determined the British government to attempt a more rigorous enforce- ment of the laws. Accordingly writs of assistance were issued in Massachusetts, following the practice of the Eng- lish exchequer, which authorized search for smuggled goods wherever and whenever the officers pleased. The question of the legality of these writs was argued in the negative before the Superior Court of Massachusetts by James Otis, Jr., "the most able, manly, and commanding character of his age at the [Boston] bar_," in a notable speech of five hours' length. John Adams in later years said: "Otis was a flame of fire; with a promptitude of classical allusions, a depth of research, a rapid summary of historical events and dates, a profusion of legal authori- ties, a prophetic glance of his eyes into futurity, and a rapid torrent of impetuous eloquence, he hurried away all Jamks Otis, Jr. Born in Massachusetts, 1725; f2:raduated from Harvard Col- lege. 1713; began the practice of law, 1718; first elected to the Massachusetts legislature. 1761 : delegate to the "Stamp Act Congress," 1765; wounded in pri- vate quarrel and his reason shattered, 1769; died 1783. 6 James Otis before him. American independence was then and there born. . . . Every man of an immense crowded au- dience appeared to me to go away as I did, ready to take arms against Writs of Assistance." On the question of the legality of these writs, Otis seems to have been in the wrong. The view which he advanced that "an Act [of Parliament] against the constitution is void," was one that had been held in England by the op- ponents of Charles I. in the seventeenth century; but by 1761 this position was generally abandoned. To-day Par- liament is recognized as legally supreme throughout the British Empire, and its statutes (unlike those of the Amer- ican Congress and Legislatures) cannot be set aside as invalid on the ground of any alleged "unconstitutionality." The report of Otis's speech which has come down to us is but a bare summary, and contains little of the glowing eloquence which all accoimts attribute to the speech itself. This report was written out some time later by John Adams, then a young lawyer, from the fragmentary notes which he took at the time. (John Adams, Works, II, pp. 124, 521-525.) The version of the speech here given differs in some essential particulars from the version usually printed. [James Otis, before the Massachusetts Superior Court, at Boston, in February, 1761.] MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HoNORs : I was desired by one of the Court to look into the books, and consider the question now before them concerning Writs of Assistance. I have accordingly considered it, and now ap- pear not only in obedience to your order but likewise in behalf of the inhabitants of this town, who have presented another petition, and out of regard to the liberties of the subject. And I take this opportunity to declare, that whether under a fee or not, (for in such a cause as this I Writs of Assistance 7 despise a fee,) I will to my dying day oppose, with all the powers and faculties God has given me, all such instruments of slavery on the one hand, and villainy on the other, as this writ of assistance is. It appears to me the worst instrument of arbitrary power, the most destructive of English liberty and the funda- mental principles of law, that ever was found in an Eng- lish law book. I must therefore beg your honors' patience and attention to the whole range of an, argument that may perhaps appear uncommon in many things, as well as to points of learning that are more remote and unusual; that the whole tendency of my design may the more easily be perceived, the conclusions better descend, and the force of them be better felt. I shall not think much of my pains in this cause, as I engaged in it from principle. I was solicited to argue this cause as Advocate General; and be- cause I would not, I have been charged with desertion from my office. To this charge I can give a very sufficient an- swer. I renounced that office, and I argue this cause from the same principle; and I argue it with the greater pleas- ure, as it is in favor of British liberty, at a time when we hear the greatest monarch upon earth declaring from his throne that he "glories in the name of Briton", and that the privileges of his people are dearer to him than the most valuable prerogatives of his crown; and as it is in opposi- tion to a kind of power, the exercise of which in former periods of history cost one King of England [Charles I.] his head, and another [James II.] his throne. I have taken more pains in this cause than I ever will take again, although my engaging in this and another popular cause has raised much resentment. But I think I can sincerely declare that I cheerfully submit myself to every odious name for conscience's sake; and from my soul I despise all those whose guilt, malice, or folly has made them my foes. Let the consequences be what they will, I am determined to proceed. The only principles of public con- duct, that are worthy of a gentleman or a man, are to 8 James Otis sacrifice estate, ease, health, and applause, and even life, to the sacred calls of his country. Tliese manly sentiments, in private life, make the good citizen; in public life, the patriot and the hero. I do not say, that when brought to the test, I shall be invincible. I pray God I may never be brought to the melancholy trial, but if ever I should, it will be then known how far I can reduce to practice jDrin- ciples ^vliich I knoAV to be founded in truth. In the mean- time I will proceed to the subject of this writ. In the first place, may it please your honors, I will ad- mit that writs of one kind may be legal, — that is, special writs directed to special officers and to search certain houses, etc., sjDecially set forth in the writ, may be granted by the Court of Exchequer at home upon oath, made be- fore the Lord Treasurer by the person who asks it, that he suspects such goods to be concealed in tliose very places he desires to search. The act of 11 [th year of] Charles II., which Mr. Gridley [counsel for the petitioner] men- tions, proves this. And in this light the writ appears like a warrant from a Justice of the Peace to search for stolen goods. Your honors will find in the old books concerning the office of a Justice of the Peace precedents of general warrants to search suspected houses. But in more modern books you will find only special warrants to search such and such houses, specially named, in which the complain- ant has before sworn that he suspects his goods are con- cealed; and will find it adjudged, that special warrants only are legal. In the same manner I rely on it, that the writ prayed for in tliis petition, being general, is illegal. It is a power that place? the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer. I say I admit that special writs of assistance, to search special places, may be granted to certain persons on oath; but I deny that the writ now prayed for can be granted — for I beg leave to make some observations on the writ itself, before I proceed to other acts of Parliament. In the first place, the writ is universal, being directed "to all and singular justices, Writs of Assistance 9 sheriffs^ constables, and all other officers and subjects;" so that, in short, it is directed to every subject in the king's dominions. Every one with this writ may be a tyrant; if this commission be legal, a tyrant in a legal manner, also, may control, imjDrison, or murder any one within the realm. In the next place, it is perpetual; there is no return. A man is accountable to no person for his doings. Every man may reign secure in his petty tyranny, and spread terror and desolation around him, until the trumjD of the arch- angel shall excite different emotions in his soul. In the third place, a person with this writ, in the daytime, may enter all houses, shops, etc., at will, and command all to assist him. Fourthly, by this writ, not only deputies, etc., but even their menial servants, are allowed to lord it over us. Wliat is this but to have the curse of Canaan with a witness on us ; to be the servant of servants, the most des- picable of God's creation.^ Now, one of the most essential branches of English liberty is the freedom of one's house. A man's house is his castle; and whilst he is quiet, he is as well guarded as a prince in his castle. This writ, if it should be declared legal, would totally annihilate this privi- lege. Custom-house officers may enter our houses when they please; we are commanded to permit their entry. Their menial servants may enter, may break locks, bars, and everything in their way: and whether they break through malice or revenge, no man, no court can inquire. Bare suspicion without oath is sufficient. . . . To show another absurdity in this writ, if it should be ertablished, I insist upon it every person, by the lith Charles II., has this power as well as the custom-house officers. The words are, "it shall be lawful for any person or persons authorized," etc. What a scene does this open ! Every man prompted by revenge, ill-humor, or wantonness to inspect the inside of his neighbor's house, may get a writ of assistance. Others will ask it from self-defense; one arbitrary exertion will provoke another, until society be involved in tumult and in blood. lo James Otis Again, these writs are not returned. Writs in their na- ture are temporary things; but these live forever; no one can be called to account. Thus reason and the constitu- tion are both against this writ. Let us see what authority there is for it. Not more than one instance can be found of it in all our law books; and that was in the zenith of arbitrary power, namely, in the reign of Charles II., when Star-Chamber powers were pushed to extremity by some ignorant clerk of the Ex- chequer. But had this writ been in any book whatever, it would have been illegal. All precedents are under the control of the principles of law. Lord Talbot says it is better to observe these than any precedents, though in the House of Lords, the last resort of the subject. No acts of Parliament can establish such a writ; though it should be made in the very words of the petition, it would be void. An act against the constitution is void. (See Viner.) [Charles Viner was the author of A General Abridgement of Lam and Equity, in 23 vols., published in England, 1742-53.] But these prove no more than what I before observed, that special writs may be granted on oath and probable suspicion. The Act of 7 and 8 William III., that the officers of the Plantations shall have the same powers, etc., is confined to this sense, that an officer should sliow probable ground, should take his oath to it, should do this before a magistrate, and that such a magis- trate, if he thinks proper, should issue a special warrant to a constable to search the places. That of 6 Anne can prove no more. 2. JOHN ADAMS, of Massachusetts.— ON THE BOS- TON MASSACRE (Delivered at Boston, November, 1770.) The "Boston Massacre" is a good illustration of the increased tension of feeling between the colonists and the representatives of the English government vphich was produced by ten j^ears of friction and agitation. After many minor affrays, a picket guard from the two regi- ments which had been stationed at Boston since 1768, were provoked (on March 5, 1770) into firing upon a crowd, killing several persons and wounding others. The officer and soldiers concerned were indicted and tried for murder. John Adams and Josiah Quincy, braving public opinion, undertook the defense of the accused. Quincy opened for the defense in a speech of much power and eloquence ; Adams, in closing, confined himself to "a clear recapitulation of the common law in cases of homicide." The accused were all acquitted except two, who were con- victed of manslaughter and lightly punished. The interest felt in the trial was so great that the then difficult task of a stenographic report of it was attempted. The notes, however, proved so imperfect that Adams struck out the greater part of the rejjort of his speech, and the John Adams. Born in Massachusetts, 1735; graduated from Harvard Col- lege, 1755; began to practice !aw, 1758; argued against the Stamp Act before the Massachusetts Supreme Court, 1765; elected to the legislature, 1770; in Conti- nental Congress, 1774, 1775, 1776; in American diplomatic service abroad, 1778-79, 1779-88; Vice President, 1789-97; President, 1797-1801; died, 1826. 11 12 John Adams published volume tlius contains only the outline of what he said. The Marquis di Beccaria, mentioned in the begin- ning of the oration^ was an Italian writer who published a celebrated treatise On Crimes and Punishments, of which an English translation appeared two years before this trial. Adams's telling use of the passage quoted in his simple exordium produced, we are told, "an electrical ef- fect upon the immense and excited auditory." (Adams, Works, II, p. 238.) Wemms, Killroy, and Montgomery, mentioned in the extracts below, were among the soldiers in- dicted ; Gray, Attucks, and Carr were numbered among their victims. The documents and speeches may be most con- veniently found in Kidder's History of the Boston Massacre (Albany, 1870). [John Adams, in the old State House, at Boston, in November, 1770.] MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HoNORS, AND YOU, GeNTLEMEN OF THE Jury: I am for the prisoners at the bar, and shall apologize for it only in the words of the Marquis Beccaria: "If I can but be the instrument of preserving one life, his blessings and tears of transport shall be a sufficient consolation to me for the contempt of all mankind." As the prisoners stand before you for their lives, it may be proper to recollect with what temper the law requires we should proceed to this trial. The form of proceeding at their arraignment has discovered that the spirit of the law ujion such occasions is conformable to humanity, to common sense and feeling; that it is all benignity and candor. And the trial commences with the prayer of tlie court, expressed by the clerk, to the Supreme Judge of judges, empires, and worlds, "God send you a good deliverance." We find, in the rules laid down by the greatest English judges, who have been the brightest of mankind, [that] we are to look upon it as more beneficial that many guilty per- Boston Massacre 13 sons should escape unpunished than one innocent person should suffer. The reason is, because it is of more impor- tance to the community that innocence should be protected than it is that guilt should be punished; for guilt and crimes are so frequent in the world that all of them can- not be punished; and many times they happen in such a manner that it is not of much consequence to the public whether they are punished or not. But when innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim. It is immaterial to me whether I behave well or ill, for virtue itself is no security. And if such a sentiment as this should take place in the mind of the subject, there would be an end to all security what- soever. ... I shall take it for granted, as a first principle, that the eight prisoners at the bar had better be all acquitted, though Ave should admit them all to be guilty, than that any one of them should, by your verdict, be found guilty, being innocent. I shall now consider the several divisions of law, under which the evidence will arrange itself. The action now before you is homicide; that is, the kill- ing of one man by another. The law calls it homicide; but it is not criminal in all cases for one man to slay an- other. Had the prisoners been on the Plains of Abraham [at Quebec] and slain an hundred Frenchmen apiece, the English law would have considered it as a commendable action, virtuous and praiseworthy ; so that every instance of killing a man is not a crime in the eye of the law. There are many other instances which I cannot enumerate — an officer that executes a person under sentence of death, etc. So that, gentlemen, every instance of one man's killing an- other is not a crime, much less a crime to be punished with death. But to descend to some more particulars. The law divides homicide into three branches: the first is justifiable, the second excusable, and the third felonious. Felonious homicide is subdivided into two branches: the first is murder, which is killing with malice aforethought; 14 John Adams the second is manslaughter, which is killing a man on a sudden provocation. Here, gentlemen, are four sorts of homicide; and you are to consider whether all the evidence amounts to the first, second, third, or fourth of these heads. The fact was the slaying five unhapjDy persons that night. You are to consider whether it was justifiable, excusable, or felonious; and if felonious, whether it was murder or manslaughter. One of these four it must be. You need not divide your attention to any more particulars. . . . The question is, are you satisfied the people made the attack in order to kill the soldiers? If you are satisfied that the people, whoever they were, made that assault with a design to kill or maim the soldiers, this was such an as- sault as will justify the soldiers killing in their own de- fense. Further, it seems to me, we may make another question, whether you are satisfied that their real intention was to kill or maim, or not? If any reasonable man, in the situation of one of these soldiers, would have had rea- son to believe, in the time of it, that the people came with an intention to kill him, whether you have this satisfaction now or not in your own minds, they were justifiable, at least excusable, in firing. You and I may be suspicious that the people who made this assault on the soldiers did it to put them to flight, on purpose that they might go ex- ulting about the town afterwards in triumph; but this will not do. You must place j^oursclves in the situation of Wemms and Kilroy — consider yourselves as knowing that the prejudices of the world about j^ou were against you — that the people about you thought you came to dragoon them into obedience to statutes, instructions, mandates, and edicts, which they thoroughly detested — that many of these people were thoughtless and inconsiderate, old and young, sailors and landsmen, negroes and mulattoes — that they, the soldiers, had no friends about them, the rest were in opposition to them; with all the bells ringing to call the town together to assist the people in King street, for they knew by that time that there was no fire; the people shout- Boston Massacre 15 ing, huzzaing, and making the "mob-whistle/' as they call it, which, when a boy makes it in the street, is no formi- dable thing, but when made by a multitude, is a most hide- ous shriek, almost as terrible as an Indian yell; the people crying, "Kill them ! kill them ! Knock them over !" — heav- ing snowballs, oyster-shells, clubs, white birch sticks three inches and a half diameter ;— -consider yourselves in this situation, and then judge whether a reasonable man in the soldiers' situation would not have concluded they were go- ing to kill him. I believe, if I was to reverse the scene, I should bring it home to our own bosoms. Suppose Colonel Marshall, when he came out of his own door, and saw these grenadiers coming down, with swords, etc., had thought it proper to have appointed a military watch ; suppose he had assembled Gray and Attucks that were killed, or any other person in town, and planted them in that station as a military watch, and there had come from Murray's bar- racks thirty or forty soldiers, with no other arms than snowballs, cakes of ice, oyster-shells, cinders, and clubs, and attacked this military watch in this manner, what do you suppose would have been the feelings and reasonings of any of our householders .'' I confess I believe they would not have borne one half of what the witnesses have sworn the soldiers bore, till they had shot down as many as were necessary to intimidate and disperse the rest. Because the law does not oblige us to bear insults to the danger of our lives, to stand still with such a number of people around us, throwing such things at us, and threatening our lives, until we are disabled to defend ourselves. . . . . . . In the case before you, I suppose you will be satisfied when you come to examine the witnesses and com- pare it with the rules of the common law, abstracted from all mutiny acts and articles of war, that these soldiers were in such a situation that they could not help themselves. People were coming from Royal Exchange lane, and other parts of the town, with clubs and cord-wood sticks ; the soldiers were planted by the wall of the Custom House; i6 John Adams they could not retreat; they were surrounded on all sides, for there were people behind them as well as before them; there were a number of people in Royal Exchange lane; the soldiers were so near to the Custom House that they could not retreat, unless they had gone into the brick wall of it. I shall show you presently that all the party concerned in tliis unlawful design were guilty of what any one of them did; if anybody threw a snowball, it was the act of the whole party; if any struck with a club or threw a club, and the club had killed anybody, the whole party would have been guilty of murder in law. I will not at present look for any more authori- ties in the point of self-defense; you will be able to judge from these how far the law goes in justifying or excusing any person in defense of himself, or taking away the life of another who threatens him in life or limb. The next point is this : that in case of an unlawful assembly, all and every one of the assembly is guilty of all and every unlaw- ful act committed by any one of that assembly in prosecu- tion of the unlawful design they set out upon. Rules of law should be universally known, whatever ef- fect they may have on politics; they are rules of common law, the law of the land; and it is certainly true, that wherever there is an unlawful assembly, let it consist of many persons or a few, every man in it is guilty of every unlawful act committed by any one of tlie whole party, be they more or be they less, in pursuance of their unlawful design. This is the policy of the law; to discourage and prevent riots, insurrections, turbulence, and tumults. In the continual vicissitudes of human things, amidst the shocks of fortune and the whirls of passion that take place at certain critical seasons, even in the mildest government, the people are liable to run into riots and tumults. There are Church-quakes and State-quakes in the moral and po- litical world, as well as earthquakes, storms, and tempests in the physical. Thus much, however, must be said in fa- vor of the people and of human nature, that it is a gen- Boston Massacre 17 eral, if not universal truth, that the aptitude of the people to mutinies, seditions, tumults^ and insurrections is in di- rect proportion to the despotism of the government. In governments completely despotic, i.e. where the will of one man is the only law, this disposition is most prevalent. In aristocracies next; in mixed monarchies, less than either of the former; in complete republics the least of all. And under tlie same form of government, as in a limited mon- archy for example, the virtue and wisdom of the adminis- trations may generally be measured by the peace and order that are seen among the people. However this may be, such is the imperfection of all things in this world that no form of government, and perhaps no virtue or wisdom in the administration, can at all times avoid riots and disor- ders among the people. Now, it is from this difficulty that the policy of the law has framed such strong discouragements to secure the peo- ple against tumults; because, when they once begin, there is danger of their running to such excesses as will over- turn the whole system of government. Now if the party at Dock Square came with an intention only to beat the soldiers and began the affray with them, and any of them had been accidentally killed, it would have been murder, because it was an unlawful design they came upon. If but one does it, they are all considered in the eye of the law to be guilty ; if any one gives the mortal stroke, they are all principal here, therefore there is a re- versal of the scene. If you are satisfied that these sol- diers were there on a lawful design, and it should be proved any of them shot without provocation, and killed anybody, he only is answerable for it. . . . Thus far I have proceeded, and I believe it will not be hereafter disputed by anybody, that this law ought to be known to every one who has any disposition to be concerned in an unlawful assembly: whatever mischief happens in the prosecution of the design they set out upon, all are answerable for it. It is necessary we should consider the 2 i8 John Adams definitions of some other crimes as well as murder; some- times one crime gives occasion to another. An assault is sometimes the occasion of manslaughter, sometimes of ex- cusable homicide. It is necessary to consider what is a riot. ... I shall give you the definition of it. "Where- soever more than three persons use force or violence, for the accomplishment of any design whatever^ all concerned are rioters." Were there not more than three persons in Dock Square? Did they not agree to go to King street, and attack the main guard? Where, then, is the reason for hesitation at calling it a riot? If we cannot speak the law as it is, where is our liberty? And this is law^ that wherever more than three persons are gathered together to accomplish anything with force, it is a riot. If we strip ourselves free from all military laws, Mutiny Acts, Articles of War, and soldiers' oaths, and consider these prisoners as neighbors ; if any of their neighbors were at- tacked in King street they had a right to collect together to suppress this riot and combination. . . . Now, suppose you should have a jealousy in your minds that the people who made this attack upon the sentry had nothing in their intention more than to take him off his post, and that was threatened by some. Suppose they intended to go a little further, and tar and feather him, or to "ride" him (as the phrase is in Hudibras"^), he would have had a good right to have stood upon his defense — the defense of his liberty; and if he could not preserve that without the hazard to his own life, he would be warranted in depriving those of life who were endeavoring to deprive him of his. That is a point I would not give up for my right hand — nay, for my life. Well, I say, if the people did this, or if this was only their intention, surely the officers and soldiers had a right to go to his relief; and therefore they set out upon a lawful ♦The satirical poem "Hudibras," by Samuel Butler, was published 1662-74. Boston Massacre 19 errand. They were, therefore, a lawful assembly, if we only consider them as private subjects and fellow-citizens, without regard to Mutiny Acts, Articles of War, or soldiers' oaths. A private person, or any number of private persons, have a right to go to the assistance of their fellow-subject in distress or danger of his life, when assaulted and in danger from a few or a multitude. [On the next day Mt. Adams continued.] I yesterday afternoon produced from the best authorities those rules of law which must govern all cases of homicide, particularly that which is now before you. It now remains to consider the evidence, and see whether anything has occurred that may be compared to the rules read to you; and I will not trouble myself nor you with labored en- deavors to be methodical. I shall endeavor to make some few observations on the testimonies of the witnesses, such as will place the facts in a true point of light, with as much brevity as possible; but I suppose it would take me four hours to read to you (if I did nothing else but read) the minutes of evidence that I have taken in this trial. We have been entertained with a great variety of phrases, to avoid calling this sort of people a mob. Some call them shavers, some call them geniuses. The plain English is, gentlemen, most probably, a motley rabble of saucy boys, negroes and mulattoes, Irish Teagues, and outlandish jacktars. And why we should scruple to call such a set of people a mob I cannot conceive, unless the name is too re- spectable for them. The sun is not about to stand still or go out, nor the rivers to dry up, because there was a mob in Boston, on the 5th of March, that attacked a party of soldiers. Such things are not new in the world, nor in the British dominions, though they are comparatively rari- ties and novelties in this town. Carr, a native of Ireland, had often been concerned in such attacks ; and indeed, from the nature of things, soldiers quartered in a populous town 20 John Adams will ahvays occasion two mobs, where they prevent one. They are wretched conservators of the peace. The next witness that knows anything was James Bailey. He saw some around the sentry, heaving pieces of ice large and hard enough to hurt any man — as big as your fist. One question is, whether the sentinel was attacked or not. If you want evidence of an attack upon him there is enough of it. Here is a witness, an inhabitant of the town — surely no friend to the soldiers, for he was engaged against them at the rope-walk. He says he saw twenty or thirty around the sentry, pelting with cakes of ice as big as one's fist. Certainly, cakes of ice of this size may kill a man, if they happen to hit some part of the head. So that here was an attack upon the sentinel, the consequence of which he had reason to dread, and it was prudent in him to call for the main guard. He retreated as far as he could. He attempted to get into the Custom House, but could not. Then he called to the guard, and he had a good right to call for their assistance. "He did not know, he told the witness, what was the matter, but he was afraid there would be mischief by and by;" and well he might, with so many shavers and geniuses around him, capable of throwing such dangerous things. Bailey swears Montgomery fired the first gun, and that he stood at the right, "the next man to me; I stood behind him," etc. This witness certainly is not prejudiced in favor of the soldiers. He swears he saw a man come up to Montgomery with a club and knock him down before he fired, and that he not only fell him- self but his gun flew out of his hand, and as soon as he rose he took it up and fired. If he was knocked down on his station, had he not reason to think his life in danger? Or did it not raise his passions and put him off his guard, so that it cannot be any more than manslaughter? When the multitude was shouting and huzzaing and threatening life, the bells all ringing, the mob whistling, screaming, and rending like an Indian yell, the people from all quarters throwing every species of rubbish they Boston Massacre 21' could pick up in the streets, and some who were quite on the other side of the street throwing clubs at the whole party, Montgomery in particular smote with a club and knocked down, and as soon as he could rise and take up his firelock another club from afar struck his breast or shoulder, — what could he do? Do you expect he should be- have like a stoic philosopher, lost in apathy? Patient as Epictetus* while his master was breaking his legs with a cudgel? It is impossible you should find him guilty of murder. You must suppose him divested of all human passions, if you don't think him, at the least, pro- voked, thrown off his guard, and into the furor hrevis by such treatment as this. Bailey "saw tlie mulatto, seven or eight minutes before the firing, at tlie head of twenty or thirty sailors in Corn- hill, and he had a large cord-wood stick." So that this Attucks, by this testimony of Bailey, compared with that of Andrew and some others, appears to have undertaken to be the hero of the night, and to lead this army with ban- ners. To form them in the first place in Dock Square, and march them up to King street with their clubs. They passed through the main street up to the main guard in order to make the attack. If this was not an unlawful assembly, there never was one in the world. Attucks, with his myr- midons, comes around Jackson's corner and down to the party by the sentry-box. When the soldiers pushed the people off, this man, with his party, cried, "Do not be afraid of them; they dare not fire; kill them! kill them! knock them over !" And he tried to knock their brains out. It is plain the soldiers did not leave their station, but cried to the people, "Stand off!" Now, to have this reinforce- ment coming down, luider the command of a stout mulatto fellow, whose very looks was enough to terrify any person, what had not tlie soldiers then to fear ? He had hardiness enough to fall in upon them, and with one hand took hold *A famous Greek philosopher, whose early life was spent in slavery. 22 John Adams of a bayonet, and with the other knocked the man down. This was the behavior of Attucks, to whose mad behavior, in all probability, the dreadful carnage of that night is chiefly to be ascribed. And it is in this manner this town has been often treated. A Carr from Ireland, and an At- tacks from Framingham, happening to be here, shall sally out upon their thoughtless enterprises at the head of such a rabble of negroes, etc., as they can collect together, and then there are not wanting persons to ascribe all their do- ings to the good people of the town ! [Mr. Adams continued with a minute consideration of the evidence produced on the side of the crown and in behalf of the prisoners, and endeavored to show that the assault upon the soldiers was sufficiently provoking to justify the prisoners, or at least to reduce to manslaughter the crime even of the two who were proved to have killed members of the mob. He then concluded as follows:] I will enlarge no more on the evidence, but submit it to you. Facts are stubborn things, and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence; nor is the law less stable than the fact. If an assault was made to endanger their lives, the law is clear: they had a right to kill in their own defense. If it was not so severe as to en- danger their lives, yet if they were assaulted at all, struck and abused by blows of any sort — by snowballs, oyster- shells, cinders, clubs, or sticks of any kind — this was a provocation for which the law reduces the offense of kill- ing down to manslaughter, in consideration of those pas- sions in our nature which cannot be eradicated. To your candor and justice I submit the prisoners and their cause. The law in all vicissitudes of government, fluctuations of the passions, or flights of enthusiasm, will preserve a steady, undeviating course; it will not bend to the uncer- tain wishes, imaginations, and wanton tempers of men. To use the words of a great and worthy man, a patriot and a hero, an enlightened friend of mankind, and a martyr Boston Massacre 23 to liberty — I mean Algernon Sidney,* who, from his earliest infancy, sought a tranquil retirement under the shadow of the tree of liberty, with his tongue, his pen, and his sword. "The law (says he) no passion can disturb. 'Tis void of desire and fear, lust and anger. 'Tis mens sine affectu; written reason; retaining some measure of the divine per- fection. It does not enjoin that which pleases a weak frail man, but without any regard to persons commands that which is good, and punishes evil in all, whether rich or poor, high or low. 'Tis deaf, inexorable, inflexible." On the one hand, it is inexorable to the cries and lamenta- tions of the prisoners; on the other, it is deaf — deaf as an adder — to the clamors of the populace. ♦Author of "Discourses Concerning Government;" executed on a false charge of treason under Charles II., in 1683. 3. PATRICK HENRY, of Virginia.— LIBERTY OR DEATH (In the Virginia Convention, March 23, 1775.) The resistance of the colonies to the attempts of Eng- land to tax them culminated in the "Boston Tea-party" of December 16, 1773; this led to the Acts closing the port of Boston and revoking the Massachusetts charter; and these to the union of the colonies in the First Continental Con- gress (1774). In preparation for armed conflict, Patrick Henry introduced the following motion in the Virginia Convention (March 23, 1775): "Resolved, . . . That this colony be immediately put into a state of defense, and that be a committee to prepare a plan for embodying, arming, and disciplining such a number of men as may be sufl5cient for that purpose." The speech in which Mr. Henry supported the resolu- tion is famous in American eloquence. "It was a proud [day] to a Virginian feeling and acting with his country," says Edmund Randolph, an eye-witness. "Demosthenes in- vigorated the timid, and Cicero* charmed the backward. The multitude, many of whom had traveled to the conven- Tatrick Henry. Born, 1736; first elected to the House of Burgesses, 1765; dele- gate to the Continental Congress, 1774 and 1775; Governor of Virginia, 1775-1780, and 1781; member of the Virginia Convention to ratify the Federal Constitution, 1788; retired from public life, 1791; died, 1799. *Virginians called Patrick Henry the Demosthenes, and Richard Henry Lee the Cicero of the age. (John Adams, Works, H, p. 357.) 24 Liberty or Death 25 tion from a distance, could not suppress their emotion. Henry was his pure self. Those who had toiled in the ar- tifices of scholastic rhetoric were involuntarily driven into an inquiry within themselves whether rules and forms and niceties of elocution would not have choked his native fire. It blazed so as to warm the coldest heart. ... It was Patrick Henry, born in obscurity, poor, and without the advantages of literature, rousing the genius of his country, and binding a band of patriots together to hurl defiance at the tyranny of so formidable a nation as Great Britain. . . . "When he sat down, his sounds vibrated so loudly, if not in the ears at least in the memory of his audience, that no other member, not even his friend [R. H. Lee] who was to second him, was yet adventurous enough to in- terfere with that voice which had so recently subdued and captivated. After a few minutes, Richard Henry Lee fanned and refreshed with a gale of pleasure; but the ves- sel of the revolution was still under the imjDulse of the tempest which Henry had created. Artificial oratory fell in copious streams from the mouth of Lee, and rules of persuasion accomplished everything which rules could ef- fect. If elegance had been personified, Lee would have been chosen. But Henry had trampled upon rules and yet triumphed, at this time perhaps beyond his own expectation. Jefferson was not silent. He argued closely, profoundly, and warmly on the same side. The post in this revolu- tionary debate belonging to him was that at which the theories of republicanism were deposited. Washington was prominent, though silent. His looks bespoke a mind ab- sorbed in meditation on his country's fate; but a positive concert between him and Henry could not more effectually have exhibited him to view, than when Henry with indig- nation ridiculed the idea of peace 'when there was no peace,' and enlarged on the duty of preparing for war." 26 Patrick Henry Henry's speech was reconstructed in the form below by one of his biographers, from the recollections mainly of John Tyler and St. George Tucker. (W. W. Henry, Pat- rick Henry, I, ch. xi.) [Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention, at Richmond, March 23, 1775.] MR. President: No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the L very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the house. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the house is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of free- dom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfil the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven which I revere above all earthly kings. Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the il- lusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who having eyes see not, and having ears hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and to provide for it. Liberty or Death 27 I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judg- ing of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the house? Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not your- selves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those war- like jareparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submis- sion? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy in this quarter of the world to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies ? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to oifer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already ex- hausted ? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves longer. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated ; we have supplicated ; we have prostrated 28 Patrick Henry ourselves before the throne^ and have implored its interpo- sition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry' and Par- liament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remon- strances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned with contempt from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge in the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free — if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending — if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained — we must fight ! I repeat it, sir, we must fight ! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us ! They tell us, sir, that we are weak, unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be strong- er? Will it be the next week, or the next year.'' Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house .'' Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction.'' Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a projDcr use of those means which the God of nature hath jalaced in our power. Three millions of peo- ple, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who jDresides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone ; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Be- sides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to de- sire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery ! Our chains are Liberty or Death 29 forged! Their clinking may be heard on the plains of Boston ! The war is inevitable — and let it come ! I re- peat it, sir, let it come. It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may- cry, Peace, jJeace ! — but there is no peace. The war is ac- tually begun ! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms ! Our brethren are already in the field ! Why stand we here idle ? What is it that gentlemen Avish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery ? Forbid it. Almighty God ! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death! 4. JOHN DICKINSON, of Pennsylvania.— DECLA- RATION OF THE COLONIES ON TAKING UP ARMS (Read to the Continental Army, before Boston, July 18, 1775.) The declaration of the colonies upon taking up arms was composed by John Dickinson of Pennsylvania, and was adopted by the Second Continental Congress on July 6, 1775. It was intended "to be published by General Washington upon his arrival at the camp before Boston/' and was so proclaimed on July 18th. When it was read to General Putnam's regiment, we are told that the men "shouted in three huzzas a loud Amen!"; and doubtless similar demonstrations greeted its reading elsewhere. It is, of course, an ex parte statement of the American grievances, and naturally does less than justice to Great Britain's side of the controversy. Nevertheless this declaration is one of the notable documents of the Revolution, and is worthy of careful study as showing the temper in which our forefa- thers began their great conflict. Jefferson, writing forty-six years afterwards, claimed the authorship of the last four paragraphs of the address; but careful examination of the original manuscript, and a con- sideration of all the circumstances, has led to the rejection of this claim as formed in the confusion of a faulty memory. (See Stille's Life and Times of John Dickinson, pp. 353- 364.) John Dickinson. Born in 1732; studied law in En^rland; elected to the Penn- sylvania Assembly, 1764; delegate to the Stamp Act Congress, 170.5, and to the Continental Congresses, 1774 and 1775; author of many patriotic pamphlets, especially "The Farmer's Letters" (1767); opposed the declaration of independ- ence, but served as Brigadier-General in the war, and in Congress; member of the Federal Convention from Delaware, 1787; died, 1808. 30 Declaration of Colonies 31 [JoHK Dickinson, Declaration of the Colonies on taking up Arms, July, 1775.] IF IT WAS possible for men who exercise their reason to believe that the Divine Author of our existence intended a part of the human race to hold an absolute property in and unbounded power over others, marked out by His infinite goodness and wisdom as the objects of a legal domiijation never rightfully resistible, however severe and oppressive, the inhabitants of these colonies might at least require from the Parliament of Great Britain some evi- dence that this dreadful authority has been granted to that body. But a reverence for our great Creator, principles of humanity, and the dictates of common sense, must con- vince all those who reflect upon the subject that govern- ment was instituted to promote the welfare of mankind, and ought to be administered for the attainment of that end. The legislature of Great Britain, . . . stimu- lated by an inordinate passion for a power not only unjustifiable, but which they know to be peculiarly repro- bated by the very constitution of that kingdom, have attempted to efi'ect their cruel and impolitic purpose of enslaving these colonies by violence, and have thereby rendered it necessary for us to close with their last appeal from reason to arms. Yet, however blinded that assembly may be by their intemperate rage for unlimited domination, so to slight justice and the opinion of mankind, we esteem ourselves bound by obligations of respect to the rest of the world to make known the justice of our cause. Our forefathers, inhabitants of the island of Great Britain, left their native land to seek on these shores a resi- dence for civil and religious freedom. At the expense of their blood; at the hazard of their fortunes; without the least charge to the country from which they removed; by unceasing labor and an unconquerable spirit, they elfected settlements in the distant and inhospitable wilds of America, then filled with numerous and warlike nations of barbarians. Societies or governments, vested with per- fect legislatures, were formed under charters from the 32 John Dickinson Crown, and an harmonious intercourse was established be- tween the colonies and the kingdom from which they de- rived their origin. The mutual benefits of this union be- came in a short time so extraordinary as to excite astonish- ment. It is universally confessed that the amazing in- crease of the wealth, strength, and navigation of the realm arose from this source; and the minister who so wisely and successfully directed the measures of Great Britain in the late war, publicly declared that these colonies enabled her to triumph over her enemies. Towards the conclusion of that war, it pleased our sovereign to make a change in his counsels. From that fatal moment the affairs of the British Empire began to fall into confusion, and gradually sliding from the summit of glorious prosperity to which they had been advanced by the virtues and abilities of one man [Wil- liam Pitt, Earl of Chatham], are at length distracted by the convulsions that now shake its deepest foundations. The new ministry, finding the brave foes of Britain, though frequently defeated, j'^et still contending, took up the un- fortunate idea of granting them a hasty peace, and of then subduing her faithful friends. These devoted colonies were judged to be in such a state as to present victories without bloodshed, and all the easy emoluments of statutable plunder. The uninterrupted tenor of their peaceable and respectful behavior from the beginning of colonization ; their dutiful, zealous and useful services during the war, though so recently and amply ac- knowledged in the most honorable manner by his majesty, by the late king [George II.], and by Parliament, could not save them from the meditated innovations. Parliament was influenced to adopt the pernicious project, and assuming a new power over them have, in the course of eleven years, given such decisive specimens of the spirit and consequences attending this power, as to leave no doubt concerning the effects of acquiescence under it. They have undertaken to give and grant our money without our consent, though we have ever exercised an exclusive right to dispose of our Declaration of Colonies 33 own i^roperty; statutes have been passed for extending the jurisdiction of courts of admiralty, and vice-admiralty, beyond their ancient limits ; for depriving us of the accus- tomed and inestimable privilege of trial by jury, in cases affecting both life and property; for suspending the legis- lature of one of the colonies; for interdicting all commerce to the capital of another, and for altering, fundamentally, the form of government established by charter and secured by acts of its own legislature, solemnly confirmed by the Crown; for exempting the murderers of colonists from legal trial, and in effect, from punishment; for erecting in a neighboring province [Canada], acquired by the joint arms of Great Britain and America, a despotism dangerous to our very existence; and for quartering soldiers upon the colonists in time of profound peace. It has also been re- solved in Parliament that colonists charged with commit- ting certain offenses shall be transported to England to be tried. But why should we enumerate our injuries in detail? By one statute it is declared that Parliament can "of right make laws to bind us in all cases whatsoever." What is to defend us against so enormous, so unlimited a power ? Not a single man of those who assume it is chosen by us, or is subj ect to our control or influence ; but on the contrary they are all of them exempt from the operation of such laws, and an American revenue, if not diverted from the osten- sible purposes for which it is raised, would actually lighten their own burdens in proportion as they increase ours. We saw the misery to which such despotism would reduce us. We for ten years incessantly and ineffectually besieged the throne as supplicants ; we reasoned, we remonstrated with Parliament in the most mild and decent language. Administration, sensible that we should regard these op- pressive measures as freemen ought to do, sent over fleets and armies to enforce them. The indignation of the Ameri- cans was roused, it is true, but it was the indignation of a virtuous, loyal, and affectionate people. A Congress of 3 34 John Dickinson delegates from the united colonies was assembled at Phila- delphia on the fifth day of last Sei^tember. We resolved again to offer an humble and dutiful petition to the king, and also addressed our fellow-subjects of Great Britain. We have pursued every temperate, every respectful meas- ure; we have even proceeded to break off our commercial intercourse with our fellow-subjects, as the last peaceable admonition, that our attachment to no nation upon earth should supplant our attachment to liberty. This, we flat- tered ourselves, was the ultimate step of the controversy, but subsequent events have shown how vain was this hope of finding moderation in our enemies. Several threatening expressions against the colonies were inserted in his majesty's speech; our petition, though we were told it was a decent one, and that his majesty had been pleased to receive it graciously, and to promise laying it before his Parliament, was huddled into both houses among a bundle of American papers, and there neglected. The Lords and Commons in their address, in the month of February, said that "a rebellion at that time actually existed within the province of Massachusetts Bay, and that those concerned in it had been countenanced and encouraged by unlawful combinations and engagements, entered into by his ma j esty 's subj ects in several of the other colonies ; and, therefore, they besought his majesty that he would take the most effectual measures to enforce due obedience to the laws and authority of the supreme legislature." Soon after, the commercial intercourse of whole colonics with foreign countries and with each other was cut off by an act of Parliament; by another, several of them were en- tirely prohibited from the fisheries in the seas near their coasts, on which they always depended for their subsist- ence, and large reinforcements of ships and troops were immediately sent over to General Gage. Fruitless were all the entreaties, argimients, and elo- quence of an illustrious band of the most distinguished peers and commoners, who nobly and strenuously asserted Declaration of Colonies 35 the justice of our cause, to stay or even to mitigate the heedless fury with which these accumulated and unex- ampled outrages were hurried on. Equally fruitless was the interference of the city of London, of Bristol, and many other respectable towns, in our favor. Parliament adopted an insidious manoeuvre, calculated to divide us, to establish a perpetual auction of taxations, where colony should bid against colony, all of them miinforraed what ransom would redeem their lives ; and thus to extort from U5, at the point of the bayonet, the unknown sums that should be sufficient to gratify — if possible to gratify — ministerial rapacity; with the miserable indulgence left to us of raising, in our own mode, the prescribed tribute. What terms more rigid and humiliating could have been dictated by remorseless victors to conquered enemies ? In our circumstances to accept them would be to deserve them. Soon after the intelligence of these proceedings arrived on this continent. General Gage, who in the course of the last year had taken possession of the town of Boston, in the province of Massachusetts Bay, and still occupied it as a garrison, on the nineteenth day of April sent out from that place a large detachment of his army, who made an unprovoked assault on the inhabitants of the said province at the town of Lexington, as appears by the affidavits of a great number of persons, some of whom were officers and soldiers of that detachment; murdered eight of the inhabi- tants and wounded many others. From thence the troops proceeded, in warlike array, to the town of Concord, where they set upon another party of the inhabitants of the same province, killing several and wounding more, tmtil com- pelled to retreat by the country people suddenly assembled to repel this cruel aggression. Hostilities, thus commenced by the British troops, have been since prosecuted by them, without regard to faith or reputation. The inhabitants of Boston being confined within that town by the general their governor, and having, in order to procure their dis- mission entered into a treaty with him, it was stipulated 36 Johi^ Dickinson that the said inliahitants liaving deposited their arms with their own magistrates should liave liberty to depart, taking with them their other effects. They accordingly delivered up their arms : but in open violation of honor, in defiance of the obligation of treaties, which even savage nations esteem sacred, the governor ordered the arms, deposited as aforesaid that they might be preserved for their owners, to be seized by a body of soldiers ; detained the greatest part of the inhabitants in the town ; and compelled the few wlio were permitted to retire to leave their most valuable effects behind. By this perfidy wives are separated from their husbands, children from their parents, the aged and the sick from their relations and friends, who wish to attend and com- fort them ; and those who have been used to live in plenty, and even elegance, are reduced to deplorable distress. The general, further emulating his ministerial masters, by a proclamation bearing date on the twelfth day of June, after venting the grossest falsehoods and calumnies against the good peoj^le of these colonies, proceeds to "declare them all, either by name or description, to be rebels and traitors, to supersede the course of common law, and instead thereof to publish and order the use and exercise of the law mar- tial." His troo])s have butchered our countrymen, have wantonly burnt Charlestown, besides a considerable number of houses in other places; our ships and vessels are seized; the necessary supplies of provisions are intercepted; and he is exerting his utmost jDOwer to spread destruction and devastation around him. We have received certain intelligence that General Carleton, the Governor of Canada, is instigating the people of that province and the Indians to fall upon us; and we have but too much reason to apprehend that schemes have been formed to excite domestic enemies against us. In brief, a part of these colonies now feel, and all of them are sure of feeling, as far as the vengeance of administra- tion can inflict them, the complicated calamities of fire_, Declaration of Colonies 37 sword^ and famine. We are reduced to the alternative of choosing an unconditional submission to the tyranny of ir- ritated ministers, or resistance by force. The latter is our choice. We have counted the cost of this contest, and FIND NOTHING SO DREADFUL AS VOLUNTARY SLAVERY ! Hon- or, justice, and humanity forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resign- ing succeeding generations to that wretchedness which in- evitably awaits them, if we basely entail hereditary bond- age upon them. Our cause is just. Our union is perfect. Our internal resources are great, and, if necessary, foreign assistance is luidoubtedly attainable. We gratefully acknowledge, as signal instances of Divine favor towards us, that His provi- dence would not permit us to be called into this severe con- troversy until we were grown up to our present strength, had been previously exercised in warlike operations, and possessed the means of defending ourselves. With hearts fortified by these animating reflections, we most solemnly, before God and the world. Declare, that, exerting the ut- most energy of those powers which our beneficent Creator has graciously bestowed upon us, the arms which we have been compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defi- ance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and persever- ance employ for the preservation of our liberties; being with one mind resolved to die freemen rather than to live slaves. Lest this declaration should disquiet the minds of our friends and fellow-subjects in any part of the empire, we assure them that we mean not to dissolve that union which has so long and so hapj^ily subsisted between us, and which we sincerely wish to see restored. Necessity has not yet driv- en us into that desperate measure, or induced us to excite any other nation to war against them. We have not raised armies with ambitious designs of separating from Great Britain, and establishing independent states. We fight 38 John Dickinson not for glory or for conquest. We exhibit to mankind the remarkable spectacle of a people attacked by unprovoked enemies, without any imputation or even suspicion of of- fense. They boast of their privileges and civilization, and yet proffer no milder conditions than servitude or death. In our own native land, in defense of the freedom that is our birth-right and which we ever enjoyed till the late violation of it, for the protection of our property acquired solely by the honest industry of our forefathers and our- selves, against violence actually offered, we have taken up arms. We shall lay them down when hostilities shall cease on the part of the aggressors, and all danger of their being renewed shall be removed, and not before. With an humble confidence in the mercies of the Supreme and impartial Judge and Ruler of the universe, we most devoutly implore His divine goodness to protect us happily through this great conflict, to dispose our adversaries to reconciliation on reasonable terms, and thereby to relieve the empire from the calamities of civil war. 5. JOHN WITHERSPOON, of New Jersey.— THE NECESSITY OF CONFEDERATION (In Congress, at Philadelphia, July 30, 1776.) On June 7, 1776^ Richard Henry Lee of Virginia intro- duced the following resolutions in the Continental Con- gress : "Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States ; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown; and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and of right ought to be, totally dis- solved. "That a plan of Confederation be prepared and trans- mitted to the respective colonies for their consideration and approbation." The first of these resolutions resulted (July 4, 1776) in the Declaration of Independence; the second led to the formulation and ultimate adoption of the Articles of Con- federation. The "plan of confederation" here ordered to be prepared was first reported July 12, 1776. It was adopted by Con- gress and recommended to the States for "immediate and dispassionate consideration" on November 15, 1777; but John Witherspoon, D.D. Born near Edinburgh, Scotland, 1722; graduated from Edinburgh University, 1739; became president of New Jersey College, 1768; member of the New Jersey Constitutional Convention, 1776; member of the Con- tinental Congress, 1776-82; died, 1795. 39 40 John Witherspoon it was not finally acceded to by IMaryland, the last of the thirteen States, until 1781, on March 1st of which year it formally went into effect. The government created was one of strictly limited powers, each State retaining "its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and riglit which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress as- sembled." There was no provision for a separate execu- tive, so the administration was left to Congress, its com- mittees, and the officers appointed by it. The Congress was a legislature of a single house, consisting of delegates appointed by and responsible to the State Legislatures. Each State delegation possessed one vote. On important matters the votes of nine States were necessary. To amend the Articles themselves, confirmation by the legislature of every State was required. A common treasury was es- tablished out of which all charges of war and other ex- penses were to be defrayed; but to fill the treasury Con- gress could only make requisitions on the States, which alone assessed and collected taxes. On the other hand. Congress was given the sole and exclusive right of determin- ing on war and peace, of sending and receiving ambassa- dors, and of entering into treaties and alliances with for- eign powers. In the discussions which preceded the final adoption of the Articles, serious differences of opinion were revealed over the question of representation and taxation (which in- volved the question of the status of slaves), over the con- trol of the Indians, and especially over the ownership of the Western lands. The long delay in ratifying the Ar- ticles was due to Maryland's resolute demand that those States which claimed territory extending to the IMississippi or the Pacific (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Virginia, the Carolinas, and New York) should first surrender to the Necessity of Confederation 41 United States tliese Western, lands. In Congress itself opposition on this question had arisen. In the midst of the first discussions of the Articles (July 25, 1776) James Wilson of Pennsylvania had characterized these claims as "extravagant" and "made upon mistakes"; Pennsylvania, he continued, "has no right to interfere in these claims, but she has a right to say that she will not confederate unless these claims are cut off." (Notes of the debates, in John Adams, Works, II, p. 493.J It was the imminent danger, revealed by these discus- sions, of the failure of all plans for permanent union, which called forth the following speech (July 30, 1776) from Dr. John Witherspoon, President of the New Jersey College (now Princeton University) and a delegate in Con- gress from that State. To those who had objected that America was not yet "ripe" for independence, Witherspoon had replied, "We are not only ripe but rotting." His learn- ing and ability made him a leading figure alike in the re- ligion, education, and politics of the time. A special value attaches to this and the few other speeches contained in the four volumes of Witherspoon's Works, for they are al- most the only speeches which have come down to us from the Continental Congress. [John Witherspoon, in Congress, at Philadelphia, July 30, 1776.] THE ABSOLUTE necessity of union to the vigor and success of those measures on which we are already entered, is felt and confessed by every one of us without exception; so far indeed that those who have ex- pressed their fears or suspicions of the existing confederacy proving abortive, have yet agreed in saying that there must and shall be a confederacy for the purposes of and till the finishing of this war. So far is well ; and so far it is pleas- ing to hear them express their sentiments. But I entreat 42 John Witherspoon gentlemen calmly to consider how far the giving up all hopes of a lasting confederacy among these States^ for their future security and improvement, will have an eifect upon the stability and efficacy of even the temporary confederacy, which all acknowledge to be necessary? I am fully persua- ded that when it comes to be generally known that the delegates of the provinces consider a lasting union as im- practicable, it will greatly derange the minds of the people and weaken their hands in defense of their country, which they have now undertaken with so much alacrity and spirit. I confess it would to me greatly diminish the glory and im- portance of the struggle, whether considered as for the rights of mankind in general, or for the prosperity and happiness of this continent in future times. It would quite depreciate the object of hope, as well as place it at a greater distance. For what would it signify to risk our possessions and shed our blood to set ourselves free from the encroachments and oppression of Great Britain, with a certainty, as soon as peace was settled with them, of a more lasting war, a more unnatural, more bloody, and much more hopeless war among the colonies them- selves? Some of us consider ourselves as acting for pos- terity at present, having little expectation of living to see all things fully settled, and the good consequences of lib- erty taking effect. But how much more uncertain the hope of seeing the internal contests of the colonies settled upon a lasting and equitable footing. One of the greatest dangers I have always considered the colonies as exposed to at present is treachery among themselves, augmented by bribery and corruption from our enemies. But what force would be added to the arguments of seducers, if they could say with truth that it was of no consequence whether we succeeded against Great Britain or not, for we must in the end be subjected, the greatest part of us, to the power of one or more of the strongest or larg- est of the American States? And here I would apply the argument which we have so often used against Great Necessity of Confederation 43 Britain — that in all history we see that the slaves of free- men, and the subject states of republics, have been of all others the most grievously oppressed. I do not think the records of time can produce an instance of slaves treated with so much barbarity as the Helotes by the Lacedaemo- nians, who were the most illustrious champions for liberty in all Greece; or of provinces more plundered and spoiled than the states conquered by the Romans, for one hundred years before Caesar's dictatorship. The reason is plain: there are many great men in free states. There were many consular gentlemen in that great republic, who all consid- ered themselves as greater than kings, and must have kingly fortunes, which they had no other way of acquiring but by governments of provinces, which lasted generally but one year and seldom more than two. In what I have already said, or may say, or any eases I may state, I hope every gentleman will do me the justice to believe that I have not the most distant view to particular persons or societies, and mean only to reason from the usual course of things, and the prejudices inseparable from men as such. And can we help saying that there will be a much greater degree, not only of the corruption of particular persons, but the defection of particular provinces from the present confederacy, if they consider our success itself as only a prelude to contests of a more dreadful nature, and indeed much more properly a civil war, than that which now often obtains the name? Must not small colonies in particular be in danger of saying. We must secure our- selves.'' If the colonies are independent States, separate and disunited, after this war, we may be sure of coming off by the worse. We [the small States] are in no condi- tion to contend with several of them. Our trade in gen- eral, and our trade with them, must be upon such terms as they shall be pleased to prescribe. What will be the consequence of this.'' Will they not be ready to prefer putting themselves under the protection of Great Britain, France, or Holland, rather than submit to tlie tyranny of 44, John Witherspoon their neighbors, who were lately their equals ? Nor would it be at all impossible that they should enter into such rash engagements as would prove their own destruction, from a mixture of apprehended necessity and real resent- ment. Perhaps it may be thought that breaking off this con- federac}'', and leaving it unfinished after we have entered upon it, will be only postponing the duty to some future period ? Alas ! nothing can exceed the absurdity of that supposition. Does not all history cry out, that a common danger is the great and only efi'ectual means of settling dif- ficulties, and composing differences? Have we not ex- perienced its efficacy in producing such a degree of union through these colonies, as nobody would have prophesied and hardly any would have expected? If, therefore, at present, when the danger is yet im- minent, when it is so far from being over that it is but coming to its height, we shall find it impossible to agree upon the terms of this confederacy, what madness is it to suppose that there ever will be a time, or that circumstances will so change as to make it even probable that it will be done at an after season ? Will not the very same difficulties that are in our way, be in the way of those who shall come after us? Is it possible that they should be ignorant of them, or inattentive to them? Will they not have the same jealousies of each other, the same attachment to local preju- dices, and particular interest? So certain is this, that I look upon it as on the repentance of a sinner. Every day's delay, though it adds to the necessity, yet augments the difficulty and takes from the inclination. There is one thing that has been thrown out by which some seem to persuade themselves of, and others to be more indifferent aboutj the success of a confederacy, — that from the nature of men it is to be expected that a time must come when it will be dissolved and broken in pieces. I am none of those Avho either deny or conceal the depravity of human nature till it is purified by the light of the truth and Necessity of Confederation 45 renewed by the Spirit of the living God. Yet I apprehend there is no force in that reasoning at all. Shall we estab- lish nothing good because we know it can not be eternal? Shall we live without government because every constitution has its old age and its period? Because we know that we shall die, shall we take no pains to preserve or lengthen out life? Far from it, sir: it only requires the more watchful attention to settle government upon the best principles and in the wisest manner, that it ma^' last as long as the nature of things will admit. But I beg leave to say something more, though with some risk that it will be thought visionary and romantic. I do expect, Mr. President, a progress, as in every other human art, so in the order and perfection of human society, great- er than we have yet seen; and why should we be wanting to ourselves in urging it forward? It is certain, I think, that human science and religion have kept company to- gether and greatly assisted each other's progress in the world. I do not say that intellectual and moral qualities are in the same proportion in particular persons, but they have a great and friendly influence upon one another, in societies and larger bodies. There have been great improvements, not only in human knowledge, but in human nature, the progress of which can be easily traced in history. Everybody is able to look back to the time, in Euro2:)ej when the liberal sentiments that now prevail upon the rights of conscience would have been looked upon as absurd. It is but little above two hundred years since that enlarged system, called the balance of powei", took place; and I maintain that it is a greater step, from the former disunited and hostile situation of kingdoms and states, to their present condition, than it would be from their present condition to a state of more perfect and last- ing union. It is not impossible that in future times all the states in one quarter of the globe may see it proper, by some plan of union, to perpetuate security and peace; and sure I am, a well planned confederacy among the States of 46 John Witherspoon America may hand down the blessings of peace and public order to many generations. The union of the Seven Prov- inces of the Low Countries has never yet been broken, and they are of very diiferent degrees of strength and wealth. Neither have the cantons of Switzerland ever broken among themselvesj though there are some of them Protestants, and some of them Papists, by public establishment. Not only so, but these confederacies are seldom engaged in a war with other nations. Wars are generally between monarchs, or single states that are large. A confederation of itself keeps war at a distance from the bodies of which it is com- posed. For all these reasons. Sir, I humbly apprehend that every argument from honor, interest, safety, and necessity, con- spire in pressing us to a confederacy; and if it be seriously attempted, I hope, by the blessing of God upon our en- deavors, it will be happily accomplished. II The Constitution Adopted In the words of John Quincy Adams, the Constitution of the United States was "extorted from the grinding necessity of a reluctant people." The instinct of separation among the States was stronger than the desire for union. Chief among the forces which tended to perpetuate separation were these: (1) The extent of the territory comprised in the Confederation, which was larger than the combined areas of France, Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, Belgium, Holland, and the German Empire. (2) The difficulties of communication between the different sections; the journey between Boston and New York then required more time and entailed more hardship than it now takes to cross the continent. (3) The conflicting interests among the States. And (4) the inveterate habit of State allegiance. "As to the future grandeur of America and its being a rising empire under one head, whether republican or monarchical," wrote Dean Tucker, a keen-sighted English economist who fa- vored the independence of the colonies, "it is one of the idlest and most visionary notions that ever was conceived even by the writers of romance. The mental antipathies and clashing interests of the Americans, their differences of governments, of habitudes, and manners, indicate that they will have no center of union and no common interest. They never can be united into one compact empire under any species of government whatever; a disunited people to 47 48 Select Orations the end of time, siispicious and distrustful of each other, they will be divided or subdivided into little common- wealths or principalities, according to natural boundaries, by great bays of the sea, and by vast rivers, lakes, and ridges of mountains." (Bancroft, History of the United States, VI, p. 50.) The failure of government under the Articles of Con- federation, however, forced the States against their will to take steps which led to the surrender of their jealously guarded sovereignty. The Congress of the Confederation proved unable to enforce the treaty provisions of 1783 upon either the States or Great Britain. The government was al- ways without sufficient money because of the failure of the States to pay the just requisitions made upon them; and all joroi^osals to give Congress power itself to lay taxes failed because of the requirement of unanimous action on the part of the States. The Articles gave no power to regu- late inter-State or foreign commerce; and the failure of Con- gress to secure the navigation of the Mississippi, which was in the control of Spain, threatened to separate entirely the trans-Alleghany country from the Atlantic coast. Fi- nally, in 1786, came a series of paroxysms of anarchy over the pajDer-money question, culminating in Shays' rebellion in Massachusetts, which endangered the existence of the State governments themselves. At the same time the Annapolis Convention, called to devise uniform commercial regula- tions, recommended a second convention to "render the con- stitution of the federal government adequate to the exigen- cies of the union"; and this recommendation, ratified by Congress, led to the Federal Convention which framed the present Constitution of the United States. The proceedings in the Federal Convention, which sat at Philadelphia from May 14 to September 17, 1787, were secret, and the speeches delivered are known to us almost The Constitution Adopted 49 solely through the journal of the debates kept by James Madison. With the submission of the Constitution to the States, the public discussion began. Much of the ablest part of this took the form of newspaper articles and pamphlets, such as The Federalist, written by Hamilton, Madison and Jay, and the Letters of the Federal Farmer, written against the Constitution by Richard Henry Lee: these are omitted as outside the scope of this collection. In the State conven- tions, however, many notable orations were delivered which were stenographically (though imperfectly) reported; and a selection from these speeches constitutes the subject-mat- ter of this section. Three speeches are presented for the "new jDlan," and one against it. In selecting the former, it seemed best to take discussions which deal with the general structure of the Constitution and the need of adopting it, rather than with those particular details which are more fittingly dis- cussed in a constitutional treatise. In illustrating the Anti- Federalist attitude, the choice of materials is somewhat limited; for though the objections raised by the opposition range from grave to frivolous, the serious criticisms are directed in the main to particular details, and the frivolous speeches seem unworthy of preservation. The general char- acter of many of the opposition's efforts was well expressed in the following receipt for an Anti-Federalist essay: "Take Well-born nine times; Aristocracy eighteen times; Liberty of the Press thirteen times repeated; Liberty of Conscience once; Negro Slavery once mentioned; Trial by Jury seven times; Great ]\Ien six times repeated; Mr. Wil- son forty times; and lastly George Mason's right hand in a cutting box nineteen times [Mason, of Virginia, had said that he would have lost his hand rather than sign the Constitution.] Put them all together, and dish them up at pleasure." {Pennsylvania Gazette, November 14, 1787.) A 4 50 Select Orations similar point of view is expressed in an article in the American Museum for Aprils 1788^ in which the author satirically says: "I would submit to any candid man, if in this Constitution there is the least provision for the privi- lege of shaving the beard ? or is there any mode laid down to take the measure of a pair of breeches?" The contest over the ratification was chiefly fought out in the States of Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Virginia, and New York. The action of the ^Massachusetts Federalists in conciliating the powerful Anti-Federalist interests in that State, and accepting the proposal to ratify with the recom- mendation of amendments desired (in place of rejection, or of conditional ratification), was probably decisive of the contest; all States which acted subsequently to Massachu- setts followed this course. The ratification by New Hamp- sliire gave the nine States necessary to secure the Constitu- tion, and September 13th Congress voted to put the new government into operation. The following table showing the progress of ratification will be of service for reference: The Constitution reported by the Conven- tion. The Constitution transmitted by Congress to the States. (1) Delaware ratifies, unanimously. (2) Pennsylvania ratifies, 46 to 23. (3) New Jersey ratifies, unanimously. (4) Georgia ratifies, unanimously. (5) Connecticut ratifies, 128 to 40. (6) Massachusetts ratifies, 187 to l68, and proposes nine amendments. April 26. (7) Maryland ratifies, 63 to 11, the mi- nority proposing twenty-eight amendments. 1787, Sept. 17. Sept. 28. Dec. 6. Dec. 12. Dec. 18. 1788, Jan. 2. Jan. 9. Feb. 6. The Constitution Adopted 5 1 May 23. (8) South Carolina ratifies, 149 to 73, and proposes four amendments. June 21. (9) New Hampshire ratifies, 57 to 46, and proposes twelve amendments. The Constitution assured. June 26. (10) Virginia ratifies, 89 to 79, and pro- poses a bill of rights and twenty amendments. July 26. (11) New York ratifies, 30 to 27, and pro- poses thirty-two amendments. Sept. 13. Congress votes to put the Constitution into operation. 1789, Nov. 21. (12) North Carolina ratifies, 192 to 75, and proposes a bill of rights and twenty-six amendments. 1790, May 29. (13) Rhode Island ratifies, and proposes a bill of rights and twenty-one amendments. The union completed. For the study of this period the following books are valuable: Curtis, Constitutional History of the United States; Bancroft, History of the Constitution; McLaugh- lin, Confederation and Constitution; Schouler, History of the United States, Vol. I; McMaster, History of the Peo- ple of the United States, Vol. I; Hunt, James Madison; Lodge, Alexander Hamilton; Tyler, Patrick Henry. 6. JAMES WILSON, of Pennsylvania.— FOR THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION (Delivered in Philadelphia, November 26, 1787.) The first and by far the most bitter contest over the adojJtion of the Federal Constitution occurred in Penn- sylvania, the supporters of whose extremely democratic and impracticable State constitution became Anti-Federalists almost to a man, because the new Federal plan was sup- ported by their opponents in State politics. The jarepon- derance in numbers, however, as well as in ability, was with the Federalists, among whom James Wilson clearly ranked first. Born in Scotland and educated in its uni- versities, he had shown himself, in the language of the historian McMaster, "undoubtedly the best prepared, by deep and systematic study of the history and science of government," of all the fifty-five members of the Federal Convention. He had there taken a stand, with Randolph of Virginia, and others, for a truly national government, with a single executive; he had opposed the equal repre- sentation of the States in the Senate; and had advocated the election of Senators directly by the people. In an address to the citizens of Philadelphia, delivered October 6, 1787, he had convincingly answered the objection (so often to be raised by the Anti-Federalists) that the Con- James Wilson. Born in Scotland, 1712; educated at the universities of St. Andrews, Glasgow, and Edinburgh; emigrated to America, 1763; member of the Pennsylvania convention, 1774; of the Continental Congress, 1775-77, 17S2, and 1785; of the Federal Convention, 1787; of the Pennsylvania ratifying convention, 1787; appointed judge of the Supreme Court of the United States, 1789; died 1798. 52 On the Federal Constitution 53 stitution menaced liberty by its omission of a "bill of rights"; lie pointed out that whereas in a State constitution all powers are granted which are not specifically with- held^ in the proposed Federal Constitution "everything which is not given is reserved/' and hence such guarantees are needless. The speech given below was delivered in the Pennsyl- vania ratifying convention on November 26, 1787. It is generally regarded as "one of the most comprehensive and luminous commentaries on the Constitution" which has come down to us from that period. Of Wilson's power as a speaker, Alexander Graydon said, "lie produced greater orations than any man I have heard." The final ratifica- tion of the Constitution by Pennsylvania, however, was carried by only 46 yeas to 23 nays — a vote which showed exactly the same alignment of delegates (except for one man) that had been revealed by the first test vote at the beginning of the convention. The conversion of this one man, therefore, was the net result of all the able oratory and arguments on the Federal side. (See Harding, "Party Struggles Over the First Pennsylvania Constitution," in Report of American Historical Association for 1894, p. 394.) 54 James Wilson [James Wilson in the Pennsylvania ratifying Convention, at Philadelphia, November 26, 1787.] THE SYSTEM proposed by the late convention for the government of the United States is now before you. Of that convention I had the honor to be a member. As I am the only member of that body who has the honor to be also a member of this, it may be expected that I should prepare the way for the deliberations of this assembly, by unfolding the difficulties which the late convention were obliged to encounter; by pointing out the end which they proposed to accomplish; and by tracing the general prin- ciples which they have adopted for the accomplishment of that end. To form a good system of government for a single city or state, however limited as to territory, or inconsiderable as to numbers, has been thought to require the strongest efforts of human genius. With what conscious diffidence, then, must the members of the convention have revolved in their minds the immense undertaking which was before them. Their views could not be confined to a small or a single com- munity, but were expanded to a great number of States, sev- eral of which contain an extent of territory, and resources of population, equal to those of some of the most respectable kingdoms on the other side of the Atlantic. Nor were even these the only objects to be comprehended within their de- liberations. Numerous States yet unformed, myriads of the human race who will inhabit regions hitherto uncultivated, were to be affected by the result of their proceedings. It was necessary, therefore, to form their calculations on a scale commensurate to a large portion of the globe. For my own part, I have been often lost in astonishment at the vastness of the prospect before us. To open the navi- gation of a single river was lately thought, in Europe, an en- terprise adequate to imperial glory.* But could the com- *The river Scheldt was closed to navi^tion by the treaty of Westphalia, 1648, to appease the commercial jealousy of the Dutch Republic. In 1783 the Emperor Joseph II., whose territories included what is now Bolsium, attempted unsuccessfully to overturn this arrangement; but the river was not reoix-ned until 179^, when Belgium was conquered by the troops of the French Republic On the Federal Constitution 55 mercial scenes of the Scheldt be compared with those that, under a good government, will be exhibited on the Hudson, the Delaware, the Potomac, and the numerous other rivers, that water and are intended to enrich the dominions of the United States? The difficulty of the business was equal to its magnitude. No small share of wisdom and address is requisite to com- bine and reconcile the jarring interests that prevail, or seem to prevail, in a single community. The United States contain already thirteen governments mutually independent. Those governments present to the Atlantic a front of fif- teen hundred miles in extent. Their soil, their climates, their productions, their dimensions, their numbers, are dif- ferent. In many instances, a difference and even an oppo- sition subsists among their interests; and a difference and even an opposition is imagined to subsist in many more. An apparent interest produces the same attachment as a real one, and is often pursued with no less perseverance and vigor. When all these circumstances are seen and atten- tively considered, will any member of this honorable body be surprised that such a diversity of things produced a pro- portioned diversity of sentiment? Will he be surprised that such a diversity of sentiment rendered a spirit of mu- tual forbearance and conciliation indispensably necessary to the success of the great work? And will he be surprised that mutual concessions and sacrifices were the conse- quences of mutual forbearance and conciliation? When the springs of opposition were so numerous and strong, and poured forth their waters in courses so varying, need we be surprised that the stream formed by their conjunction was impelled in a direction somewhat different from that which each of them would have taken separately? I have reason to think that a difficulty arose in the minds of some members of the convention from another considera- tion — their ideas of the temper and disposition of the peo- ple for whom the constitution is proposed. The citizens of the United States, however different in some other respects. 56 James Wilson are well known to agree in one strongly marked feature of their character — a warm and keen sense of freedom and in- dependence. This sense has been heightened by the glori- ous result of their late struggle against all the efforts of one of the most powerful nations of Europe. It was ap- prehended, I believe, by some, that a people so high-spirit- ed would ill brook the restraints of an efficient government. I confess tliat this consideration did not influence my con- duct. I knew my constituents to be high-spirited; but I knew them also to possess sound sense. I knew that, in the event, they would be best pleased with that system of gov- ernment which would best promote their freedom and happi- ness. I have often revolved this subject in my mind. I have supposed one of my constituents to ask me, Why I gave such a vote on a particular question ? I have always thought it would be a satisfactory answer to say. Because I judged, upon the best consideration I could give, that such a vote was right. I have thought that it would be but a very poor compliment to my constituents to say that, in my opin- ion, such a vote would have been proper, but that I sup- posed a contrary one would be more agreeable to those who sent me to the convention. I could not, even in idea, ex- pose myself to such a retort as, iipon the last answer, might have been justly made to me: Pray, sir, what reason have you for suj^posing that a right vote would displease your constituents? Is this the proper return for the high con- fidence the}'" have placed in you? If they have given cause for such a surmise, it was by choosing a representative who would entertain such an opinion of them. I was under no apprehension, that the good people of this State would behold with displeasure the brightness of the rays of dele- gated power, when it only proved the superior splendor of the luminary of which those rays were onlj^ the reflection. A very important difficulty arose from comparing the extent of the country to be governed, with the kind of gov- ernment which it would be proper to establish in it. It has been an opinion countenanced by high authority [Montes- On the Federal Constitution 57 quieu, Spirit of Laws] "that the natural property of small states is to be governed as a republic; of middling ones, to be subject to a monarch; and of large empires, to be swayed by a despotic prince; and that the consequence is, that in order to preserve the principles of the established govern- ment the state must be supported in the extent it has ac- quired; and that the spirit of the state will alter in propor- tion as it extends or contracts its limits." This opinion seems to be supported, rather than contradicted, by the his- tory of the governments in the Old World. Here then the difficulty appears in full view. On one hand, the United States contain an immense extent of territory, and, accord- ing to the foregoing opinion, a despotic government is best adapted to that extent. On the other hand, it was well known that, however the citizens of the United States might, with pleasure, submit to the legitimate restraints of a republican constitution, they would reject with indigna- tion the fetters of despotism. What then was to be done? The idea of a confederate republic presented itself. This kind of constitution has been thought to have "all the in- ternal advantages of a republican, together with the ex- ternal force of a monarchical government." Its descrip- tion is, "a convention, by which several states agree to be- come members of a larger one, which they intend to es- tablish. It is a kind of assemblage of societies, that con- stitute a new one, capable of increasing by means of further association." The expanding quality of such a government is peculiarly fitted for the United States, the greatest part of whose territory is yet uncultivated. But wliile this form of government enabled us to sur- mount the difficulty last mentioned, it conducted us to an- other, of which I am now to take notice. It left us almost without precedent or guide ; and, consequently, without the benefit of that instruction which, in many cases, may be derived from the constitution, and history, and experience of other nations. Several associations have frequently been called by the name of confederate states, which have 58 James Wilson not, in propriety of language, deserved it. The Swiss Can- tons are connected only by alliances. The United Nether- lands are indeed an assemblage of societies; but this as- semblage constitutes no new one; and, therefore, it does not correspond with the full definition of a confederate re- public. The Germanic body [the Empire] is comjDosed of such disjDroportioned and discordant materials, and its struc- ture is so intricate and complex, that little useful knowledge can be drawn from it. Ancient history discloses, and barely discloses to our view, some confederate republics — the Achae- an League, the Lycian Confederacy, and the Amphictyonic Council. But the facts recorded concerning their consti- tutions are so few and general, and their histories are so unmarked and defective, that no satisfactory in- formation can be collected from them concerning many particular circumstances, from an accurate discernment and comparison of which alone legitimate and practical in- ferences can be made from one constitution to another. Besides, the situation and dimensions of these confederacies, and the state of society, manners, and habits in them, were so different from those of the United States, that the most correct description could have supjDlied but a very small fund of applicable remark. Thus, in forming this system, we were deprived of many advantages which the history and experience of other ages and other countries would, in other cases, have afforded us. Permit me to add, in this place, that the science even of government itself, seems yet to be almost in its state of in- fancy. Governments, in general, have been the result of force, of fraud, and of accident. After a period of six thousand years has elapsed since the creation, the United States exhibit to the world the first instance, as far as we can learn, of a nation, unattacked by external force, im- convulsed by domestic insurrections, assembling voluntarily, deliberating fully, and deciding calmly, concerning that system of government under which the}^ would wish that they and their posterity should live. The ancients, so en^. On the Federal Constitution 59 lightened on other subjects, were very uninformed with re- gard to this. They seem scarcely to have had any idea of any other kinds of government, than the three simple forms designated by the epithets, monarchical, aristocratical, and democratical. I know that much and pleasing ingenuity has been exerted in modern times, in drawing entertaining par- allels between some of the ancient constitutions, and some of the mixed governments that have since existed in Eu- rope. But I much suspect that, on strict examination, the instances of resemblance will be found to be few and weak; to be suggested by the improvements, which, in subsequent ages, have been made in government; and not to be drawn immediately from the ancient constitutions themselves, as they were intended and understood by those who framed them. To illustrate this, a similar observation may be made on another subject. Admiring critics have fancied, that they have discovered in their favorite Homer the seeds of all the improvements in philosophy, and in the sciences, made since his time. What induces me to be of this opin- ion is, that Tacitus, the profound politician Tacitus, who lived towards the latter end of those ages which are now denominated ancient, who undoubtedly had studied the con- stitutions of all the states and kingdoms known before and in his time, and who certainly was qualified, in an uncommon degree, for understanding the full force and operation of each of them, considers, after all he had known and read, a mixed government, composed of the three simple forms, as a thing rather to be wished than expected ; and he thinks that if such a government could even be instituted, its dura- tion could not be long. One thing is very certain, that the doctrine of representation in government was altogether unknown to the ancients. Now, the knowledge and practice of this doctrine is, in my opinion, essential to every system, that can possess the qualities of freedom, wisdom, and energy. It is worthy of remark, and the remark may, perhaps, excite some surprise,, that representation of the people is 6o James Wilson not, even at this day, the sole principle of any government in Europe. Great Britain boasts_, and she may well boast, of the improvement she has made in politics, by the admis- sion of representation ; for the improvement is important as far as it goes: but it by no means goes far enough. Is the executive power of Great Britain founded on representation ? Tliis is not pretended. Before the Revolution [of 1688] many of the kings claimed to reign by divine right and others by hereditary right; and even at the Revolution, notliing farther was effected or attempted, than the recogni- tion of certain parts of an original contract, supposed at some remote period to have been made between the king and the people. A contract seems to exclude, rather than to imply, delegated power. The judges of Great Britain are appointed by the Crown. The judicial authority, there- fore, does not depend upon representation, even in its most remote degree. Does representation prevail in the legisla- tive dejiartment of the British government? Even here it does not predominate; though it may serve as a check. The legislature consists of three branches, the king, the lords, and the commons. Of these, only the latter are supposed by the constitution to represent the authority of the people. This short analysis clearly shows to what a narrow corner of the British constitution the principle of representation is confined. I believe it does not extend farther, if so far, in any other government in Europe. For the American States were reserved the glory and the hap- piness of diffusing this vital principle through all the con- stituent parts of the government. Representation is the chain of communication between the people and those to whom they have committed the exercise of the powers of government. This chain may consist of one or more links; but in all cases it should be sufficiently strong and discern- ible. To be left without guide or precedent was not the only difficulty in which the convention were involved by propos- ing to their constituents a plan of a confederate republic. On the Federal Constitution 6i They found themselves embarrassed with another of pecu- liar delicacy and importance; I mean that of drawing a proper line between the National government and the gov- ernments of the several States. It was easy to discover a proper and satisfactory principle on the subject. What- ever object of government is confined in its operation and effects within the bounds of a particular State, should be considered as belonging to the government of that State; whatever object of government extends in its operation or effects beyond the bounds of a particular State, should be considered as belonging to the government of the United States. But though this principle be sound and satisfactory, its application to particular cases would be accompanied with much difficulty; because, in its application, room must be allowed for great discretionary latitude of construction of the principle. In order to lessen or remove the difficulty arising from discretionary construction on this subject, an enumeration of particular instances, in which the applica- tion of the principle ought to take place, has been attempted with much industry and care. It is only in mathematical science that a line can be described with mathematical pre- cision. But I flatter myself that, ujion the strictest investi- gation, the enumeration will be found to be safe and unex- ceptionable; and accurate, too, in as great a degree as ac- curacy can be expected in a subject of this nature. Par- ticulars under this head will be more properly explained when we descend to the minute view of the enumeration which is made in the proposed Constitution. After all, it will be necessary that, on a subject so pecu- liarly delicate as this, much prudence, much candor, much moderation, and much liberality should be exercised and displayed, both by the Federal government and by the gov- ernments of the several States. It is to be hoped that those virtues in government will be exercised and displayed, when we consider that the powers of the Federal government, and those of the State governments, are drawn from sources equally pure. If a difference can be discovered between 62 James Wilson them, it is in favor of the Federal government, because that government is founded on a representation of the whole Union; whereas the government of any particular State is founded only on the representation of a part, inconsiderable when compared with the whole. Is it not more reasonable to suppose that the counsels of the whole will embrace the intei-est of every part, than that the counsels of any part will embrace the interests of the whole ? I intend not, sir, by this description of the difficulties with whicli the convention was surrounded, to magnify their skill or their merit in surmounting them, or to insinuate that any predicament, in which the convention stood, should prevent the closest and most cautious scrutiny into the per- formance, which they have exhibited to their constituents and to the world. ISIy intention is of far other and higher aim — to evince by the conflicts and difficulties which must arise from the many and powerful causes which I have enumer- ated, that it is hopeless and impracticable to form a consti- tution which will in every part be acceptable to every citi- zen or even to every government in the United States; and that all which can be expected is, to form such a constitu- tion as upon the whole is the best that can possibly be ob- tained. Man and perfection! — a State and perfection! — an assemblage of States and perfection! Can we reason- ably expect, however ardently we may wish, to behold the glorious union? The advantages and necessity of civil government among individuals in society are not greater or stronger than^ in some situations and circumstances, are the advantages and necessity of a federal government among states. A natural and a very important question now presents itself. Is such the situation, are such the circumstances, of the United States.'' A proper answer to this question will unfold some very interesting truths. The United States may adopt any one of four different Bvstems. They may become consolidated into one govern- On the Federal Constitution 63 ment, in wliicli the separate existence of the States shall be entirely absorbed. They may reject any plan of union or association and act as separate and unconnected States. They may form two or more confederacies. They may unite in one federal republic. Which of these systems ought to have been proposed by the convention .'' To support with vigor a single government over the whole extent of the United States, would demand a system of the most unquali- fied and the most unremitted despotism. Such a number of separate States, contiguous in situation, unconnected and disunited in government, would be, at one time, the prey of foreign force, foreign influence, and foreign intrigue; at another, the victims of mutual rage, rancor, and revenge. Neither of these systems found advocates in the late con- vention: I presume they will not find advocates in this. Would it be proper to divide the United States into two or more confederacies.'' It will not be unadvisable to take a more minute survey of this subject. Some aspects, under which it may be viewed, are far from being, at first sight, uninviting. Two or more confederacies would be each more compact, and more manageable, than a single one extending over the same territory. By dividing the United States into two or more confederacies, the great collision of interests, apparently or really different and contrary, in the whole extent of their dominion, would be broken, and in a great measure disappear in the several parts. But these advan- tages, which are discovered from certain points of view, are greatly overbalanced by inconveniences that will appear on a more accurate examination. Animosities, and perhaps wars, would arise from assigning the extent, the limits, and the rights of the different confederacies. The expenses of governing would be multiplied by the number of federal governments. The danger resulting from foreign influence and mutual dissensions would not, perhaps, be less great and alarming in the instance of different confederacies, than in the instance of difi'erent though more numerous unasso- ciated States. These observations, and many others that 64 James Wilson might be made on the subject, will be sufficient to evince that a division of the United States into a number of sep- arate confederacies, would probably be an unsatisfactory and an unsuccessful experiment. The remaining system, wliich 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 adopt- ing 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 di- versity 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 en- larged 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 ojiinions and wishes enter- tained since the era of our indejDendence. If those opinions and wishes are as well founded as they have been general, the late convention were justified in proposing to their con- stituents one confederate republic, as the best system of a national government for the United States. There are three simple species of government: mon- archy, 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 va- cancies in their own body, or succeed to their places in it by inheritance, property, or in respect of some personal right or qualification; a rei^ublic or democracy, where the people at large retain the supreme power, and act either collective- ly or by representation. Each of these species of govern- ment 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- On the Federal Constitution 65 pie, insecurity, unnecessary wars, evils attending elections or successions. The advantage of aristocracy is wisdom, arising from experience and education. Its disadvantages are — dissen- sions 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 govern- ment. It would be an improper government for the United States, because it is inadequate to such an extent of terri- tory, and because it is suited to an establishment of dif- ferent orders of men. A more minute comparison between some parts of the British constitution and some parts of the plan before us, may, perhaps, iind a projaer place in a sub- sequent period of our business. What is the nature and kind of that government which has been proposed for the United States by the late con- vention ? 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. 5 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 Fed- eral Constitution occurred in Virginia, where Patrick Henry, George Mason, William Grayson, and James Mon- roe were arrayed in opposition, and James Madison, Ed- mund RandoljDh, and John Marshall fought in its favor. Jefferson wrote from Paris in a sense opposed to the Con- stitution; 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 jDowers 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 sig- nificant 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, jd. 83.) In con- sidering Henry's views, it should be remembered that they were formed at a time when railroads, telegrajihs, daily newspapers, and other agencies for disseminating informa- tion and forming and organizing public opinion, were un- known; and when therefore the people possessed far inferior checks upon the acts of their representatives than today. 66 On the Federal Constitution 67 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 Massa- chusetts, 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 sub- ject. The reference in the first sentence is to Henry Lee of Westmoreland county ("Light-horse Harry") who im- mediately preceded Henry in the debate. He had spoken of "the eclat 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 Heney, in the Virginia ratification convention, at Richmond, Junes. 1788.] MR. Chairman : I am much obliged to the very worthy gentleman for his encomium. I wish I were pos- 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 68 Patrick Henry 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 Eng- land — 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 alarm- ing transition, from a confederacy to a consolidated gov- ernment. We have no detail of those great considerations which, in my ojoinion, ought to have abounded before we should recur to a government of tliis kind. Here is a revo- lution 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 relin- quishment 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 mi- nutely. Is it necessary for your liberty, that you should abandon those great rights by the adoption of this system? On the Federal Constitution 69 Is the relinquishment of the trial by jury, and the liberty of the press, necessary for your liberty? Will the aban- donment of your most sacred rights tend to the security of your liberty ? Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings — give us that precious jewel, and you may take everything else ! But I am fearful I have lived long enough to be- come an old-fashioned fellow. Perhaps an invincible at- tachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned: if so, I am con- tented to be so. I say, the time has been when every pulse of my heart beat for American liberty, and which, I believe, had a counterpart in the breast of every true American. But suspicions have gone forth — suspicions of my integrity. It has been publicly reported that my professions are not real. Twenty-three years ago was I supposed a traitor to my country? I was then said to be a bane of sedition, be- cause I supported the rights of my country. I may be thought suspicious when I say our privileges and rights are in danger. But, sir, a number of the people of this country are weak enough to think these things are too true. I am happy to find that the gentleman on the other side declares they are groundless. But, sir, suspicion is a virtue, as long as its object is the preservation of the public good, and as long as it stays within proper bounds: should it fall on me, I am contented: conscious rectitude is a powerful consolation. I trust there are many who think my profes- sions for the public good to be real. Let your suspicion look to both sides : there are many on the other side who, pos- sibly, may have been persuaded of the necessity of these measures which I conceive to be dangerous to liberty. Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined. I am answered by gentlemen that, though I may speak of terrors, yet the fact is that we are surrounded by none of the dangers I appre- hend. I conceive this new government to be one of those 70 Patrick Henry dangers : it has produced those horrors which distress many of our best citizens. We are come hither to preserve the poor commonwealth of Virginia, if it can be possibly done: something must be done to preserve your liberty and mine. The Confederation, this same desjDised government, merits in my opinion the highest encomium: it carried us through a long and dangerous war; it rendered us victorious in that bloody conflict with a powerful nation; it has secured us a territory greater than any European monarch possesses ; and shall a government which has been thus strong and vigorous be accused of imbecility, and abandoned for want of energy.'' Consider what you are about to do, be- fore you part with this government. Take longer time in reckoning things : revolutions like this have happened in almost every country in Europe: similar examples are to be found in ancient Greece and ancient Rome — instances of the people losing their liberty by their own carelessness and the ambition of a few. We are cautioned by the hon- orable gentleman who presides [Edmund Pendleton] against faction and turbulence. I acknowledge that licen- tiousness is dangerous, and that it ought to be provided against: I acknowledge also the new form of government may effectually prevent it: yet there is another thing it will as effectually do — it will oppress and ruin the people. There are sufficient guards placed against sedition and licentiousness ; for when power is given to this government to suppress these, or for any other purpose, the language it assumes is clear, express and unequivocal; but when this Constitution speaks of privileges, there is an ambiguity, sir, a fatal ambiguity — an ambiguity which is very aotonishing. In the clause under consideration, there is the strangest language that I can conceive. I mean when it says, that there shall not be more representatives than one for every 30,000. Now, sir, how easy is it to evade this privilege? "The number shall not exceed one for every 30,000." This may be satisfied by one representative from each State. Let our numbers be ever so great, tliis immense continent On the Federal Constitution 71 may, by this artful expression, be reduced to have but thir- teen representatives. I confess this construction is not natural; but the ambiguity of the expression lays a good ground for a quarrel. . . . This possibility of reduc- ing the number to one for each State approximates to prob- ability by that other expression, "but each State shall at least have one representative." ... I shall be told I am continually afraid: but, sir, I have strong cause of ap- prehension. In some parts of the plan before you, the great rights of freemen are endangered, in other parts absolutely taken away. Hove does j^-our trial by jury stand.'' In civil cases gone — not sufficiently secured in criminal — this best privilege is gone. But we are told that we need not fear because those in power, being our representatives, will not abuse the powers we put in their hands. I am not well versed in history; but I will submit to your recollection, whether liberty has been destroyed most often by the licen- tiousness of the people, or by the tyranny of rulers. I imagine, sir, you will find the balance on the side of tyranny. Happy will you be if you miss the fate of those nations who, omitting to resist their oppressors, or negli- gently suffering their liberty to be wrested from them, have groaned under intolerable despotism ! Most of the human race are now in this deplorable condition. And those nations who have gone in search of grandeur, power, and splendor, have also fallen a sacrifice, and been the victims of their own folly. While they acquired those visionary blessings, they lost their freedom. My great objection to this gov- ernment is, that it does not leave us the means of defending our rights, or of waging war against tyrants. It is urged by some gentlemen, that this new plan will bring us an ac- quisition of strength — an army, and the militia of the States. This is an idea extremely ridiculous: gentlemen can not be in earnest. This acquisition will trample on our fallen liberty. Let my beloved Americans guard against that fatal lethargy that has pervaded the universe. Have 72 Patrick Henry we the means of resisting disciplined armies^ when onr only defense, the militia, is put into the hands of Congress ? The honorable gentleman said that great danger would ensue if the Convention rose without adopting this system. I ask. Where is that danger ? I see none. Other gentlemen have told us, within these walls, that tlie union is gone — or that the union will be gone. Is not this trifling with the judgment of their fellow-citizens? Till they tell us the grounds of their fears, I will consider them as imaginary. I rose to make inquiry where those dangers were: they could make no answer: I believe I never shall have that answer. Is there a disposition in the people of this coun- try to revolt against the dominion of laws ? . . . . Whither is the spirit of America gone? Whither is the genius of America fled? It was but yesterday when our enemies marched in triumph through our country. Yet the people of this country could not be appalled by their pom- pous armaments : they stopped their career, and victoriously captured them. Where is the j^eril now, compared to that? Some minds are agitated by foreign alarms. Happily for us, there is no real danger from Europe: that country is engaged in more arduous business : from that quarter, there is no cause of fear: you may sleep in safety forever for them, ^^^lere is the danger? If, sir, there was any, I would recur to the American spirit to defend us — that spirit which has enabled us to surmount the greatest difficulties: to that illustrious spirit I address my most fervent prayer to prevent our adoi:)ting a system destructive to liberty. Let not gentlemen be told, that it is not safe to reject this gov- ernment. M'herefore is it not safe? We are told there are dangers, but those dangers are ideal; they can not be dem- onstrated. To encourage us to adopt it, they tell us that there is a plain easy way of getting amendments. When I come to contemplate this part, I suppose that I am mad, or that my countrymen are so. The way to amendment is, in my con- ception, shut. Let us consider this plain easy way. "The On the Federal Constitution 73 Congress, whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution ; or, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in eitlier case, shall be valid to all intents and purjDoses, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of tjiree-fourths of the several States, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress. . . ." Hence it appears that three- fourths of the States must ultimately agree to any amend- ments that may be necessary. Let us consider the conse- quences of this. However uncharitable it may appear, yet I must express my opinion — that the most unworthy charac- ters may get into power and prevent the introduction of amendments. Let us suppose (for the case is supposable, possible, and probable), that you happen to deal these powers to unworthy hands; will they relinquish powers al- ready in their possession, or agree to amendments? Two- thirds of the Congress, or of the State legislatures, are nec- essary even to propose amendments. If one-third of these be unworthy men, they may prevent the application for amendments; but what is destructive and mischievous is, that three-fourths of the State legislatures, or of the State conventions, must concur in the amendments when proposed ! In such numerous bodies, there must necessarily be some de- signing, bad men. To suppose that so large a number as three-fourths of the States will concur, is to suppose that they will possess genius, intelligence, and integrity, ap- proaching to miraculous. It would, indeed, be miraculous, that they should concur in the same amendments, or even in such as would bear some likeness to one another. For four of the smallest States, that do not collectively contain one- tenth part of the population of the United States, may ob- struct the most salutary and necessary amendments. Nay, in these four States, six-tenths of the people may reject these amendments; and suppose that amendments shall be 74 Patrick Henry opposed to amendments (which is highly probable), is it possible that three-fourths can ever agree to the same amendments? A bare majority in these four small States may hinder the adoption of amendments ; so that we may fairly and justly conclude, that one-twentieth part of the American people may prevent the removal of the most griev- ous inconveniences and oppression, by refusing to accede to amendments. A trifling minority may reject the most salutary amendments. Is this an easy mode of securing the public liberty? It is, sir, a most fearful situation, when the most contemptible minority can prevent the alteration of the most oppressive government; for it may, in many respects, prove to be such. Is this the spirit of republic- anism? . . . This, sir, is the language of democracy — that a majority of the community have a right to alter their government when found to be oppressive. But how differ- ent is the genius of your new Constitution from this ! How different from the sentiments of freemen, that a contempt- ible minority can prevent the good of the majority! Let us here call your attention to that part which gives the Congress power "to provide for organizing, arming, and discipling the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be emjDloyed in the service of the United States — ■ reserving to the States respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia, according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." By this, sir, you see that their control over our last and best defense is im- limited. If they neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our militia, they will be useless: the States can do neither, this power being exclusively given to Congress. The power of ajjpointing officers over men not disciplined or armed is ridiculous; so that this pretended little remnant of power left to the States may, at the pleasure of Congress, be ren- dered nugatory. Our situation will be deplorable indeed: nor can we ever expect to get this government amended; since I have already shown that a very small minority may On the Federal Constitution 75 prevent it, and that small minority interested in the continu- ance of the oppression. Will the oppressor let go the op- pressed? Was there ever an instance? Can the annals of mankind exhibit one single example where rulers, over- charged with power, willingly let go the oppressed, though solicited and requested most earnestly ? The application for amendments will therefore be fruitless. Sometimes the oj>- pressed have got loose by one of those bloody struggles that desolate a country; but a willing relinquishment of power is one of those things which human nature never was, nor ever will be, capable of. The honorable gentleman's observations respecting the people's right of being the agents in the formation of this government, are not accurate, in my humble conception. The distinction between a national government and a con- federacy is not sufficiently discerned. Had the delegates, who were sent to Philadelphia, a power to propose a con- solidated government instead of a confederacy? Were they not deputed by States, and not by the people? The assent of the people, in their collective capacity, is not necessary to the formation of a federal government. The people have no right to enter into leagues, alliances, or confederations: they are not the proper agents for this purpose. States and sovereign powers are the only proper agents for this kind of government. Show me an instance where the people have exercised this business. Has it not always gone through the legislatures? I refer you to the treaties with France, Hol- land, and other nations. How were they made ? Were they not made by the States? Are the people, therefore, in their aggi'egate capacity, the proper persons to form a confeder- acy? This, therefore, ought to depend on the consent of the legislatures, the people having never sent delegates to make any proposition of changing the government. Yet I must say, at the same time, that it was made on the ground the most pure; and perhaps I might have been brought to consent to it, so far as to tlie change of government. But there is one thing in it which I never would acquiesce in. I mean, the 76 Patrick Henry changing it into a consolidated government, which is so ab- horrent to my mind. If we admit this consolidated government, it will be because we like a great and splendid one. Some way or other we must be a great and mighty empire: we must have an army, and a navy, and a number of things. When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was difterent: liberty, sir, was then the primary object. We are descended from a people whose government was founded on liberty: our glorious forefathers of Great Brit- ain made liberty the foundation of everything. That country is become a great, mighty, and splendid nation; not because their government is strong and energetic, but, sir, because liberty is its direct end and foundation. We drew the spirit of liberty from our British ancestors : by that spirit we have triumphed over every difficulty. But now, sir, the American spirit, assisted by the ropes and chains of consolidation, is about to convert this country into a powerful and mighty empire. If you make the citizens of this country agree to become the subjects of one great consolidated empire of America, your government will not have sufficient energy to keep them together. Such a government is incompatible with the genius of republicanism. There will be no checks, no real balances, in this government. What can avail your specious, imaginary balances ; your rope-dancing, chain- rattling, ridiculous, ideal checks and contrivances? But, sir, we are not feared by foreigners : we do not make na- tions tremble. Would this constitute happiness, or secure liberty.'' I trust, sir, our political liemisphere will ever di- rect its operations to the security of those objects. When I thus profess myself an advocate for the liberty of the people, I shall be told I am a designing man, that I am to be a great man, that I am to be a demagogue; and many similar illiberal insinuations will be thrown out: but, sir, conscious rectitude outweighs these things with me. I see great jeopardy in this new government: I see none from our present one. I hope some gentleman or other will bring On the Federal Constitution ']'] forth, in full array, those dangers, if there be any, that we may see and touch them. I have said that I thought this a consolidated govern- ment: I will now prove it. Will the great rights of the peo- ple be secured by this government? Suppose it should prove oppressive ; how can it be altered ? Our Bill of Rights declares, "that a majority of the community hath an in- dubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal." I have just proved, that one-tenth, or less, of the people of America — a most despi- cable minority — may prevent this reform, or alteration. Suppose the people of Virginia should wish to alter their government; can a majority of them do it? No, because they are connected with other men; or, in other words, con- solidated with other States. When the people of Virginia, at a future day, shall wish to alter their government, though they should be unanimous in this desire, yet they may be prevented therefrom by a despicable minority at the ex- tremity of the United States. The founders of your own constitution made your government changeable; but the power of changing it is gone from you ! Whither is it gone ? It is placed in the same hands that hold the rights of twelve other States ; and those who hold those rights have right and power to keep them. It is not the particular govern- ment of Virginia: one of the leading features of that gov- ernment is, that a majority can alter it, when necessary for the public good. This government is not a Virginian, but an American government. Is it not therefore a consoli- dated government? The sixth clause of your Bill of Rights tells you, "that elections of members to serve as representa- tives of the people in assembly, ought to be free, and that all men having sufficient evidence of permanent common in- terest with and attachment to the community, have the right of suffrage, and can not be taxed or deprived of their prop- erty for public uses, without their own consent, or that of their representatives so elected^ nor bound by any law to 78 Patrick Henry which they have not in like manner assented for the public good." But what does this Constitution say? The ckuse under consideration gives an unlimited and unbounded power of taxation. Suppose every delegate from Virginia opposes a law laying a tax ; what will it avail ? They are op- posed by a majority: eleven members can destroy their ef- forts : those feeble ten cannot prevent the passing the most oppressive tax-law; so that, in direct opposition to the spirit and express language of your declaration of rights, you are taxed, not by your own consent, but by people who have no connection with you. This Constitution can counteract and suspend any of our laws, that contravene its oppressive operation; for they have the power of direct taxation, which suspends our Bill of Riglits; and it is expressh'- provided, that they can make all laws necessary for carr3dng their powers into execution ; and it is declared paramount to the laws and con- stitutions of the States, Consider how the only remaining defense we have left is destroyed in this manner. Besides the expenses of maintaining the Senate and other house in as much splendor as they please, there is to be a great and mighty President, with very extensive powers — the powers of a king. He is to be supported in extravagant magnifi- cence; so that the whole of our property may be taken by this American government, by laying what taxes they please, giving themselves what salaries they please, and suspending our laws at their pleasure. I might be thought too inquisi- tive, but I believe I should take up but very little of your time in enumerating the little jDower that is left to the gov- ernment of Virginia; for this power is reduced to little or nothing. Their garrisons, magazines, arsenals, and forts, which will be situated in the strongest places within the States, — their ten miles square, with all the fine ornaments of human life, added to their powers, and taken from the States, will reduce the power of the latter to notliing. The voice of tradition, I trust, will inform posterity of our struggles for freedom. If our descendants be worthy On the Federal Constitution 79 the name of Americans, they will preserve and hand down to their latest posterity the transactions of the present times ; and though I confess my exclamations are not worthy the hearing, they will see that I have done my utmost to preserve their liberty; for I never will give up the power of direct taxation, but for a scourge. I am willing to give it conditionally ; tliat is, after non-compliance with requisi- tions. I will do more, sir, and what I hope will convince the most skeptical man, that I am a lover of the American Union, — that in case Virginia shall not make punctual pay- ment, the control of our custom houses, and the whole regu- lation of trade, sliall be given to Congress, and that Virginia shall depend on Congress even for passports, till Virginia shall have paid the last farthing and furnished the last soldier. Nay, sir, there is another alternative to which I would consent; — even that they should strike us out of the Union, take away from us all federal privileges, till we comply with federal requisitions ; but let it depend upon our own pleasure to pay our money in the most easy man- ner for our people. Were all the States, more terrible than the mother country, to join against us, I hope Virginia could defend herself; but, sir, the dissolution of the Union is most abhorrent to my mind. The first thing I have at heart is American liberty; the second thing is American union; and I hope the people of Virginia will endeavor to preserve that union. The increasing population of the Southern States is far greater than that of New England; conse- quently, in a short time, they will be far more numerous than the people of that country. Consider that, and you will fmd this State more particularly interested to support American liberty, and not bind our posterity by an im- provident relinquishment of our rights. I would give the best security for a punctual compliance with requisitions; but I beseech, gentlemen, at all hazards, not to grant this unlimited power of taxation. The honorable gentleman has told us that these powers, given to Congress, are accompanied by a judiciary which 8o Patrick Henry will correct all. On examination^ you will find this very judiciary oppressively constructed, your jury trial destroy- ed, and the judges dependent on Congress. In this scheme of energetic government, the peoj^le will find two sets of tax gatherers — the State and the Federal sheriffs. This, it seems to me, will produce such dreadful oppression as the people cannot possibly bear. 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 sufficient decided means of prevent- ing him from sucking your blood by speculations, commis- sions, and fees ? Thus thousands of your people will be most shamefully robbed. Our State sheriffs, those xuifeel- ing blood-suckers, have under the watchful eye of our leg- islature committed the most horrid and barbarous ravages on our people. It has required the most constant vigilance of the legislature to keep them from totally ruining the people. A repeated succession of laws has been made, to suppress their iniquitous speculations and cruel extortions; and as often has their nefarious ingenuity devised methods of evading the force of those laws: in the struggle, they have generally triumphed over the legislature. It is a fact, that lands have sold for five shillings, which were worth one hundred pounds. If sheriffs, thus immediately under the eye of our State legislature and judiciary, have dared to commit these outrages, what would they not have done if their masters had been at Philadelphia or New York? If they perpetrate the most unwarrantable outrage on your persons or property, you can not get redress on this side of Philadelphia or New York; and how can you get it tliere? If your domestic avocations could permit you to go thither, there you must appeal to judges sworn to support this Con- stitution in opposition to that of any State, and who may also be inclined to favor their own officers. When these harpies are aided by excisemen, who may search, at any time, your houses and most secret recesses, will the people bear it? If you think so, you differ from me. Where I On the Federal Constitution 8i thought there was a possibility of such mischiefs, I would grant power with a niggardly hand; and here there is a strong probability that these oppressions shall actually hap- pen. I may be told, that it is safe to err on that side, because such regulations may be made by Congress as shall restrain these officers, and because laws are made by our representa- tives, and judged by righteous judges; but, sir, as these regulations may be made, so they may not; and many rea- sons there are to induce a belief that they will not. I shall therefore be an infidel on that point till the day of my death. The Constitution is said to have beautiful features; but when I come to examine these features, sir, they appear to me horribly frightful. Among other deformities, it has an awful squinting; it squints toward monarchy: and does not this raise indignation in the breast of every true American ? Your President may easily become king. Your Senate is so imperfectly constructed that your dearest rights may be sacrificed by what may be a small minority; and a very small minority may continue forever unchangeably this government, although horridly defective. Where are your checks in this government? Your strongholds will be in the hands of your enemies. It is on a supposition that your American governors shall be honest that all the good quali- ties of this government are founded; but its defective and imperfect construction puts it in their power to perpetuate the worst of mischiefs, should they be bad men. If your American chief be a man of ambition and abili- ties, how easy will it be 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. And, sir, will the American spirit solely relieve you when this happens ? I would rather in- finitely — and I am sure most of this convention are of the same opinion — have a king, lords, and commons, than a government so replete with such insupportable evils. If we make a king, we may prescribe the rules by which he 6 82 Patrick Henry- shall rule his people^ and interpose such checks as shall prevent him from infringing them; but the President, in tlie field at the head of his army, can prescribe the terms on which he shall reign master, so far that it will puzzle any American ever to get his neck from under the galling yoke. I can not, with patience, think of this idea. If ever he vio- lates the laws, one of two things will happen : he will come at the head of his army to carry everything before him; or he will give bail, or will do what Mr. Chief Justice will order him. If he be guilty, will not the recollection of his crimes teach him to make one bold push for the American throne? Will not the immense difference between being master of everything, and being ignominiously tried and punished, powerfully excite him to make this bold push.'' But, sir, where is the existing force to punish him.** Can he not, at the head of his army, beat down every opposition ? Away with your President: we shall have a king: the army will salute him monarch: your militia will leave you, and assist in making him king, and fight against you: and what have you to oppose this force? What will then become of you and your rights? Will not absolute despotism ensue? What can be more defective than the clause concerning the elections ? The control given to Congress over the time, place, and manner of holding elections, will totally de- stroy the end of suffrage. The elections may be held at one place, and tlie most inconvenient in the State; or they may be at remote distances from those who have a right of suf- frage: hence nine out of ten must either not vote at all, or vote for strangers ; for the most influential charac- ters will be applied to, to know who are the most proper to be chosen. I repeat, that the control of Congress over the manner, etc., of electing, well warrants this idea. The natural consequence will be, that this democratic branch will possess none of the public confidence; the people will be prejudiced against representatives chosen in such an in- judicious manner. The proceedings in the northern con- On the Federal Constitution 83 clave will be hidden from the yeomanry of this country. We are told that the yeas and nays shall be taken and entered on the journal. This, sir, will avail nothing: it may be locked up in their chests, and concealed forever from the people; for they are not to publish what parts they think require secrecy: they may think, and will think, the whole requires it. Another beautiful feature of this Constitution is the publication, from time to time, of the receipts and expendi- tures of the public money. This expression, from time to time, is very indefinite and indeterminate: it may extend to a century. Grant that any of them are wicked; they may squander the public money so as to ruin you, and yet this expression will give you no redress. I say, they may ruin you; for where, sir, is the responsibility? The yeas and nays will show you nothing, unless they be fools as well as knaves ; for, after having wickedly trampled on the rights of the people, they would act like fools indeed were they to publish and divulge their iniquity, when they have it equally in their power to suppress and conceal it. Where is the re- sponsibility — that leading principle in the British govern- ment.'' In that government, a punishment, certain and in- evitable, is provided; but in this there is no real, actual punishment for the grossest mal-administration. They may go without punishment, though they commit the most out- rageous violation on our immunities. That paper may tell me they will be punished. I ask. By what law.^ They must make the law, for there is no existing law to do it. What! will they make a law to punish themselves? This, sir, is my great objection to the Constitution, that there is no true responsibility, and that the preservation of our liberty depends on the single chance of men being vir- tuous enough to make laws to punish themselves. In the country from which we are descended, they have real, and not imaginary responsibility; for there mal-administration has cost their heads to some of the most saucy geniuses that ever were. The Senate, by making treaties, may destroy 84 Patrick Henry your liberty and laws for want of responsibility. Two- tliirds of those that shall haijpen to be j^resent can, with the President, make treaties that shall be the supreme law of the land: they may make the most ruinous treaties, and yet there is no punishment for them. Whoever shows me a punishment provided f oi' them will oblige me. So, sir, nothwithstanding there are eight pillars, they want another. Wliere Avill they make another ? I trust, sir, the exclusion of the evils Avherewith this system is replete, in its present form, will be made a condition precedent to its adojjtion, by this or any other State. The transition from a general unqualified admission to offices, to a consoli- dation of government, seems easy; for, though the Ameri- can States are dissimilar in their structure, this will assimi- late them. This, sir, is itself a strong consolidating fea- ture, and is not one of the least dangerous in that system. Nine States are sufficient to establish this government over those nine. Imagine that nine have come into it. Vir- ginia has certain scruples. Supj^ose she will consequently refuse to join with those States: may not they still continue in friendship and union with her? If she sends her an- nual requisitions in dollars, do you think their stomachs will be so squeamish as to refuse her dollars .'' Will they not accept her regiments ? They would intimidate you into an inconsiderate adoption, and frighten j^ou with ideal evils, and that the Union shall be dissolved. 'Tis a bugbear, sir: the fact is, sir, that the eight adopting States can hardly stand on their own legs. Public fame tells us, that the adopting States have already heart-burnings and animosity, and repent their precipitate hurry: this, sir, may occasion exceeding great mischief. When I reflect on these and many other circumstances, I must think those States will be found to be in confederacy with us. If we pay our quota of money annually, and furnish our ratable number of men, when necessary, I can see no danger from a rejection. The history of Switzerland clearly proves, that we might be in amicable alliance with those States, without adopting On the Federal Constitution 85 this Constitution. Switzerland is a confederacy, consist- ing of dissimilar governments. This is an example which proves that governments of dissimilar structures may be confederated. That confederate republic has stood upwards of four hundred years; and although several of the indi- vidual republics are democratic, and the rest aristocratic, no evil has resulted from this dissimilarity, for they have braved all the power of France and Germany during that long period. The Swiss spirit, sir, has kept them together : they have encountered and overcome immense difficulties with patience and fortitude. In the vicinity of powerful and ambitious monarchs, they have retained their inde- pendence, republican simplicity, and valor. . . . Look at the peasants of that country, and of France, and mark the difference. You will find the condition of the former far more desirable and comfortable. No matter whether a people be great, splendid, and powerful, if they enjoy freedom. The Turkish Grand Seignior, alongside of our President, would put us to disgrace; but we should be abundantly consoled for this disgrace, when our citizens have been put in contrast with the Turkish slave. The most valuable end of government is the liberty of the inhabitants. No possible advantages can compensate for the loss of this privilege. Show me the reason why the Amer- ican Union is to be dissolved. Who are those eight adopting States.'' Are they averse to give us a little time to consider, before we conclude.'' Would such a disposition render a junction with them eligible; or is it the genius of that kind of government to precipitate people hastily into measures of the utmost importance, and grant no indulgence.'' If it be, sir, is it for us to accede to such a government? We have a right to have time to consider — we shall therefore insist upon it. Unless the government be amended, we can never accept it. The adopting States will doubtless accept our money and our regiments ; and what is to be the conse- quence, if we are disunited? I believe that it is yet doubt- ful whether it is not proper to stand by a while, and see 86 Patrick Henry the effect of its adoption in other States. In forming a government, the utmost care should be taken to prevent its becoming oppressive; and this government is of such an in- tricate and complicated nature, that no man on this earth can know its real operation. The other States have no reason to think, from the antecedent conduct of Virginia, that she has any intention of seceding from the Union, or of being less active to support the general welfare. Would they not, therefore, acquiesce in our taking time to deliber- ate — deliberate whether the measure be not perilous, not only for us, but the adopting States."* Permit me, sir, to say, that a great majority of the peo- ple, even in the adopting States, are averse to this govern- ment. I believe I would be right to say, that they have been egregiously misled. Pennsylvania has perhaps been tricked into it. If the other States who have adopted it have not been tricked, still they were too much hurried into its adoption. There were very respectable minorities in several of them; and if reports be true a clear majority of the people are averse to it. If we also accede, and it should prove grievous, the peace and prosperity of our country, which we all love, will be destroyed. This gov- ernment has not the affection of the people at present. Should it be oppressive, their affection will be totally es- tranged from it; and, sir, you know that a government, without their affections, can neither be durable nor happy. I speak as one poor individual ; but when I speak, I speak the language of thousands. But, sir, I mean not to breathe the spirit nor utter the language of secession. I have trespassed so long on your patience, I am really concerned that I have something yet to say. The honor- able member has said that we shall be properly represented. Remember, sir, that the number of our representatives is but ten, whereof six are a majority. Will those men be possessed of sufficient information? A particular knowl- edge of particular districts will not suffice. They must be well acquainted with agriculture, commerce, and a great On the Federal Constitution 87 variety of other matters throughout the continent; they must know not only the actual state of nations in Europe and America, the situation of their farmers, cottagers, and mechanics, but also the relative situation and intercourse of those nations. Virginia is as large as England. Our pro- portion of representatives is but ten men. In England, they have five hundred and thirty. The House of Commons in England, numerous as they are, we are told, is bribed, and have bartered away the rights of their constituents. What then shall become of us ? Will these few protect our rights? Will they be incorruptible? You say they will be better men than the English commoners. I say they will be infinitely worse men, because they are to be chosen blindfolded: their election (the term, as applied to their appointment, is inaccurate) will be an involuntary nomi- nation, and not a choice. I have, I fear, fatigued the committee, yet I have not said the one hundred thousandth part of what I have on my mind, and wish to impart. On this occasion, I con- ceived myself bound to attend strictly to the interest of the State; and I thought her dearest rights at sake. Having lived so long — been so much honored — my efforts, though small, are due to my country. I have found my mind hur- ried on from subject to subject, on this very great occasion. We have all been out of order, from the gentleman who opened to-day, to myself. I did not come prepared to speak on so multifarious a subject, in so general a manner. I trust you will indulge me another time. Before you abandon the present system, I hope you will consider not only its defects, most maturely, but likewise those of that which you are to substitute for it. May you be fully ap- prised of the dangers of the latter, not by fatal experience, but by some abler advocate than I ! 8. JAMES MADISON, of Virginia.— FOR THE FED- ERAL CONSTITUTION (In the Virginia Convention, at Richmond, June 5, 1788.) Patrick Henry was answered in the Virginia Convention by several men, but by none whose fame as a constitutional thinker and writer ranks higher than that of James Madi- son. None did more than he to bring about the Federal Convention at Philadelphia, and none more to bring its labors to a successful conclusion; and now in the Virginia Convention no one was so carefully able in exposition of the new Constitution, so minutely unwearying in refutation of tho arguments of its opponents. In all Madison spoke some twenty-four times, eight of his speeches being of con- siderable length. The speech given below was delivered June 5th, the date of Henry's speech, and immediately followed an able and eloquent address by Governor Edmund Randolph, in which, in spite of the fact that he had refused to sign the Constitution in the Convention at Philadelphia, Ran- dolph now advocated its adoption. Madison spoke in a low tone, and at the beginning the reporter states that he was unable to hear him distinctly. The text of the speech here reproduced is that in Elliot's Debates. James Madison. Born in Virginia, 1751; graduated from the College of New- Jersey (Princeton), 1771; served in the Virginia legislature, 1776, 1784, 1785, 1786, and 1797; member of Congress, 1779; of the Annapolis Convention, 1786; of the Federal Convention, 1787; joint author with Hamilton and Jay of "The Feder- alist," 1787-88; member of the U. S. House of Representatives, 1789-96, where he op- posed Federalist measures ; Seeretary of State, 1801-9 ; Prcsiden t, 1809-17 ; died, 1836 88 On the Federal Constitution 89 [James Madison, in the Virginia Convention, at Richmond, June 5, 1788.] MR. Chairman: I shall not attempt to make im- pressions by any ardent professions of zeal for the public welfare. We know the principles of every roan will and ought to be judged, not by his professions and declarations, but by his conduct. By that criterion I mean, in common with every other member, to be judged; and should it prove unfavorable to my reputation, yet it is a criterion from which I will by no means depart. Com- parisons have been made between the friends of this Con- stitution and those who oppose it. Although I disapprove of such comparisons, I trust that in truth, honor, candor and rectitude of motives, the friends of this system, here and in other States, are not inferior to its opponents. But profes- sions of attachment to the public good, and comparisons of parties, ought not to govern or influence us now. We ought, sir, to examine the Constitution on its own merits solely. We are to inquire whether it will promote the public happiness. Its aptitude to produce this desirable object ought to be the exclusive subject of our researches. In this pursuit, we ought not to address our arguments to the feelings and passions, but to those understandings and judgments which were selected by the people of this country to decide this great question, by a calm and rational investigation. I hope that gentlemen, in displaying their abilities on this occa- sion, instead of giving opinions and making assertions, will condescend to prove and demonstrate, by a fair and regular discussion. It gives me pain to hear gentlemen continually distorting the natural construction of language; for it is sufficient if any human production can stand a fair discus- sion. Before I proceed to make some additions to the reasons which have been adduced by my honorable friend over the way, I must take the liberty to make some observations on what was said by another gentleman [Mr. Henry]. He told us that this Constitution ought to be rejected, because it en- dangered the public liberty, in his opinion, in many in- 90 James Madison stances. Give me leave to make one answer to that observa- tion : let the dangers which this system is suiaposed to be re- plete with, be clearly pointed out ; if any dangerous and un- necessary powers be given to the general legislature, let them be plainly demonstrated, and let us not rest satisfied with general assertions of dangers without examination. If powers be necessary, apparent danger is not a sufficient reason against conceding them. He has suggested that li- centiousness has seldom produced the loss of liberty; but that the tyranny of rulers has almost always effected it. Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people, by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations: but on a candid examination of history, we shall find that turbulence, violence, and abuse of power by the majority trampling on the rights of the minority, have produced factions and com- motions which, in republics, have more frequently than any other cause produced despotism. If we go over the whole historj^ of ancient and modern republics, we shall find their destruction to have generally resulted from those causes. If we consider the peculiar situation of the United States, and what are the sources of that diversity of sentiment which pervades its inhabitants, we shall find great danger to fear that the same causes may terminate here in the same fatal effects which they produced in those republics. This danger ought to be wisely guarded against. Perhaps, in the prog- ress of this discussion, it will appear that tlie only possible remedy for those evils, and means of preserving and pro- tecting the principles of republicanism, will be found in that very system which is now exclaimed against as the parent of oppression. I must confess I have not been able to find his usual con- sistency in the gentleman's argument on this occasion. He informs us that the people of this country are at perfect re- pose, that is, every man enjoys the fruits of his labor peace- ably and securely, and that every thing is in perfect tran- On the Federal Constitution 91 quilHty and safety. I wish sincerely, sir, this were true. If this be their happy situation, why has every State acknowl- edged the contrary .'' Why were deputies from all the States sent to the general convention ? Why have complaints of na- tional and individual distresses been echoed and re-echoed throughout the continent .'' Why has our general government been so shamefully disgraced, and our constitution vio- lated.^ Wherefore have laws been made to authorize a change, and wherefore are we now assembled here.'' A fed- eral government is formed for the protection of its indi- vidual members. Ours has attacked itself with impunity. Its authority has been disobeyed and despised. I think I perceive a glaring inconsistency in another of his argu- ments. He complains of this Constitution, because it re- quires the consent of at least three-fourths of the States to introduce amendments which shall be necessary for the hap- piness of the people. The assent of so many he urges as too great an obstacle to the admission of salutary amend- ments, which he strongly insists ought to be at the will of a bare majority: we hear this argument at the very moment we are called upon to assign reasons for proposing a con- stitution which puts it in the power of nine States to abolish the present inadequate, unsafe, and jjernicious Confedera- tion ! In the first case, he asserts that a maj ority ought to have the power of altering the government, when found to be inadequate to the security of public happiness. In the last case, he affirms that even three-fourths of the com- munity have not a right to alter a government, which ex- perience has proved to be subversive of national felicity; nay, that the most necessary and urgent alterations can not be made without the absolute unanimity of all the States ! Does not the thirteenth article of the Confederation ex- pressly require, that no alteration shall be made without the unanimous consent of all the States? Could any thing in theory be more perniciously improvident and injudicious than this submission of the will of the majority to the most trifling minority? Have not experience and practice actu- 92 James Madison ally manifested tliis theoretical inconvenience to be ex- tremely inpolitic? Let me mention one fact^ which I con- ceive must carry conviction to the mind of any one, — the smallest State in the Union has obstructed every attempt to reform the government; tliat little member has repeatedly disobeyed and counteracted the general authority; nay, has even supplied the enemies of its country with provisions. Twelve States had agreed to certain improvements which were proposed, being thought absolutely necessary to pre- serve the existence of the general government; but as these improvements, though really indispensable, could not by the Confederation be introduced into it without the con- sent of every State, tlie refractory dissent of that little State prevented their adoption. The inconveniences resulting from this requisition of unanimous concurrence in altera- tions in the Confederation, must be known to every member in this convention; it is therefore needless to remind them of them. Is it not self-evident, that a trifling minority ought not to bind the majority? Would not foreign influence be exerted with facility over a small minority.'' Would the honorable gentleman agree to continue the most radical de- fects in the old system, because the petty State of Rhode Island would not agree to remove them .'' He next objects to tlie exclusive legislation over the dis- trict where the seat of tlie government may be fixed. Woidd he submit that the representatives of this State should carry on their deliberations under the control of any one member of the Union? If any State had the power of legislation over the place where Congress should fix the general gov- ernment, this would impair the dignity and hazard the safety of Congress. If the safety of the Union were under the control of any particular State, would not foreign cor- ruption probabh'^ prevail in such a State, to induce it to ex- ert its controlling influence over the members of the general government? Gentlemen can not have forgotten the dis- graceful insult which Congress received some years ago [in 1783, when some eighty mutinous soldiers drove Con- On the Federal Constitution 93 gress from PhiladeliDliia], When we also reflect, that the previous cession of particular States is necessary before Congress can legislate exclusively anywhere, we must, in- stead of being alarmed at this part, heartily approve of it. But the honorable member sees great danger in the provi- sion concerning the militia. This I conceive to be an addi- tional security to our liberties, without diminishing the power of the States in any considerable degree; it appears to me so highly expedient, that I should imagine it would have found advocates even in the warmest friends of the present system. The authority of training the militia and appointing the officers is reserved to the States. Congress ought to have the power of establishing a uniform system of discipline throughout the States; and to provide for the execution of the laws, suppress insurrections, and repel in- vasions. These are the only cases wherein they can inter- fere with the militia ; and the obvious necessity of their hav- ing power over them in these cases, must convince any re- flecting mind. Without uniformity of discipline, military bodies would be incapable of action; without a general con- trolling power to call forth the streng-th of the Union to repel invasions, the country might be overrun, and con- quered by foreign enemies. W^ithout such a power to sup- press insurrections, our liberties might be destroyed by do- mestic faction, and domestic tyranny be established. The honorable member then told us, that there was no instance of power once transferred being voluntarily re- nounced. Not to produce European examples, which may probably be done before the rising of this convention, have we not seen already in seven States (and probably in an eighth State), legislatures surrendering some of the most imjiortant powers they possessed ? But, sir, by this govern- ment, powers are not given to any particular set of men: they are in the hands of the people — delegated to their rep- resentatives chosen for short terms — to representatives responsible to the people, and whose situation is per- fectly similar to our own: — as long as this is the case. 94 James Madison we have no danger to apprehend. WTien the gentleman called our recollection to the usual effects of the concession of powers^ and imputed the loss of liberty generally to open tyranny, I wish he had gone on farther. Upon his review of history he would have found, that the loss of liberty very often resulted from factions and divisions ; from local considerations, which eternally lead to quarrels : he would have found internal dissensions to have more frequently de- molished civil liberty, than a tenacious disposition in rulers to retain any stipulated powers, , . . The power of raising and supporting armies is exclaimed against, as dangerous and unnecessary, I sincerely wish that there were no necessity for vesting this power in the general government. But suppose a foreign nation to de- clare war against the United States, must not the general legislature have the power of defending the United States? Ought it to be known to foreign nations that the general government of the United States of America has no power to raise or support an army, even in the utmost danger, when attacked by external enemies ? Would not their knowl- edge of such a circumstance stimulate them to fall upon us ,'' If, sir. Congress be not invested with this power, any powerful nation, prompted by ambition or avarice, will be invited by our weakness to attack us; and such an attack, by disciplined veterans, would certainly be attended with success, when only opposed by irregular, undisciplined mi- litia. Whoever considers the peculiar situation of this coun- try, the multiplicity of its excellent inlets and harbors, and the uncommon facility of attacking it, however much he may regret the necessity of such a power, can not hesitate a mo- ment in granting it. One fact may elucidate this argimient. In the course of the late war, when the weak parts of the Union were exposed, and many States were in the most de- plorable situation by the enemy's ravages, the assistance of foreign nations was thought so urgently necessary for our protection, that the relinquishment of territorial advantages was not deemed too great a sacrifice for the acquisition of On the Federal Constitution 95 one ally. This exiDcdient was admitted with great reluc- tance, even by those States Avho expected advantages from it. The crisis, however, at length arrived when it was judged necessary for the salvation of this country to make certain cessions to Spain; whether wisely, or otherwise, is not for me to say; but the fact was, that instructions were sent to our representative at the court of Sjoain, to empower him to enter into negotiations for that purpose. How it termi- nated is well known. This fact shows the extremities to which nations will recur in cases of imminent danger, and demonstrates the necessity of making ourselves more re- spectable. The necessity of making dangerous cessions, and of applying to foreign aid, ought to be excluded. The honorable member then told us, that there are heart- burnings in the adopting States, and that Virginia may, if she does not come into the measure, continue in amicable confederacy with the adopting States. I wish as seldom as possible to contradict the assertions of gentlemen ; but I can venture to affirm, without danger of being in an error, that there is the most conclusive evidence that the satisfaction of those States is increasing every day, and that, in that State where it was adopted only by a majority of nineteen [Mas- sachusetts], there is not one-fifth of the people dissatisfied. There are some reasons which induce us to conclude, that the grounds of proselytism extend everywhere ; its principles begin to be better understood; and the inflammatory vio- lence, wherewith it was opposed by designing, illiberal, and unthinking minds, begins to subside. I will not enumerate the causes from which, in my conception, the heart-burnings of a majority of its opposers have originated. Suffice it to say, that in all they were founded on a misconception of its nature and tendency. Had it been candidly examined and fairly discussed, I believe, sir, that but a very inconsid- erable minority of the people of the United States would have opposed it. With respect to the Swiss federation, which the honorable gentleman has proposed for our example, as far as histori- 96 James Madison cal authority may be relied upon^ we shall find their gov- ernment quite unworthy of our imitation. I am sure if the honorable member had adverted to their history and govern- ment, he never would have quoted their example here. He would have found that, instead of respecting the rights of mankind, their government (at least of several of their cantons) is one of the vilest aristocracies that ever was in- stituted. The peasants of some of their cantons are more oppressed and degraded than the subjects of any monarch of Europe; nay, almost as much so as those of any eastern despot. It is a novelty in jiolitics, that from the worst of systems the happiest consequences should ensue. Their aristocratical rigor and the jDCculiarity of their situation have so long supported their union: without the closest al- liance and amity, dismemberment might follow; their pow- erful and ambitious neighbors would immediately avail themselves of their least jarrings. As we are not circum- stanced like them, no conclusive precedent can be drawn from their situation. I trust the gentleman does not carry his idea so far as to recommend a separation from the adopting States. This government may secure our happi- ness; this is at least as probable as that it shall be oppres- sive. If eight States have, from a persuasion of its policy and utility, adopted it, shall Virginia shrink from it, with- out a full conviction of its danger and inutility? I hope she will never shrink from any duty: I trust she will not determine without the most serious reflection and delibera- tion. I confess to you, sir, were uniformity of religion to be introduced by this system, it would, in my opinion, be in- eligible; but I have no reason to conclude that uniformity of government will produce that of religion. This subject is, for the honor of America, perfectly free and unshackled. The government has no jurisdiction over it; the least re- flection will convince us there is no danger to be feared on this gTound. But we are flattered with the probability of obtaining On the Federal Constitution 97 previous amendments. This calls for the most serious at- tention of this house. If amendments are to be proposed by one State, other States have the same right, and will also propose alterations. These can not but be dissimilar and opposite in their nature. I beg leave to remark, that the governments of the different States are in many respects dissimilar in their structure; their legislative bodies are not similar; their executives are more different. In several of the States, the first magistrate is elected by the people at large; in others, by joint ballot of the members of both branches of the legislature ; and in others in other different manners. This dissimilarity has occasioned a diversity of opinion on the theory of government, which will, without many reciprocal concessions, render a concurrence impos- sible. Although the appointment of an executive magistrate has not been thought destructive to the principles of democ- racy in many [ Panj^] of the States, yet, in the course of the debate, we find objections made to the Federal executive; it is urged that the President will degenerate into a tyrant. I intended, in compliance with the call of the honorable mem- ber, to exjDlain the reasons of proposing this constitution, and develop its principles; but I shall postpone my re- marks till we hear the supplement which he has informed us he intends to add to what he has already said. Give me leave to say something of the nature of the gov- ernment, and to show that it is safe and just to vest it with the power of taxation. There are a number of opinions; but the principal question is, whether it be a federal or consolidated government. In order to judge properly of the question before us, we must consider it minutely in its principal parts. I conceive myself that it is of a mixed nature ; it is in a manner unprecedented ; we can not find one express example in the experience of the world. It stands by itself. In some respects it is a government of a fed- eral nature; in others it is of a consolidated nature. Even if we attend to the manner in which the Constitution is in- vestigated, ratified, and made the act of the people of 7 98 James Madison America, I can say, notwithstanding wliat the honorable gentleman has alleged, that this government is not com- pletely consolidated nor is it entirely federal. Who are the parties to it? The people — but not the people as compos- ing one great body; but the people as composing thirteen sovereignties. Were it, as the gentleman asserts, a consoli- dated government, the assent of a majority of the people would be sufficient for its establishment, and as a majority have adopted it already, the remaining States would be bound by the act of the majority, even if they unanimously reprobated it. Were it such a government as is suggested, it would be now binding on the people of this State, without having had the privilege of deliberating upon it; but, sir, no State is bound by it, as it is, without its own consent. Should all the States adopt it, it will be then a government established by the thirteen States of America, not through the intervention of the legislatures, but by the people at large. In this particular respect, the distinction between the existing and proposed governments is very material. The existing system has been derived from the dependent, derivative authority of the legislatures of tlie States; where- as this is derived from the superior power of the people. If we look at the manner in which alterations are to be made in it, the same idea is in some degree attended to. By the new system, a majority of the States can not intro- duce amendments ; nor are all the States required for that purpose; three-fourths of them must concur in alterations: in this there is a departure from the federal idea. The members to the national Plouse of Representatives are to be chosen by the people at large, in proportion to the num- bers in the respective districts. When we come to the Sen- ate, its members are elected by the States in their equal and political capacity; but had the government been completely consolidated, the Senate would have been chosen by the people, in their individual capacity, in the same manner as the members of the other House. Thus, it is of a compli- cated nature, and this complication, I trust, will be found to On the Federal Constitution 99 exclude the evils of absolute consolidation, as well as of a mere confederacy. If Virginia was separated from all the States, her power and authority would extend to all cases; in like manner, were all powers vested in the general gov- ernment, it would be a consolidated government: but the powers of the Federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases : it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it can not extend its jurisdiction. But the honorable member has satirized with peculiar acrimony the powers given to the general government by this Constitution. I conceive that the first question on this subject is, whether these powers be necessary; if they be, we are reduced to the dilemma of either submitting to the inconvenience, or losing the Union. Let us consider the most important of these reprobated powers; that of direct taxation is most generally objected to. With respect to the exigencies of government, there is no question but the most easy mode of providing for them will be adopted. When, therefore, direct taxes are not necessary, they will not be recurred to. It can be of little advantage to those in power to raise money in a manner oppressive to the peo- ple. To consult the conveniences of the people will cost them nothing, and in many respects will be advantageous to them. Direct taxes will only be recurred to for great purposes. What has brought on other nations those im- mense debts, under the pressure of which many of them labor .^ Not the expenses of their governments, but war. If this country should be engaged in war (and I conceive we ought to provide for the possibility of such a case), how would it be carried on ? By the usual means provided from year to year.'' As our imports will be necessary for the ex- penses of government, and other common exigencies, how are we to carry on the means of defense? How is it pos- sible a war could be supported without money or credit.'' And would it be possible for government to have credit, without having the power of raising money .^ No, it would 100 James Madison be impossible for any government^ in such a case, to de- fend itself. Then, I say, sir, that it is necessary to estab- lish funds for extraordinary exigencies, and give this pow- er to the general government; for the utter inutility of previous requisitions on the States is too well known. Would it be possible for those countries, whose finances and reve- nues are carried to the highest perfection, to carry on the operations of government on great emergencies, such as the maintenance of a war, without an uncontrolled power of raising money? Has it not been necessary for Great Brit- ain, notwithstanding the facility of the collection of her taxes, to have recourse very often to this and other extra- ordinary methods of procuring money.'' Would not her public credit have been ruined, if it was known that her power to raise money was limited.'' Has not France been obliged, on great occasions, to use unusual means to raise funds ? It has been the case in many countries, and no government can exist unless its powers extend to make provisions for ever}' contingency. If we were actually at- tacked by a powerful nation, and our general government had not the power of raising money, but depended solely on requisitions, our condition would be truly deplorable: if the revenues of this commonwealth were to depend on twenty distinct authorities, it would be impossible for it to carry on its operations. This must be obvious to every member here: I think, therefore, that it is necessary for the preservation of the Union that this power should be given to the general government. But it is urged, that its consolidated nature, joined to the power of direct taxation, will give it a tendency to de- stroy all subordinate authority; that its increasing influence will speedily enable it to absorb the State governments. I can not think tliis will be the case. If the general govern- ment were wholly independent of the governments of tlie particular States, then indeed usurjaation might be ex- pected to the fullest extent: but, sir, on whom does this general government depend.'* It derives its authority from On the Federal Constitution loi these governments, and from the same sources from which their authorit}^ is derived. The members of the Federal government are taken from the same men from whom those of the State legislatures are taken. If we consider the mode in which the Federal representatives will be chosen, we shall be convinced that the general will never destroy the individual governments ; and this conviction must be strengthened by an attention to the construction of the Senate. The representatives will be chosen, probably, under the influence of the members of the State legisla- tures : but there is not the least probability that the elec- tion of the latter will be influenced by the former. One hundred and sixty members rej^resent this commonwealth [Virginia] in one branch of the legislature, are drawn from the people at large, and must ever possess more in- fluence than the few men who will be elected to the gen- eral legislature. . . . Those who wish to become Fed- eral representatives, must depend on their credit with that class of men who will be the most popular in their counties, who generally represent the people in the State govern- ment: they can, therefore, never succeed in any measure contrary to the wishes of those on whom they depend. It is almost certain, therefore, that the deliberations of the members of the Federal House of Representatives will be directed to the interest of the people of America. As to the other branch, the Senators will be appointed by the legisla- tures, and though elected for six years, I do not conceive they will soon forget the source from whence they derive their political existence. This election of one branch of the Federal by the State legislatures, secures an absolute dependence of the former on the latter. The biennial ex- clusion of one-third, will lessen the facility of a combina- tion, and may put a stop to intrigues. I appeal to our past experience, whether they will attend to the interests of their constituent States. Have not those gentlemen who have been honored with seats in Congress, often signalized them- selves hy their attachment to their seats? I wish this gov- I02 James Madison ernment may answer the expectation of its friends, and foil the apprehensions of its enemies. I hope the patriotism of the people will continue, and be a sufficient guard to their liberties. I believe its tendency will be, that the State governments will counteract the general interest, and ulti- mately prevail. The number of the representatives is yet sufficient for our safety, and will gradually increase; and if we consider their diiferent sources of information, the number will not appear too small. 9. ALEXANDER HAMILTON, of New York.— FOR THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION (In the New York Convention, at Poughkeepsie, June 20, 1788.) Because of its geographical position, separating the New England States from those south of it, the action of New York on the Constitution was of prime importance. Against the new plan Governor George Clinton directed "all the weight of his official influence, every local prejudice and interest." The legislature passed the resolution for a State convention by only three votes, and the date set for its meeting was the remote one of July 17, 1788. Pending the assemblying of the convention, a committee of "Federal Republicans" sought unsuccessfully to unite the opposition in the different States in support of the same amendments, with a view to the revision of the Constitution by a sec- ond Federal Convention. (Leake, Life of John Lamb, p. 306 ff.) Of the delegates chosen to the State convention, 46 were chosen by the party hostile to the Constitution, and 19 by its friends. Robert Yates and John Lansing, who had attended and deserted the Philadelphia Convention, were leaders on the anti-Federalist side in the New York Convention. Chief on the other side were Alexander Ham- Alexander Hamilton. Born in the British West Indies, 1757; came to America, 1772, where he attended King's College (Columbia University), New York City: enlisted in the Continental army, 1776; appointed on Washington's staff, and became his principal and most confidential aide; admitted to the bar of the New York Supreme Court, 1782; served in Congress, 1782-83; member of the New York Assembly, 1786; of the Federal Convention, 1787; published "The Federalist" with Madison and Jay, 1787-88; member of New York ratifying con- vention, 1788; first Secretary of the U. S. Treasury, 1789-95; killed in duel with Aaron Burr, 1804. 103 I04 Alexander Hamilton ilton (who alone of the New York delegates had signed the Constitution), John Jay, and Chancellor Livingston. In the debates, as in the press discussions preceding the convention, Hamilton was indisputably preeminent; he was "powerful in his reasoning, and so persuasively eloquent and pathetic that he drew tears from most of his audience." (Quoted by J. C. Hamilton, History of the Republic, III, p. 521.) The news of New Hampshire's, and then of Vir- ginia's ratification, greatly aided the Federalists; and New York's ratification was finally carried (July 26) by a vote of 30 to 27, with the projiosal of 32 amendments for the con- sideration of Congress. The reporter who took down tlie speeches in the Conven- tion was confessedly inexperienced, and the reports of Hamilton's speeches are "bald and inaccurate," — a defect shared with most reports of that day. The speech given below was delivered June 20th, while the subject of the representation in the lower house of Congress was under discussion. [Alexander Hamilton, in the New York Convention, at Poughkeepsie, June 20, l7Sa.J MR. Chairman : ... No arguments drawn from embarrassment or inconvenience ought to prevail uj^on us to adopt a system of government radical- ly bad; yet it is proper that these arguments, among others, should be brought into view. In doing this, yesterday, it was necessary to reflect ujion our situation ; to dwell upon the imbecility of our Union ; and to consider whether we, as a State, could stand alone. Although I am persuaded this Convention resolved to adopt nothing that is bad, yet I think every prudent man will consider the merits of the plan in connection with the circumstances of our country; and that a rejection of the Constitution may involve most fatal consequences. On the Federal Constitution 105 Sir, it appears to me extraordinary that while gentlemen in one breath acknowledge that the old Confederation re- quires many material amendments, they should in the next deny that its defects have been the cause of our political weakness, and the consequent calamities of our country. I can not but infer from this, that there is still some lurking, favorite imagination, that this system, with corrections, might become a safe and permanent one. It is proper that we should examine this matter. We contend that the radical vice in the old Confederation is, that the laws of the Union apply only to States in their corporate capacity. Has not every man who has been in our legislature experienced the truth of this position.^ It is inseparable from the disposi- tion of bodies who have a constitutional power of resistance, to examine the merits of a law. This has ever been the case with the Federal requisitions. In this examination, not being furnished with those lights which directed the de- liberations of the general government, and incapable of embracing the general interests of the Union, the States have almost uniformly weighed the requisitions by their own local interests, and have only executed them so far as answered their particular convenience or advantage. Hence there have ever been thirteen different bodies to judge of the measures of Congress — and the operations of govern- ment have been distracted by their taking different courses. Those which were to be benefited have complied with tlie requisitions ; others have totally disregarded them. Have not all of us been witnesses to the tmhappy embarrassments which resulted from these proceedings ? Even during the late war, while the pressure of common danger connected strongly the bond of our Union, and incited to vigorous ex- ertions, we felt many distressing effects of the impotent system. How have we seen this State, though most ex- posed to the calamities of the war, complying, in an unex- ampled manner, with the Federal requisitions, and com- pelled by the delinquency of others to bear most unusual burdens. Of this truth, we have the most solemn proof io6 Alexander Hamilton on our records. In 1779 and 1780, when the State, from the ravages of war, and from lier great exertions to resist them, became weak, distressed, and forlorn, every man avowed the jjrinciple which we now contend for; that our misfortunes, in a great degree, proceeded from the want of vigor in the Continental government. These were our sen- timents when we did not speculate, but feel. We saw our weakness, and found ourselves its victims. Let us reflect that this may again, in all probability, be our situation. This is a weak State; and its relative station is dangerous. Your capital is accessible by land, and by sea is exposed to every daring invader; and on the northwest, you are open to the inroads of a powerful foreign nation. Indeed, this State from its situation will, in time of war, probably be the theatre of its operations. Gentlemen have said that the non-compliance of the States has been occasioned by their sufferings. This may in part be true. But has this State been delinquent? Amidst all our distresses, we have fully complied. If New York could comply wholly with the requisitions, is it not to be supposed that the other States could in part comply.'' Certainly every State in the Union might have executed them in some degree. But New Hampshire, who has not suffered at all, is totally delinquent; North Carolina is totally delinquent. ]\Iany others have contributed in a very small proportion; and Pennsylvania and New York are the only States which have perfectly discharged their Federal duty. From the delinquency of those States who have suffered little by the war, we naturally conclude that they have made no efforts; and a knowledge of human nature will teach us that their ease and security have been a principal cause of their want of exertion. While danger is distant, its impression is weak, and while it affects only our neigh- bors, we have few motives to provide against it. Sir, if we have national objects to pursue, we must have national revenues. If you make requisitions and they are not com- On the Federal Constitution 107 plied with, what is to be done ? It has been well observed, that to coerce the States is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised. A failure of compliance will never be confined to a single State. This being the case, can we suppose it wise to hazard a civil war.^" Suppose Massa- chusetts, or any large State, should refuse, and Congress should attemj^t to compel them ; would they not have in- fluence to procure assistance, especially from those States who are in the same situation as themselves? What picture does this idea present to our view? A complying State at war with a non-complying State: Congress marching the troops of one State into the bosom of another : this State collecting auxiliaries and forming perhaps a majority against its Federal head. Here is a nation at war with itself. Can any reasonable man be well disposed towards a government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself — a government that can exist only by the sword? Every such war must involve the innocent with the guilty. This single consideration should be suf- ficient to dispose every peaceable citizen against such a government. But can we believe that one State will ever suffer itself to be used as an instrument of coercion? The thing is a dream — it is impossible. Then we are brought to the dilem- ma : either a Federal standing army is to enforce the req- uisitions, or the Federal treasury is left without supplies, and the government without support. What, sir, is the cure for this great evil? Nothing, but to enable the na- tional laws to operate on individuals, in the same manner as those of the States do. This is the true reasoning of the subject, sir. The gentlemen appear to acknowledge its force; and yet while they yield to the principle, they seem to fear its application to the government. What then shall we do? Shall we take the old Confed- eration as the basis of a new system? Can this be the object of the gentlemen? Certainly not. Will any man who entertains a wish for the safety of his country, trust io8 Alexander Hamilton the sword and tlie purse with a single assembly organized on principles so defective — so rotten? Though we might give to such a government certain powers with safety, yet to give them the full and unlimited powers of taxation and the national forces^ would be to establish a despotism ; the definition of which is, a government in which all power is concentrated in a single body. To take the old Confed- eration and fashion it upon these principles, would be es- tablishing a power which would destroy the liberties of the people. These considerations show clearly that a govern- ment totally different must be instituted. They had weight in the Convention which formed the new system. It was seen that the necessary powers were too great to be trusted to a single body : they therefore formed two branches, and divided the powers, that each might be a check upon the other. This was the result of their wisdom; and I presume that every reasonable man will agree to it. The more this subject is explained, the more clear and convincing it will appear to every member of this body. The fundamental principle of the old Confederation is defective; we must totall}' eradicate and discard this principle before we can expect an efficient government. In order that the committee may understand clearly the principles on which the general convention acted, I think it necessary to explain some preliminary circumstances. Sir, the natural situation of this country seems to divide its interests into different classes. There are navigating and non-navigating States: the northern are properly the navigating States; the southern appear to possess neither the means nor the spirit of navigation. This difference of situation naturally produces a dissimilarity of interests and views respecting foreign commerce. It was the interest of the northern States, that there should be no restraints on their navigation, and that tliey should have full power, by a majority in Congress, to make commercial regulations in favor of their own, and in restraint of the navigation of for- eigners. The southern States wished to impose a restraint On the Federal Constitution 109 on the northern, by requiring that two-thirds in Congress should be requisite to pass an act in regulation of com- merce: they were apprehensive that the restraints of a navi- gation law would discourage foreigners, and by obliging them to employ the shipping of the northern States, would probably enhance their freight. This being the case, they insisted strenuously on having this provision engrafted in the Constitution; and the northern States were as anxious in opposing it. On the other hand, the small States, seeing themselves embraced by the Confederation upon equal terms, wished to retain the advantages which they already pos- sessed: the large States, on the contrary, thought it im- proper that Rhode Island and Delaware should enjoy an equal suffrage with themselves. From these sources a deli- cate and difficult contest arose. It became necessary, there- fore, to compromise ; or the Convention must have dissolved without effecting anything. Would it have been wise and prudent in that body, in this critical situation, to have de- serted the country.-* No. Every man who hears me — every wise man in the United States — would have con- demned them. The Convention were obliged to appoint a committee for accommodation. In this committee the ar- rangement was formed as it now stands ; and their report was accepted. It was a delicate point; and it was neces- sary that all parties should be indulged. Gentlemen will see, that if there had not been unanimity, nothing could have been done: for the Convention had no power to estab- lish, but only to recommend a government. Any other sys- tem would have been impracticable. Let a convention be called to-morrow — let them meet twenty times ; nay, twen- ty thousand times : they will have the same difficulties to encounter; the same clashing interests to reconcile. But, dismissing these reflections, let us consider how far the arrangement is in itself entitled to the approbation of this body. We will examine it upon its own merits. The first thing objected to is that clause which allows a representation for three-fifths of the negroes. Much has no Alexander Hamilton been said of the impropriety of representing men who have no will of their own. Whether this be reasoning or dec- lamation I will not presume to say. It is the unfortunate situation of the southern States to have a great part of their population^ as well as property, in blacks. The regulation complained of was one result of the spirit of accommoda- tion which governed the Convention, and without this in- dulgence no union could possibly have been formed. But, sir, considering some peculiar advantages which we derive from them, it is entirely just that they should be gratified. The southern States possess certain staples, tobacco, rice, indigo, etc., which must be capital objects in treaties of commerce with foreign nations, and the advantage which they necessarily procure in these treaties will be felt throughout all the States. But the justice of this plan will appear in another view. The best writers on government have held that representation should be compounded of persons and property. This rule has been adopted, as far as it could be, in the constitution of New York. It will, however, by no means be admitted that the slaves are con- sidered altogether as property. They are men, though de- graded to the condition of slavery. They are persons known to the municipal laws of the States which they inhabit, as well as to the laws of nature. But representation and taxa- tion go together, and one uniform rule ought to apply to both. Would it be just to compute these slaves in the as- sessment of taxes, and discard them from the estimate in the aiDportionment of representatives? Would it be just to impose a singular burden without conferring some adequate advantage ? Another circumstance ought to be considered. The rule we have been speaking of is a general rule, and applies to all the States. Now, you have a great number of people in your State which are not represented at all, and have no voice in 3^our government ; tliese will be included in the enumeration — not two-fifths nor three-fifths, but the whole. This proves that the advantages of the plan are not con- On the Federal Constitution 1 1 1 fined to the southern States^ but extend to other parts of the Union. I now proceed to consider the objection with regard to the number of representatives^ as it now stands; I am per- suaded the system, in this respect, stands on a better foot- ing than the gentlemen imagine. It has been asserted that it will be in the power of Con- gress to reduce the number. I acknowledge that there are no direct words of prohibition. But I contend that the true and genuine construction of the clause gives Congress no power whatever to reduce the representation below the number as it now stands. Although they may limit, they can never diminish the number. One representative for every thirty thousand inhabitants is fixed as the standard of increase till, by the natural course of population, it shall become necessary to limit the ratio. Probably at present, were this standard to be immediately applied, the representation would considerably exceed sixty-five. In three years it would exceed one hundred. If I understand the gentlemen, they contend that the number may be en- larged, or may not. I admit that this is in the discretion of Congress, and I submit to the committee whether it be not necessary and proper. Still, I insist that an immediate limitation is not probable, nor was it in the contemplation of the Convention. But, sir, who will presume to say to what precise point the representation ought to be increased ? This is a matter of opinion, and opinions are vastly dif- ferent upon the subject. A proof of this is drawn from the representations in the State legislatures. In Massa- chusetts the assembly consists of about three hundred; in South Carolina, of nearly one hundred ; in New York there are sixty-five. It is observed generally that the number ouglit to be large ; let the gentlemen produce their criterion. I confess it is difficult for me to say what number may be said to be sufficiently large. On one hand it ought to be considered that a small number will act with more facility, system, and decision ; on the other, that a large one may en- 112 Alexander Hamilton hance the difficulty of corruption. The Congress is to con- sist, at first, of ninety-one members. This, to a reasonable man, may appear to be as near the proper medium as any number whatever, at least for the present. There is one source of increase, also, which does not depend upon the construction of the Constitution; it is the creation of new States. Vermont, Kentucky, and Franklin [eastern Ten- nessee, organized by secession from North Carolina in 1784] will probably become independent: new members of the Union will also be formed from the unsettled tracts of western territory. These must be represented, and will all contribute to swell the Federal legislature. If the whole number in the United States be at present three millions, as is commonly supi^osed, according to the ratio of one for thirty thousand we shall have, on the first census, a hun- dred representatives. In ten years thirty more will be added, and in twenty-fi^'e years the number will double; then, sir, we shall have two hundred, if the increase goes on in the same proportion. The convention of Massa- chusetts, who made the same objection, have fixed upon this number as the point at which they chose to limit the representation. But can we ^^ronounce with certainty that it will not be expedient to go beyond this number.'' We can not. Experience alone must determine. This matter may, with more safety, be left to the discretion of the leg^ islature, as it will be the interest of the large and increasing States of Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, etc., to augment the representation. Only Connecticut, Rhode Island, Delaware, and Maryland can be interested in limit- ing it. We may, therefore, safely calculate upon a grow- ing representation, according to the advance of population and the circumstances of the country. The State governments possess inherent advantages which will ever give them an influence and ascendency over the national government, and will forever preclude the possibility of Federal encroachments. That their liberties indeed can be subverted by the Federal head is repugnant On the Federal Constitution 113 to every rule of political calculation. Is not this arrange- ment theuj sir^ a most wise and prudent one? Is not the present representation fully adequate to our present exigen- cies, and sufficient to answer all the purposes of the Union ? I am persuaded that an examination of the objects of the Federal government will afford a conclusive answer. . . . [On the 21st Hamilton continued his remarks as fol- lows:] When I had the honor to address the committee yester- day, I gave a history of the circumstances which attended the Convention, when forming the plan before us. I en- deavored to point out to you the principles of accommoda- tion on which this arrangement was made, and to show that the contending interests of the States led them to establish the representation as it now stands. In the second place, I attempted to prove that, in point of number, the represen- tation would be perfectly secure. Sir, no man agrees more perfectly than myself to the main principle for which the gentlemen contend. I agree that there should be a broad democratic branch in the national legislature. But this matter, sir, depends on circumstances. It is impossible, in the first instance, to be precise and exact with regard to the number, and it is equally impossible to determine to what point it may be proper in future to increase it. On this ground I am disposed to acquiesce. In my reasonings on the subject of government I rely more on the interests and opinions of men than on any speculative parchment pro- visions whatever, I have found that constitutions are more or less excellent as they are more or less agreeable to the natu- ral operation of things. I am therefore disposed not to dwell long on curious speculations or pay much attention to modes or forms, but to adopt a system whose principles have been sanctioned by experience, adapt it to the real state of our country, and depend on probable reasonings for its operation and result. I contend that sixty-five and twenty-six in two bodies afford perfect security in the present state of things, and that the regular progressive 8 114 Alexander Hamilton enlargement^ which was in the contemplation of the general Convention, will not leave an apprehension of danger in the most timid and suspicious mind. It will be the interest of the large States to increase the representation. This will be the standing instruction to their delegates. But, say the gentlemen, the members of Congress will be interested not to increase the number, as it will diminish their rela- tive influence. In all their reasoning upon the subject, there seems to be this fallacy : they suppose that the repre- sentative will have no motive of action, on the one side, but a sense of duty; or on the other, but corruption. They do not reflect that he is to return to the community; that he is dependent on the will of the people, and that it can not be his interest to oppose their wishes. Sir, the general sense of the people will regulate the conduct of their representa- tives. I admit that there are exceptions to this rule; there are certain conjunctures when it may be necessary and proper to disregard the opinions which the majority of the people have formed. But in the general course of things, the popular views, and even prejudices, will direct the ac- tions of the rulers. All governments, even the most despotic, depend in a great degree on opinion. In free republics it is most pe- culiarly the case. In these, the will of the people makes the essential principle of the government; and the laws which control the community receive their tone and spirit from the public wishes. It is the fortunate situation of our country, that the minds of the people are exceedingly en- lightened and refined. Here then we may expect the laws to be proportionally agi-eeable to the standard of perfect policy; and the wisdom of public measures to consist with the most intimate conformity between the views of the repre- sentative and his constituent. If the general voice of the people be for an increase, it must undoubtedly take place. They have it in their power to instruct their representa- tiv^es; and the State legislatures, which appoint the Sena- tors, may enjoin it also upon them. Sir, if I believed that On the Federal Constitution 115 the number would remain at sixty-five, I confess I should give my vote for an amendment; though in a different form from the one proposed. The amendment proposes a ratio of one for twenty thous- and. I would ask, by what rule or reasoning it is deter- mined that one man is a better representative for twenty than thirty thousand? At present we have three millions of people ; in twenty-five years we shall have six millions ; and in forty years, nine millions : and this is a short period, as it relates to the existence of States. Here, then, accord- ing to the ratio of one for thirty thousand, we shall have, in forty years, three hundred representatives. If this be true, and if this be a safe representation, why be dissatis- fied? Why embarrass the Constitution with amendments that are merely speculative and useless? I agree with the gentleman, that a very small number might give some color for susjDicion; I acknowledge that ten would be un- safe ; on the other hand, a thousand would be too numerous. But I ask him, why will not ninety-one be an adequate and safe representation? This at present appears to be the proper medium. Besides, the President of the United States will be himself the representative of the people. From the competition that ever exists between the branches of the government, the President will be induced to protect their rights, whenever they are invaded by either branch. On whatever side we view this subject, we discover various and powerful checks to the encroachment of Congress. The true and permanent interests of the members are op- posed to corruption: their number is vastly too large for easy combination : the rivalshij? between the houses will forever prove an insuperable obstacle: the people have an obvious and powerful protection in their State governments. Should anything dangerous be attempted, these bodies of perpetual observation will be capable of forming and con- ducting plans of regular opjoosition. Can we suppose the people's love of liberty will not, under the incitement of their legislative leaders, be roused into resistance, and the ii6 Alexander Hamilton madness of tyranny be extinguished at a blow? Sir, the danger is too distant; it is beyond all rational ealculation. It has been observed by an honorable gentleman, that a pure democracy, if it were practicable, would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no posi- tion in politics is more false than this. The ancient de- mocracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one feature of good government. Their very character was tyranny ; their figure deformity. When they assembled, the field of debate presented an ungovernable mob, not only incapable of deliberation, but prepared for every enormity. In these assemblies, the enemies of the people brought forward their plans of ambition systemati- cally. They were o2:)posed by their enemies of another party; and it became a matter of contingency, whether the people subjected themselves to be led blindly by one tyrant or by another. It was remarked yesterday that a numerous representa- tion was necessary to obtain the confidence of the people. This is not generally true. The confidence of the people will easily be gained by a good administration. This is the true touchstone. . . . The popular confidence de- pends on circumstances very distinct from considerations of number. Probably the public attachment is more strong- ly secured by a train of prosperous events, which are the result of wise deliberation and vigorous execution, and to which large bodies are much less competent than small ones. If the representative conducts with propriety, he will nec- essarily enjoy the good will of the constituent. It ap- pears then, if my reasoning be just, that the clause is per- fectly proper, uj^on the principles of the gentleman who contends for the amendment; as there is in it the greatest degree of present security, and a moral certainty of an increase equal to our utmost wishes. It has been further, by the gentlemen in opposition, ob- served that a large representation is necessary to under- stand the interests of the people. This principle is by no On the Federal Constitution 117 means true, in the extent to which the gentlemen seem to carry it. I would ask. Why may not a man understand the interests of thirty as well as of twenty? The position appears to be made upon the unfounded presumption that all the interests of all parts of the community must be rep- resented. No idea is more erroneous than this. Only such interests are proper to be represented as are involved in the powers of the general government. These interests come completely under the observation of one or a f cav men ; and the requisite information is by no means augmented in pro- portion to the increase of number. . . . But granting for a moment that this minute and local knowledge the gentlemen contend for is necessary, let us see if, under the new Constitution, it will not probably be found in the rep- resentation. The natural and proper mode of holding elections will be to divide the State into districts, in pro- portion to the number to be elected. This State will conse- quently be divided, at first, into six. One man from each district will probably possess all tlie knowledge gentlemen can desire. Are the senators of this State more ignorant of the interests of the people than the assembly.'' Have they not ever enjoyed their confidence as much? Yet, in- stead of six districts, they are elected in four; and the chance of their being collected from the smaller divisions of the State consequently diminished. Their number is but twenty-four; and their powers are co-extensive with those of the assembly, and reach objects which are most dear to the people — life, liberty, and property. Sir, we hear constantly a great deal which is rather cal- culated to awake our passions, and create prejudices, than to conduct us to the truth, and teach us our real interests. I do not suppose this to be the design of the gentlemen. Why then are we told so often of an aristocracy? For my part, I hardly know the meaning of this word as it is ap- plied. If all we hear be true, this government is really a very bad one. But who are the aristocracy among us? Where do we find men elevated to a perpetual rank above ii8 Alexander Hamilton their fellow-citizens^ and possessing i:)o\vers entirely inde- pendent of them? The arguments of the gentlemen only go to prove that there are men who are rich, men who are poor; some who are wise, and others who are not. That indeed every distinguished man is an aristocrat. This re- minds me of a description of the aristocrats I have seen in a late publication, styled The Federal Farmer [by Richard Henry Lee]. The author reckons in the aristocracy all governors of States, members of Congress, chief magis- trates, and all officers of the militia. This description, I presume to say, is ridiculous. The image is a phantom. Does the new government render a rich man more eligible than a poor one? No. It requires no such qualification. It is bottomed on the broad and equal principle of your State constitution. Sir, if the people have it in their ojition to elect their most meritorious men, is this to be considered as an objec- tion? Shall the Constitution oppose their wishes, and abridge their most invaluable privilege? Wliile property continues to be pretty equally divided, and a considerable share of information pervades the community, the tendency of the people's suffrages will be to elevate merit even from obscurity. As riches increase and accumulate in few hands, as luxury prevails in society, virtue will be in a greater degree considered as only a graceful appendage of wealth, and the tendency of things will be to depart from the re- publican standard. This is the real disposition of human nature: it is what neither the honorable member nor myself can correct; it is a common misfortune, that awaits our State constitution, as well as all others. There is an advantage incident to large districts of elec- tion, which perhajos the gentlemen, amidst all their appre- hensions of influence and bribery, have not adverted to. In large districts, the corruption of the electors is much more difficult. Combinations for the purposes of intrigue are less easily formed: factions and cabals are little known. In a small district, wealth will have a more complete in- On the Federal Constitution 119 fluence; because the people in the vicinity of a great man are more immediately his dependents, and because this in- fluence has fewer objects to act upon. It has been remarked, that it would be disagreeable to the middle class of men to go to the seat of the new government. If this be so, the difficulty will be enhanced by the gentleman's proposal. If his argument be true, it proves that the larger the represen- tation is, the less will be your chance of having it filled. But it appears to me frivolous to bring forward such argu- ments as these. It has answered no other purpose than to induce me, by way of reply, to enter into discussions which I consider as useless, and not applicable to our subject. It is a harsh doctrine, that men grow wicked in propor- tion as they improve and enlighten their minds. Experi- ence has by no means justified us in the supposition that there is more virtue in one class of men than in another. Look through the rich and the poor of the community; the learned and the ignorant. Where does virtue joredominate ? The difference indeed consists not in the quantity, but kind of vices, which are incident to various classes ; and here the advantage of character belongs to the wealthy. Their vices are probably more favorable to the prosperity of the State than those of the indigent, and partake less of moral de- pravity. After all, sir, we must submit to this idea, that the true principle of a republic is, that the people should choose whom they please to govern them. Representation is im- perfect in proportion as the current of popular favor is checked. This great source of free government, popular election, should be perfectly pure, and the most unbounded liberty allowed. Where this principle is adhered to; where, in the organization of the government, the legislative, exec- utive, and judicial branches are rendered distinct; where again the legislative is divided into separate houses, and the oiDCrations of each are controlled by various checks and balances, and above all by the vigilance and weight of the State governments; to talk of tyranny, and the sub- I20 Alexander Hamilton version of our liberties, is to speak the language of en- thusiasm. This balance between the National and State governments ought to be dwelt on with peculiar attention, as it is of the utmost importance. It forms a double se- curity to the people. If one encroaches on their rights, they will find a powerful protection in the other. Indeed, they will both be prevented from overpassing their consti- tutional limits, by a certain rivalship, which will ever sub- sist between them. I am persuaded, that a firm union is as necessary to perpetuate our liberties, as it is to make us re- spectable; and experience Avill probably prove, that the na- tional government will be as natural a guardian of our free- dom as the State legislatures themselves. Suggestions, sir, of an extraordinary nature have been frequently thrown out in the course of the present political controversy. It gives me pain to dwell on topics of this kind, and I wish they might be dismissed. We have been told that the old Confederation has proved inefficacious, only because intriguing and powerful men, aiming at a revolution, have been forever instigating the people and rendering them disaffected with it. This, sir, is a false insinuation. The thing is impossible. I will venture to assert, that no combination of designing men under heaven will be capable of making a government unpopular, which is in its principles a wise and good one^ and vigorous in its operations. The Confederation was framed amidst the agitation and tumult of society. It was composed of unsound materials put together in haste. Men of intelligence discovered the feebleness of the structure, in the first stages of its ex- istence; but the great body of the people, too much en- gi-ossed with their distresses to contemplate any but the immediate causes of them, were ignorant of the defects of their constitution. But when the dangers of war were re- moved, they saw clearlj'- what they had suffered, and what they had yet to sufi'er, from a feeble form of government. There was no need of discerning men to convince the peo- On the Federal Constitution 121 pie of their unliajDpy situation; the complaint was co-ex- tensive with the evil, and both were common to all classes of the community. We have been told that the spirit of patriotism and love of liberty are almost extinguished among the people, and that it has become a prevailing doc- trine that republican principles ought to be hooted out of the world. Sir, I am confident that such remarks as these are rather occasioned by the heat of argument than by a cool conviction of their truth and justice. As far as my experience has extended, I have heard no such doctrine, nor have I discovered any diminution of regard for those rights and liberties, in defense of which the people have fought and suffered. There have been, undoubtedly, some men who have had speculative doubts on the subject of government; but the principles of republicanism are founded on too firm a basis to be shaken by a few speculative and skeptical reasoners. Our error has been of a very different kind. We have erred through excess of caution, and a zeal false and impracticable. Our counsels have been destitute of consistency and stability. I am flattered with a hope, sir, that we have now found a cure for the evils under which we have so long labored. I trust that the proposed Consti- tution affords a genuine specimen of representative and republican government, and that it will answer, in an emi- nent degree, all the beneficial purposes of society. Ill National Government Established When our forefathers framed and ratified the Federal Constitution they merely forged the mechanism of a gov- ernment. The setting it up, the adjustment of part to part, and establishing the orderly working of the whole in just relation to the State governments, was the task of the next period following. The Constitution as adopted might lend itself to a mere confederation of almost sovereign States, or it might in operation develop a truly national government, leaving only subordinate spheres to the States. In tone it might prove either aristocratic or democratic : dominated by the well-born, educated and wealthy few, or by the hard-work- ing, ill-educated, undistinguished many. If the Federalist policy embodied in the Alien and Sedition laws of 1798 had prevailed, it might have proved a government sub- versive of the rights of free speech, and public meeting; while the success of the "Whisky Rebellion of 1794 would have meant the triumph of a personal liberty which spelled anarchy. That the government was guided into that middle way in which national efficiency was achieved while States' rights were not unduly sacrificed, was largely the result of the opposing influences exerted by Hamilton and Jefferson — the one the champion of a strong, efficient, aristocratic government; the other the ardent advocate of democratic equality. In part also, this result was due to the logical, 122 National Government Established 123 statesmanlike, organizing genius of John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, whose decisions from 1801 to 1835 gave a strongly national bent to constitutional inter- pretation and legislation. Much also was due to social and political changes which developed a sentiment of nationality among the people, and prepared them for the acceptance of the more national cast which was being given to the Federal government. Among these changes must be noted: (1) the westward advance of settlement and the formation of new States under the sanc- tion of the National government; (2) the influx of foreign immigrants, who were without sentimental attachments to the separate States; and (3) improvements in the means of communication, through the construction of turnpikes and the National Road, through canal building and the later growth of railways, and through the invention of the steam- boat, which made rivers and lakes usable as never before for purposes of travel and traffic. The influence of (4) the foreign relations of the United States on the develop- ment of a national sentiment was also important; for out of the War of 1812 came the ending of the intellectual and political dependence of the United States on Europe, which for a score of years had made our politics an echo of the strife between France and England. It is not possible, even if space permitted, to illustrate all these developments in oratorical selections. The great discussions which fixed the interpretation of the Constitu- tion on the basis of a broad construction of the powers granted, are to be found mainly in Supreme Court deci- sions and other state papers. A full setting forth of the relations of the Federal government to the State govern- ments would require the inclusion of the Virginia and Ken- tucky Resolutions, which are not properly oratorical. So, too, with other aspects. It will be found, however, that 124 Select Orations much has been here inckided. Fisher Ames's speech on tlie British Treaty, Washington's Farewell Address, and Randolph's speech on War with Great Britain all illustrate the subject of American foreign relations and the result- ing divisions in domestic politics. Jefferson's First Inau- gural sets forth the ideals of the rising democratic party. Pinkney's speech on the Missouri Compromise shows the opposing schools of constitutional interpretation, and the threatening dangers of Slavery. Finally, in Webster's reply to Hayne we have one of the greatest and noblest expressions of the developed sense of nationality — the chief fruit of this period, — ^together with a masterly refutation of the theory of nullification, to which the South had been brought by discontent with the Northern policy of develop- ing economic independence of Europe through the means of a protective tariff. Among the books of most value for the study of this period are the following volumes in the series entitled The American Nation, a History: Bassett's The Federalist System; Channing's The Jeffersonian System; Babcock's Rise of American Nationality; Turner's Rise of the New West; McDonald's Jacksonian Democracy. The most comprehensive and valuable account of the period from 1801 to 1817 is in Henry Adams's History of the United States During the Administrations of Jefferson and Madi- son (9 vols.). Other standard histories are Schouler's United States, Vols. I-III; McMaster's United States, Vols. II-V; Wilson's American People, Vol. III. The fol- lowing are excellent short books: Hart's Formation of the Union; Walker's Making of the Nation. Among biogra- phies we should note Lodge's Hamilton and Washington; Morse's Jefferson and Schouler's Jefferson; ]\Iagruder's Marshall; Adams's Joh7i Randolph; Schurz's Clay; Von Hoist's Calhoun; Curtis's Webster, and Lodge's Webster. 10. FISHER AMES, of Massachusetts.— THE BRIT- ISH TREATY (Delivered in the U. S. House of Representatives, at New York, April 28, 1796.) During Washington's first administration, the questions which occupied attention were ahiiost exclusively such as sprung naturally from the attempt to put in operation a hitherto untried form of government. Its various branches were organized, the powers given were liberally interpreted, and upon the Treasury policies adopted under Hamilton the people divided into rival political parties. In Washington's second administration the outbreak of war between revolu- tionary France and Great Britain made foreign relations the chief question, and embittered the already strained party relations by new appeals to opposing sympathies, prejudices, and interests. In Congress party differences manifested themselves es- pecially in the struggle over the British Treaty of 179'i- Great Britain's failure to evacuate the Western posts in accordance with the treaty of 1783, her aggressions upon American neutral trade, and her impressment of American seamen for her navy, brought the two countries to the verge of war. In a last effort to settle their differences and maintain peace Washington nominated Chief Justice Jay as a special envoy to England. By the treaty which Fisher Ames. Born in Massachusetts, 175S; graduated from Harvard College, 1774; admitted to the bar, 1781; member of Massachusetts State Legislature, 1788; member of Congress, 1789-97, retiring on account of ill-health ; for the same reason declined the presidency of Harvard College, 1804; died, 1808. 125 126 Fisher Ames Jay concluded in 1794, the questions of the northeast boundary, the damages due British merchants from the United States because of State laws obstructing the collec- tion of pre-Revolutionary debts, and those due American merchants and shijipers because of illegal seizures by Brit- ish cruisers, were referred to separate commissions for set- tlement. In addition a commercial treaty for twelve years admitted American vessels to a limited participation in the trade with the British East and West Indies. No compen- sation, however, was secured for the 3,000 negro slaves carried off by British troops at the close of the war, and no understanding was reached on the subject of impress- ment. But on the whole, the treaty was distinctly favorable to the United States, and, as Jay said, there was "no rea- son to believe or conjecture that one more favorable to us was attainable." Nevertheless the treaty was strongly op- posed, both among the people, in the Senate (where a bare constitutional majority in its favor was secured), and later in the House of Representatives. In the House the question was introduced early in 1796, through the need of making appropriations to carry out the treaty provisions. The question of the constitutional relation of the House to the treaty-making power was in- jected into the debate through resolutions moved by Blount of North Carolina. These declared that "the House of Representatives do not claim any agency in making treaties ; but that when a treaty stipulates regulations on any of the subjects submitted by the Constitution to the power of Congress, it must depend for its execution as to such stipu- lations on a law or laws to be passed by Congress, and it is the constitutional right and duty of the House of Rep- resentatives, in all such cases, to deliberate on the expe- diency or inexiDcdiency of carrying such treaty into effect. The British Treaty 127 and to determine and act thereon as in their judgment may be most conducive to the public good." After three weeks' debate, the resolution committing the House to the support of the treaty was carried by a ma- jority of but three votes. Of Fisher Ames, the brilliant New England Federalist whose speech in behalf of the treaty (April 28, 1796) con- tributed much to this result, a writer in the American Re- view for 1811 gives the following estimate: "Ames is gen- erally concise, always energetic, frequently pointed, though he is also figurative and magnificent. His metaphors and figures are, however, for the most part original, and he is, in my opinion, even more happy than Burke in the use of them. He does not pursue them so far. His genius oc- casionally blazes out like the lightning of heaven. Its corruscations dazzle the eye, and electrify the nerves. He sees his subject, not only clearly, but with the eye of pro- phecy and inspiration; and by a single figure, — bold, new, and striking, — brings it before you. It is not merely per- ceived: it is tangible; it has life and body and substance. In fine, his style, like his thoughts, is original, and his own." John Adams, in one of his letters, describes the effect produced by Ames's speech. "Judge Iredell and I," he says, "happened to sit together. Our feelings be;it in unison. 'My God! how great he is,' says Iredell; 'how great he has been !' 'Noble !' said I. After some time Iredell breaks out, 'Bless my stars ! I never heard anything so great since I was born.' 'Divine !' said I ; and thus we went on with our interjections, not to say tears, to the end. The situation of the man excited compassion, and interested all hearts in his favor. The ladies wish his soul had a better body." {Letters of John Adams, pp. 226-7.) 128 Fisher Ames [Fisher Ames, in the U. S. House of Representatives, at New York, April 28, 1796.] MR. Chairman: I entertain the hope, perhaps a rash one, that my strength will hold me out to speak a -few minutes. In my judgment, a right decision will depend more on the temper -and manner with which we may prevail upon ourselves to contemplate the subject, than upon the develop- ment of any profound political principles, or any remark- able skill in the application of them. . . . Let us not affect to deny the existence and the intrusion of some por- tion of prejudice and feeling into the debate, when, from the very structure of our nature, we ought to anticipate the circumstance as a probability, and when we are admonished by the evidence of our senses that it is the fact. Every prejudice and feeling has been summoned to listen to some peculiar style of address; and yet we seem to be- lieve, and to consider a doubt as an affront, that we are strangers to any influence but that of vmbiased reason. It would be strange, that a subject, which has roused in turn all the passions of the country, should be discussed without the interference of any of our o'vvn. We are men, and, therefore, not exempt from those passions : as citi- zens and representatives, w^e feel the interests that must excite them. The hazard of great interests can not fail to agitate strong passions. We are not disinterested; it is impossible we should be dispassionate. The warmth of such feelings may becloud the judgment, and for a time pervert the understanding. But the public sensibility, and our own, has sharpened the spirit of inquiry, and given an animation to the debate. The public attention has been quickened to mark the progress of the discussion, and its judginent, often hasty and erroneous on first impressions, has become solid and enlightened at last. Our result will, I hope, on that account be the safer and more mature, as well as more accordant with that of the nation. But an attempt has been made to produce an influence The British Treaty 129 of a nature more stubborn, and more unfriendly to truth. It is very unfairly pretended, that the constitutional right of this house is at stake, and to be asserted and preserved only by a vote in the negative. We hear it said, that this is a struggle for liberty, a manly resistance against the de- sign to nullify this assembly and to make it a cipher in the government ; that the President and Senate, the numer- our meetings in the cities, and the influence of the general alarm of the country, are the agents and instruments of a scheme of coercion and terror, to force the treaty down our throats, though we loathe it, and in spite of the clearest con- victions of duty and conscience. Let me expostulate with gentlemen to admit, if it be only by way of supposition, and for a moment, that it is barely possible they have yielded too suddenly to their alarms for the powers of this house; that the addresses which have been made with such variety of forms, and with so great dexterity in some of them, to all that is prejudice and pas- sion in the heart, are either the effects or the instruments of artifice and deception, and then let them see the subject once more in its singleness and simplicity. It will be impossible, on taking a fair review of the sub- ject, to justify the passionate appeals that have been made to us to struggle for our liberties and rights, and the solemn exhortations to reject the proposition, said to be concealed in that on your table, to surrender them forever. In spite of this mock solemnity, I demand, if the hoase will not concur in the measure to execute the treaty, what other course shall we take? How many ways of proceeding lie open before us ? In the nature of things there are but three: we are either to make the treaty, to observe it, or break it. It would be absurd to say we will do neither. If I may repeat a phrase already so much abused, we are under coercion to do one of them, and we have no power, by the exercise of our dis- cretion, to prevent the consequences of a choice. By refusing to act, we choose. The treaty will be brok- 9 130 Fisher Ames en and fall to the ground. WTiere is the fitness^ then, of re- plying to those who urge upon the house the topics of duty and policy, that they attempt to force the treaty down, and to compel this assembly to renounce its discretion, and to degrade itself to the rank of a blind and passive instru- ment in the hands of the treaty-making power? In case we reject the appropriation, we do not secure any greater liberty of action, we gain no safer shelter than before from the consequences of the decision. Indeed, they are not to be evaded. It is neither just nor manly to complain that the treaty-making power has produced this coercion to act. It is not the art or the despotism of that power — it is the nature of things that compels. Shall we, dreading to be- come the blind instruments of power, yield ourselves the blinder dupes of mere sounds of imposture.'' Yet that word, that empty word, coercion, has given scope to an elo- quence that, one would imagine, could not be tired and did not choose to be quieted. Let us examine still more in detail the alternatives that are before us, and we shall scarcely fail to see, in still stronger lights, the futility of our apprehensions for the power and liberty of the house. If, as some have suggested, the thing called a treaty is incomplete — if it has no binding force or obligation — the first question is, — Will this House complete the instrument, and, by concur- ring, impart to it that force which it wants? The doctrine has been avowed that the treaty, though formally ratified by the executive power of both nations, though published as a law for our own by the President's proclamation, is still a mere proposition submitted to this assembly, no way distinguishable, in point of authority or obligation, from a motion for leave to bring in a bill, or any other original act of ordinary legislation. This doc- trine, so novel in our country yet so dear to many precisely for the reason that, in the contention for power, victory is always dear, is obviously repugnant to the very terms as The British Treaty 131 well as the fair interpretation of our own resolutions. We declare, that the treaty-making power is exclusively vested in the President and Senate, and not in this house. Need I say that we fly in the face of that resolution, when we pretend that the acts of that power are not valid until we have concurred in them? It would be nonsense, or worse, to use the language of the most glaring contradiction, and to claim a share in a power which we at the same time dis- claim as exclusively vested in other departments. What can be more strange than to say, that the compacts of the President and Senate with foreign nations are treaties without our agency, and yet those compacts want all power and obligation until they are sanctioned by our concurrence? It is not my design in this place, if at all, to go into the discussion of this part of the subject. I will, at least for the present, take it for granted that this mon- strous opinion stands in little need of remark, and if it does lies almost out of the reach of refutation. But, say those who hide the absurdity under the cover of ambiguous phrases, have we no discretion? and if we have, are we not to make use of it in judging of the expediency or inexpediency of the treaty? Our resolution claims that privilege, and we can not surrender it without equal incon- sistency and breach of duty. If there be any inconsistency in the case, it lies not in making the appropriations for the treaty, but in the reso- lution itself [Mr. Blount's]. Let us examine it more nearly. A treaty is a bargain between nations, binding in good faith ; and what makes a bargain ? The assent of the con- tracting parties. We allow that the treaty power is not in this house; this house has no share in contracting, and is not a party: of consequence, the President and Senate alone may make a treaty that is binding in good faith. We claim, however, say the gentlemen, a right to judge of the expediency of treaties; that is the constitutional pro- vince of our discretion. Be it so. Wliat follows ? Treaties, when adjudged by us to be inexpedient, fall to the ground. 132 • Fisher Ames and the public faith is not hurt! This, incredible and ex- travagant as it may seem, is asserted. The amount of it, in plainer language, is this — the President and Senate are to make national bargains, and this house has nothing to do in making them. But bad bargains do not bind this house, and, of inevitable consequence, do not bind the nation. Wlien a national bargain called a treaty is made, its bind- ing force does not depend upon the making, but upon our opinion that it is good. As our opinion on the matter can be known and declared only by ourselves, when sitting in our legislative capacity, the treaty, though ratified, and as we choose to term it made, is hung up in suspense till our sense is ascertained. We condemn the bargain, and it falls, though as we say our faith does not. We approve a bargain as expedient, and it stands firm, and binds the nation. Yet, even in this latter case, its force is plainly not derived from the ratification by the treaty-making power, but from our approbation. Who will trace these inferences, and pre- tend that we have no share, according to the argument, in the treaty-making power? These opinions, nevertheless, have been advocated with infinite zeal and perseverance. Is it possible that any man can be hardy enough to avow them and their ridiculous consequences ? Let me hasten to suppose the treaty is considered as al- ready made, and then the alternative is fairly presented to the mind. Whether we will observe the treaty, or break it. This, in fact, is the naked question. If we choose to observe it with good faith, our course is obvious. Whatever is stipulated to be done by the nation, must be complied with. Our agency, if it should be req- uisite, can not be properly refused. And I do not see why it is not as obligatory a rule of conduct for the legislative as for the courts of law. I can not lose this opportunity to remark that the coercion so much dreaded and declaimed against, appears at length to be no more than the authority of principles, the des- potism of duty. Gentlemen complain we are forced to act The British Treaty 133 in this way; we are forced to swallow the treaty. It is very true, unless we claim the liberty of abuse, the right to act as we ought not. There is but one right way open for us; the laws of morality and good faith have fenced up every other. What sort of liberty is that which we presume to exercise against the authority of those laws? It is for tyrants to complain that principles are restraints, and that they have no liberty so long as their despotism has limits. These principles will be unfolded by examining the remain- ing question: Shall we break the treaty? The treaty is bad, fatally bad, is the cry. It sacrifices the interest, the honor, the independence of the United States, and the faith of our engagements to France. If we listen to the clamor of party intemperance, the evils are of a number not to be counted, and of a nature not to be borne, even in idea. The language of passion and exag- geration may silence that of sober reason in other places; it has not done it here. The question here is, whether the treaty be really so very fatal as to oblige the nation to break its faith. I admit that such a treaty ought not to be executed. I admit that self-preservation is the first law of society, as well as of individuals. It would, perhaps, be deemed an abuse of terms to call that a treaty which vio- lates such a principle. I Avaive also, for the present, any inquiry, what departments shall represent the nation and annul the stipulations of a treaty. I content myself with pursuing the inquiry, Whether the nature of this compact be such as to justify our refusal to carry it into effect. A treaty is the promise of a nation. Now, promises do not always bind him that makes them. But I lay down two rules, which ought to guide us in this case. The treaty must appear to be bad, not merely in the petty details, but in its character, principle, and mass. And in the next place, this ought to be ascertained by the decided and general concurrence of the enlightened public. I confess there seems to be something very like ridicule 134 Fisher Ames thrown over the debate by the discussion of the articles in detail. The undecided point is. Shall we break our faith? And while our country and enlightened Europe await the issue with more than curiosity, we are employed to gather piece- meal, and article by article from the instrument, a justifica- tion for the deed by trivial calculations of commercial profit and loss. This is little worthy of the subject, of this body, or of the nation. If the treaty is bad, it will appear to be so in its mass. Evil to a fatal extreme, if that be its tend- ency, requires no proof; it brings it. Extremes speak for themselves, and make their own law. What if the direct voyage of American ships to Jamaica, with horses or lumber, might net one or two per centum more than the present trade to Surinam; would the proof of the fact avail anything in so grave a question as the violation of the public engagements? It is in vain to allege that our faith, plighted to France, is violated by this new treaty. Our prior treaties are ex- pressly saved from the ojieration of the British treaty. And what do those mean who say that our honor was for- feited by treating at all, and especially by such a treaty? Justice, the laws and practice of nations, a just regard for peace as a duty to mankind, and tlie known wish of our citizens, as well as that self-respect which required it of the nation to act with dignity and moderation — all these forbade an appeal to arms before we had tried the efi'ect of negotiation. The honor of the United States was saved, not forfeited, by treating. The treaty itself, by its stipu- lations for the posts, for indemnity, and for a due observa- tion of our neutral rights, has justly raised the character of the nation. Never did the name of American appear in Europe with more lustre than upon the event of ratifying this instrument. The fact is of a nature to overcome all contradiction. But the independence of the country — we are colonists again! This is the cry of the very men who tell us that The British Treaty 135 France will resent our exercise of the rights of an inde- pendent nation to adjust our wrongs with an aggressor, without giving her the opportunity to say those wrongs shall subsist and shall not be adjusted. This is an admir- able specimen of the spirit of independence. The treaty with Great Britain, it can not be denied, is unfavorable to this strange sort of indeiDcndence. Few men of any reputation for sense, among those who say the treaty is bad, will put that reputation so much at hazard as to pretend that it is so extremely bad as to war- rant and require a violation of the public faith. The proper ground of the controversy, therefore, is really unoc- cupied by the opposers of the treaty; as the very hinge of the debate is on the point, not of its being good or other- wise, but whether it is intolerably and fatally pernicious. If loose and ignorant declaimers have anywhere asserted the latter idea, it is too extravagant and too solidly refuted to be repeated here. Instead of any attempt to expose it still further, I will say, and I appeal with confidence to the candor of many opposers of the treaty to acknowledge, that if it had been permitted to go into operation silently, like our other treaties, so little alteration of any sort would be made by it in the great mass of our commercial and agricultural concerns, that it would not be generally dis- covered by its effects to be in force during the term for which it was contracted. I place considerable reliance on the weight men of candor will give to this remark, because I believe it to be true, and little short of undeniable. When the panic dread of the treaty shall cease, as it certainly must, it will be seen through another medium. Those who shall make search into the articles for the cause of their alarms, will be so far from finding stipulations that will operate fatally, they will discover few of them that will have any lasting operation at all. Those which relate to the disputes between the two countries will spend their force upon the subjects in dispute and extinguish them. The commercial articles are more of a nature to confirm 136 Fisher Ames the existing state of things than to change it. The treaty alarm was purely an address to the imagination and prej- udices of the citizens, and not on that account the less formidable. Objections that proceed upon error, in fact or calculation, may be traced and exposed; but such as are drawn from the imagination or addressed to it, elude defi- nition and return to domineer over the mind after having been banished from it by truth. I will not so far abuse the momentary strength that is lent to me by the zeal of the occasion, as to enlarge upon the commercial operation of the treaty. I proceed to the second proposition, which I have stated as indispensably requisite to a refusal of the performance of a treaty: Will the state of public opinion justify the deed? No government, not even a despotism, will break its faith without some pretext; and it must be plausible, it must be such as will carry the public opinion along with it. Rea- sons of policy, if not of morality, dissuade even Turkey and Algiers from breaches of treaty in mere wantonness of perfidy, in open contempt of the reproaches of their sub- jects. Surely a popidar government will not proceed more arbitrarily, as it is more free; nor with less shame or scruple, in proportion as it has better morals. It will not proceed against the faith of treaties at all, unless the strong and decided sense of tlie nation shall pronounce, not simply that the treatj' is not advantageous, but that it ought to be broken and annulled. Such a plain manifestation of the sense of the citizens is indispensably requisite: First, be- cause, if the popular apprehension be not an infallible criterion of the disadvantages of the instrument, their ac- quiescence in the operation of it is an irrefragable proof that the extreme case does not exist which alone could justify our setting it aside. In the next place, this approving opinion of the citizens is requisite, as the best preventive of the ill consequences of a measure ahvays so delicate and often so hazardous. Individuals would, in that case at least, attempt to repel The British Treaty 137 the opprobrium that would be tlirown upon Congress by those who will charge it with perfidy. They would give weight to the testimony of facts^ and the authority of prin- ciples, on which the government would rest its vindication. And if war should ensue upon the violation, our citizens would not be divided from their government, nor the ardor of their courage be chilled by the consciousness of injus- tice, and the sense of humiliation — that sense which makes those despicable who know they are despised. I add a third reason, and with me it has a force that no words of mine can augment. That a government, wantonly refusing to fulfil its engagements, is the corrupter of its citizens. Will the laws continue to prevail in the hearts of the people, when the respect that gives them efficacy is withdrawn from the legislators? How shall we punish vice, while we practice it? We have not force, and vain will be our reliance when we have forfeited the resources of opinion. To weaken government and to corrupt morals are effects of a breach of faith not to be prevented; and from effects they become causes, producing with augmented activity more disorder and more corruption: order will be disturbed and the life of the public liberty shortened. And who, I would inquire, is hardy enough to pretend that the public voice demands the violation of the treaty? The evidence of the sense of the great mass of the nation is often equivocal; but when was it ever manifested with more energy and precision than at the present moment? The voice of the people is raised against the measure of refusing the appropriations. If gentlemen should urge, nevertheless, that all this sound of alarm is a counterfeit expression of the sense of the public, I will proceed to other proofs. If the treaty is ruinous to our commerce, what has blinded the eyes of the merchants and traders? Surely they are not enemies to trade, or ignorant of their own interests. Their sense is not so liable to be mistaken as that of a nation, and they are almost unanimous. The articles, stipulating the redress of our injuries by captures 138 Fisher Ames on the sea, are said to be delusive. By whom is this said? The very men, whose fortunes are staked upon the com- petency of that redress, say no such thing. They wait with anxious fear lest you should annul that compact on which all their hopes are rested. Thus we offer proof, little short of absolute demonstra- tion, that the voice of our country is raised not to sanction, but to deprecate the non-performance of our engagements. It is not the nation, it is one and but one branch of tlie government that proposes to reject them. With this aspect of things, to reject is an act of desperation. I shall be asked. Why a treaty so good in some articles, and so harmless in others, has met with such unrelenting opposition, and how the clamors against it from New Hampshire to Georgia can be accounted for.'' The appre- hension so extensively diffused, on its first publication, will be vouched as proof, that the treaty is bad, and that the people hold it in abhorrence. I am not embarrassed to find the answer to this insinua- tion. Certainly a foresight of its pernicious operation could not have created all the fears that were felt or af- fected. The alarm spread faster than the publication of the treaty. There Avere more critics than readers. Besides, as the subject was examined, those fears have subsided. The movements of passion are quicker than those of the understanding. We are to search for the causes of first impressions not in the articles of this obnoxious and mis- represented instrument, but in the state of the public feel- ing. The fervor of the Revolutionary War had not entirely cooled, nor its controversies ceased, before the sensibilities of our citizens were quickened with a tenfold vivacity by a new and extraordinary subject of irritation. One of the two great nations of Europe underwent a change which has attracted all our wonder, and interested all our sympathies. Whatever they did, the zeal of many went with them and often went to excess. These impressions met with much The British Treaty 139 to inflame, and nothing to restrain them. In our news- papers, in our feasts, and some of our elections, enthusiasm was admitted a merit, a test of patriotism, and that made it contagious. In the opinion of party, we could not love or hate enough. I dare say, in spite of all the obloquy it may provoke, we were extravagant in both. It is my right to avow that passions so impetuous, enthusiasm so wild, could not subsist without disturbing the sober exercise of reason, without putting at risk the peace and precious interests of our country. They were hazarded. I will not exhaust the little breath I have left, to say how much, nor by whom, or by what means they were rescued from the sacrifice. Shall I be called upon to offer my proofs ? They are here. They are everywhere. No one has forgotten the proceed- ings of I79'i! No one has forgotten the captures of our vessels, and the imminent danger of war ! The nation thirsted not merely for reparation, but vengeance. Suffer- ing such wrongs, and agitated by such resentments, was it in the power of any words of compact, or could any parch- ment with its seals prevail at once to tranquillize the peo- ple.'' It was impossible. Treaties in England are seldom popular, and least of all when the stipulations of amity suc- ceed to the bitterness of hatred. Even the best treaty, though nothing be refused, will choke resentment but not satisfy it. Every treaty is as sure to disappoint extrava- gant expectations as to disarm extravagant passions. Of the latter, hatred is one that takes no bribes. They who are animated by the spirit of revenge will not be quieted by the possibility of profit. Why do they complain, that the West Indies are not laid open.'' Why do they lament, that any restriction is stipulated on the commerce of the East Indies.'' Why do they pretend, that if they reject this, and insist upon more, more will be accomplished.^ Let us be explicit: more would not satisfy. If all was granted, would not a treaty of amity with Great Britain still be obnoxious.^ Have we not this instant heard it urged against our envoy, that he 140 Fisher Ames was not ardent enough in his hatred of Great Britain? A treaty of amity is condemned because it was not made by a foe, and in the spirit of one. The same gentleman, at the same instant, repeats a very prevailing objection, that no treaty should be made with the enemy of France. No treaty, exclaim others, should be made with a monarch or a despot: there will be no naval security while those sea- robbers domineer on the ocean : their den must be destroyed : that nation must be extirpated ! I like this, sir, because it is sincerity. With feelings such as these, we do not pant for treaties. Such passions seek nothing, and will be content with nothing, but the destruction of their object. If a treaty left King George his island, it would not answer; not if he stipulated to pay rent for it! It has been said, the world ought to rejoice if Britain was sunk in the sea; if where there are now men, and wealth, and laws, and liberty, there was no more than a sandbank for the sea-monsters to fatten on ; a space for the storms of the ocean to mingle in conflict. I object nothing to the good sense or humanity of all this. I yield the point, that this is a proof that the age of reason is in progress. Let it be philanthropy, let it be patriotism, if you will ; but it is no indication that any treaty would be approved. The difficulty is not to overcome the objections to the terms; it is to restrain the repugnance to any stipulations of amity with the party. Having alluded to the rival of Great Britain, I am not unwilling to explain myself: I affect no concealment, and I have practiced none. While those two great nations agi- tate all Europe with their quarrels, they will both equally desire, and with any chance of success equally endeavor to create an influence in America. Each will exert all its arts to range our strength on its own side. How is this to be effected? Our government is a democratical republic. It will not be disposed to pursue a system of politics in sub- servience to either France or England, in opposition to the general wishes of the citizens; and if Congress should The British Treaty 141 adopt such measures, they would not be pursued long nor with much success. From the nature of our government, popularity is the instrument of foreign influence. Without it, all is labor and disappointment. With that mighty aux- iliary, foreign intrigue finds agents — not only volunteers, but competitors for employment; and anything like re- luctance is understood to be a crime. Has Britain this means of influence .'' Certainly not ! I f her gold could buy adherents, their becoming such would deprive them of all political power and importance. They would not wield popularity as a Aveapon, but would fall under it. Britain has no influence, and for the reasons just given can have none. She has enough; and God forbid she ever should have more. France, possessed of popular enthusiasm, of party attachments, has had and still has too much influence on our politics : any foreign influence is too much, and ought to be destroyed. I detest the man and disdain the spirit that can bend to a mean subserviency to the views of any nation. It is enough to be Americans ! That character comprehends our duties, and ought to engross our attach- ments. But I would not be misunderstood. I would not break the alliance with France; I would not have the connection between the two countries even a cold one. It should be cordial and sincere ; but I would banish that influence which, by acting on the passions of the citizens, may acquire a power over the government. Gentlemen have said, with spirit, Whatever the true doc- trine of our Constitution may be. Great Britain has no right to complain or to dictate an interpretation. The sense of the American nation, as to the treaty power, is to be received by all foreign nations. This is very true as a maxim; but the fact is against those who vouch it. The sense of the American nation is not as the vote of the house has declared it. Our claim to some agency in giving force and obligation to treaties is, beyond all kind of controversy. 142 Fisher Ames novel. The sense of the nation is probably against it. The sense of the government certainly is. The President denies it on constitutional grounds, and therefore can not ever ac- cede to our interpretation. The Senate ratified the treaty, and can not without dishonor adopt it, as I have attempted to show. Where, then, do they find the proof that this is the American sense of the treaty-making power, which is to silence the murmurs of Great Britain.'' Is it because a majority of two or three, or at most of four or five, of this house will reject the treaty.'' Is it thus the sense of our nation is to be recognized.'' Our government may thus be Stopped in its movement: a struggle for power may thus commence, and the event of the conflict may decide who is the victor, and the quiet possessor of the treaty power. But at present it is beyond all credibility that our vote, by a bare majority, should be believed to do anything better than to imbitter our divisions, and to tear up the settled foundations of our departments. On every hypothesis, therefore, the conclusion is not to be resisted: we are either to execute this treaty, or break our faith ! To expatiate on the value of public faith may pass with some men for declamation: to such men I have nothing to say. To others I will urge. Can any circumstance mark upon a people more turpitude and debasement? Can any- thing tend more to make men think themselves mean, or de- grade to a lower point their estimation of virtue and their standard of action.^ It would not merely demoralize mankind: it tends to break all the ligaments of society, to dissolve that myste- rious charm which attracts individuals to the nation, and to inspire in its stead a repulsive sense of shame and disgust. What is patriotism? Is it a narrow affection for the spot where a man was born? Are the very clods where we tread entitled to this ardent preference because they are greener? No, sir; this is not the character of the .The British Treaty 143 virtue, and it soars higher for its object. It is an extended self-love, mingling with all the enjoyments of life, and twisting itself with the minutest filaments of the heart ! It is thus we obey the laws of society, because they are the laws of virtue. In their authority we see, not the array of force and terror, but the venerable image of our country's honor. Every good citizen makes that honor his own, and cherishes it not only as precious, but as sacred. He is willing to risk his life in its defense, and is conscious that he gains protection while he gives it. For what rights of a citizen will be deemed inviolable when a state renounces the principles that constitute their security? Or, if his life should not be invaded, what would its enjoyments be in a country odious in the eyes of strangers and dishon- ored in his own.'' Could he look with affection and venera- tion to such a country as his parent.'' The sense of having one would die within him ; he would blush for his patriot- ism, if he retained any; and justly, for it would be a vice. He would be a banished man in his native land ! I see no exception to the respect that is paid among na- tions to the law of good faith. If there are cases in this en- lightened period when it is violated, there are none when it is decried. It is the philosophy of politics, the religion of governments. It is observed by barbarians: a whiff of to- bacco smoke, or a string of beads, gives not merely bind- ing force, but sanctity to treaties. Even in Algiers, a truce may be bought for money; but when ratified, even Algiers is too wise, or too just, to disown and annul its obligation. Thus we see neither the ignorance of savages, nor the prin- ciples of an association for piracy and rapine, permit a nation to despise its engagements. If, sir, there could be a resurrection from the foot of the gallows — if the victims of justice could live again, collect together, and form a society — they would, however loath, soon find themselves obliged to make justice, that justice under which they fell, the fundamental law of their state. They would perceive it was their interest to make others respect, and they would 144 Fisher Ames therefore soon pay some respect themselves, to the obliga- tions of good faith. It is painful — I hope it is superfluous — to make even the supposition, that America should furnish the occasion of this opprobrium. No: let me not even imagine that a re- publican government, sprung (as our ov?n is) from a people enlightened and uncorrupted — a government whose origin is right, and whose daily discipline is duty — can, upon solemn debate, make its option to be faithless; can dare to act what despots dare not avow, what our own example evinces, the States of Barbary are unsuspected of. No: let me rather make the supposition, that Great Britain re- fuses to execute the treaty, after we have done everything to carry it into effect. Is there any language of reproach pungent enough to express your commentary on the fact? What would you say, or rather what would you not say? Would you not tell them, wherever an Englishman might travel, shame would stick to him : he would disown his coun- try. You would exclaim, England, proud of your wealth, and arrogant in the possession of power, blush for these dis- tinctions, which become the vehicles of your dishonor ! SiTch a nation might truly say to corruption. Thou art my father, and to the worm. Thou art my mother and my sister! We should say of such a race of men, their name is a heavier burden than their debt. I can scarcely persuade myself to believe, that the con- sideration I have suggested requires the aid of any aux- iliary; but, unfortunately, auxiliary arguments are at hand. Five millions of dollars, and probably more, on the score of spoliations committed on our commerce, depend upon the treaty. The treaty offers the only prospect of in- demnity. Such redress is promised as the merchants place some confidence in. Will you interpose and frustrate that hope; leaving to many families nothing but beggary and despair? It is a smooth proceeding to take a vote in this body: it takes less than half an hour to call the yeas and The British Treaty 145 nays and reject the treaty. But what is the effect of it? . . . Will you pay the sufferers out of the treasury? No. The answer was given two years ago, and appears on our journals. Will you give them letters of marque and re- prisal to pay themselves by force? No: that is war. Be- sides, it would be an opportunity for those who have al- ready lost much to lose more. Will you go to war to avenge their injury? If you do, the war will leave you no money to indemnify them. If it should be unsuccessful, you will aggravate existing evils: if successful, your enemy will have no treasure left to give our merchants; the first losses will be confounded with much greater, and be for- gotten. At the end of a war there must be a negotiation, which is the very point we have already gained; and why relinquish it? And who will be confident that the terms of the negotiation, after a desolating war, would be more acceptable to another House of Representatives, than the treaty before us ? Members and opinions may be so changed that the treaty would then be rejected for being what the present majority say it should be. Whether we shall go on making treaties and refusing to execute them, I know not. Of this I am certain, it will be very difficult to exercise the treaty-making power, on the new principles, with much reputation or advantage to the country. The refusal of the posts (inevitable if we reject the treaty) is a measure too decisive in its nature to be neutral in its consequences. From great causes we are to look for great effects. A plain and obvious one will be, the price of the western lands will fall. Settlers will not choose to fix their habitation on a field of battle. Those who talk so much of the interest of the United States should calculate how deeply it will be affected by rejecting the treaty; how vast a tract of wild land will almost cease to be property. This loss, let it be observed, will fall upon a fund expressly devoted to sink the national debt. What, then, are we called upon to do? However the form of the 10 146 Fisher Ames vote and the protestations of many may disguise the pro- ceeding, our resolution is in substance, and it deserves to wear the title of a resolution, to prevent the sale of the western lands and the discharge of the public debt. If any . . . should maintain that the peace with the Indians will be stable without the posts, to them I will urge another reply. ... I resort especially to the con- victions of the western gentlemen whether, supposing no posts and no treaty, the settlers will remain in security. Can they take it upon them to say that an Indian peace, under these circumstances, will prove firm.'' No, sir: it will not be peace, but a sword : it will be no better than a lure to draw victims within the reach of the tomahawk. On this theme, my emotions are unutterable. If I could find words for them — if my powers bore any proportion to my zeal — I would swell my voice to such a note of remon- strance it should reach every log-house beyond the moun- tains. I would say to the inhabitants: Wake from your false security ! Your cruel dangers, your more cruel ap- prehensions, are soon to be renewed; the wounds, yet un- healed, are to be torn open again; in the day time, your path through the woods will be ambushed; the darkness of midnight will glitter with the blaze of your dwellings. You are a father, — the blood of your sons shall fatten your cornfield: you are a mother, — the war-whoop shall wake the sleep of the cradle ! . . . By rejecting the posts we light the savage fires, we bind the victims. This day we undertake to render account to tlie widows and orphans whom our decision will make, to the wretches that will be roasted at the stake, to our coun- try, and (I do not deem it too serious to say) to conscience and to God. We are answerable; and if duty be anything more than a word of imposture, if conscience be not a bugbear, we are preparing to make ourselves as wretched as our country. There is no mistake in this case; there can be none. Ex- perience has already been the prophet of events, and the The British Treaty 147 cries of our future victims have already reached us. The western inhabitants are not a silent and uncomplaining sacrifice. The voice of humanity issues from the shade of their wilderness : it exclaims that^ while one hand is held up to reject this treaty, the other grasps a tomahawk. It summons our imagination to the scenes that will open. It is no great eifort of the imagination to conceive that events so near are already begun. I can fancy that I listen to the yells of savage vengeance and the shrieks of torture; already they seem to sigh in the west wind; already they mingle with every echo from the mountains ! . . . Is it possible for a real American to look at the prosperity of this country without some desire for its continuance, without some respect for the measures which many will say produced, and all will confess have preserved it.'' Will he not feel some dread that a change of system will reverse the scene? The well-grounded fears of our citizens in 1794 were removed by the treaty, but are not forgotten. Then they deemed war nearly inevitable, and would not this adjustment have been considered, at that day, as a happy escape from the calamity? The great in- terest and the general desire of our people was to enjoy the advantages of neutrality. This instrument, however misrepresented, affords America that inestimable security. The causes of our disputes are either cut up by the roots, or referred to a new negotiation after the end of the Eu- ropean war. This was gaining everything, because it con- firmed our neutrality by which our citizens are gaining everything. This alone would justify the engagements of the government. For, when the fiery vapors of the war lowered in the skirts of our horizon, all our wishes were concentered in this one, that we might escape the desola- tion of the storm. This treaty, like a rainbow on the edge of the cloud, marked to our eyes the space where it was raging, and afforded, at the same time, the sure prognostic of fair weather. If we reject it, the vivid colors will grow 148 Fisher Ames pale; it will be a baleful meteor, portending tempest and war. Let us not hesitate, then, to agree to the appropriation to carry it into faithful execution. Thus we shall save the faith of our nation, secure its peace, and diffuse the spirit of confidence and enterprise that will augment its pros- perity. The progress of wealth and improvement is won- derful, and some will think too rapid. The field for exer- tion is fruitful and vast, and if peace and good government should be preserved, the acquisitions of our citizens are not so pleasing as the proofs of their industry, as the instru- ments of their future success. The rewards of exertion go to augment its power. Profit is every hour becoming capi- tal. The vast crop of our neutrality is all seed-wheat, and is sown again to swell almost beyond calculation the future harvest of prosperity. And in this progress, what seems to be fiction is found to fall short of experience. I rose to speak under impressions that I would have re- sisted if I could. Those who see me will believe that the reduced state of my health has unfitted me, almost equally for much exertion of body or mind. Unprepared for de- bate by careful reflection in my retirement, or by long attention here, I thought the resolution I had taken to sit silent was imposed by necessity, and would cost me no effort to maintain. With a mind thus vacant of ideas, and sinking, as I really am, under a sense of weakness, I imagined the very desire of speaking was extinguished by the persuasion that I had nothing to say. Yet when I come to the moment of deciding the vote, I start back with dread from the edge of the pit into which we are plunging. In my view, even the minutes I have spent in expostulation have their value, because they protract the crisis, and the short period in which alone we may resolve to escape it. I have thus been led by my feelings to speak more at length than I had intended. Yet I have perhaps as little personal interest in the event as any one here. There is, I believe^ no member who will not think his chance to be a The British Treaty 149 witness of the consequences greater than mine. If, how- ever, the vote should pass to reject, and a spirit should rise, as it will, with the public disorders, to make "confusion worse confounded," even I, slender and almost broken as my hold upon life is, may outlive the government and Con- stitution of my country. 11. GEORGE WASHINGTON, of Virginia.— FARE- WELL ADDRESS (Published September 19, 1796.) The same year — and in part the same circumstances of party sympathy and antipathy for France and England respectively — ^that produced Ames's speech on the British treaty, also called forth Washington's Farewell Address. In no department of our government is the influence of Washington more traceable than in the conduct of foreign affairs. Reared to a life of action rather than of reflec- tion, his talents were essentially those of a man of affairs, and not those of a political theorist. No schemes of gov- ernment were contributed by him in the Philadelphia Con- vention : his part was purely one of moral influence. So, too, in the organization of the government under the Con- stitution, the initiation of the measures needed was left largely to the members of his cabinet. In the field of foreign affairs, however, where Ameri- cans were divided between conflicting opinions, the con- servative temperament and sound judgment of Washing- ton eminently fitted him to take the lead. Jefferson, his Secretary of State, though a brilliant theorist on govern- ment, was unfitted to mark out a safe foreign policy: his sympathies were too entirely with France; his judgment too George Washington. Born in Virginia, 1732; in command of a Virginia company against the French, 1751; appointed commander-in-chief of Virginia forces, 1755; member of Continental Congress, 1771; commander-in-chief of the American army, 1775-83; president of the Federal Convention, 1787; President of the United States, 1789-97; died, 1799. 150 Farewell Address 151 warped by prejudice and passion, and by blind reliance upon the instincts of the people. And where JeiFerson erred on one side, Hamilton erred on the other. One was too democratic, the other too aristocratic; one was too French, the other too British. It required a calm judg- ment and a firm will to keep the balance even, and these were the special traits of Washington. It is difficult for us to-day to appreciate what it cost Washington in popularity to maintain his policy of "a fair neutrality" between England and France. A republican newspaper in 179^ dared to use this language of him: "If ever a nation was debauched by a man, the American na- tion has been debauched by Washington. If ever a nation was deceived by a man, the American nation has been de- ceived by W^ashington. Let his conduct then be an example to future ages; let it serve to be a warning that no man may be an idol; let the history of the Federal government instruct mankind that the mask of patriotism may be worn to conceal the foulest designs against the liberties of the people." It was the widespread existence of this blind party spirit, and of divisions based upon partisanship for Eng- land or France, which called forth Washington's memorable address, published September 19, 1796. Its composition was largely the work of Hamilton, but its principles are truly Washington's. Interesting information concerning its preparation, with copies of its successive draughts, may be found in Ford, Writings of George Washington, Vols. XII and XIII. 1^2 George Washington [George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796.1 FRIENDS AND FELLOW CITIZENS: The period for a new election of a citizen to administer the executive government of the United States being not far dis- tant, and the time actually arrived when your thoughts must be employed in designating the person who is to be clothed with that imiwrtant trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of the pub- lic voice, that I should now apprise you of the resolution I have formed, to decline being considered among the number of those out of whom a choice is to be made. I beg you, at the same time, to do me the justice to be assured that this resolution has not been taken without a strict regard to all the considerations appertaining to the relation which binds a dutiful citizen to his country; and that in withdrawing the tender of service which silence, in my situation, might imply, I am influenced by no diminu- tion of zeal for your future interest, no deficiency of grate- ful respect for your past kindness, but am supported by a full conviction that the step is compatible with both. Here, perhaps, I ought to stop. But a solicitude for your welfare, which can not end but with my life, and the apprehension of danger, natural to that solicitude, urge me on an occasion like the present to offer to your solemn con- templation, and to recommend to your frequent review, some sentiments which are the result of much reflection, of no in- considerable observation, and which appear to me all-im- portant to the permanency of your felicity as a people. These will be offered to you with the more freedom, as you can only see in them the disinterested warnings of a part- ing friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to bias his counsel. Nor can I forget, as an encouragement to it, your indulgent reception of my sentiments on a former and not dissimilar occasion. Interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament Farewell Address 153 of your hearts, no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortif}^ or confirm the attachment. The unity of government, which constitutes you one peo- ple, is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the sup- port of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad, of your safety, of your jDrosperity, of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee, that from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of in- ternal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed: it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness ; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity, watching for its pres- ervation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawn- ing of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts. For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your na- tional capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriot- ism more than any appellation derived from local discrimi- nations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have, in a common cause, fought and triumphed to- gether; the independence and liberty you possess, are the 154 George Washington work of joint councils and joint efforts, of common dangers, sufferings, and successes. But these considerations, however powerfully they ad~ dress themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by those which apply more immediately to your interest. Here every portion of our country finds the most command- ing motives for carefully guarding and preserving the union of the whole. The North, in an unrestrained intercourse with the South, protected by the equal laws of a common govern- ment, finds in the productions of the latter great additional resources of maritime and commercial enterprise, and precious materials of manufacturing industry. The South, in the same intercourse, benefiting by the agency of the North, sees its agriculture grow and its commerce expand. Turning partly into its own channels the seamen of the North, it finds its particular navigation invigorated; and while it contributes, in different Avays, to nourish and in- crease the general mass of the national navigation, it looks forward to the protection of a maritime strength, to which itself is unequally adapted. The East, in like intercourse with the West, already finds, and in the prog-ressive im- provement of interior communications by land and water will more and more find, a valuable vent for the commodi- ties which it brings from abroad or manufactures at home. The West derives from the East supplies requisite to its growth and comfort, and what is perhaps of still greater consequence, it must of necessity owe the secure enjoyment of indispensable outlets for its own productions to the weight, influence, and the future maritime strength of the Atlantic side of the Union, directed by an indissoluble com- munity of interest as one nation. Any other tenure by which the West can hold this essential advantage, whether derived from its own separate strength or from an apostate and unnatural connection with any foreign power [Spain], must be intrinsically precarious. While then every part of our country thus feels an im- Farewell Address 155 mediate and particular interest in union, all the parts com- bined can not fail to find in the united mass of means and eff'orts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent in- terruption of their peace by foreign nations; and, what is of inestimable value, they must derive from union an ex- emption from those broils and wars between themselves which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same government, which their own rival- ships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreigTi alliances, attachments, and intrigues, would stimulate and embitter. Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establish- ments which, under any form of government, are inauspi- cious to liberty and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of one ought to endear to you the preser- vation of the other. In contemplating the causes wliich may disturb our union, it occurs, as a matter of serious concern, that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations — Nortliern and Southern, At- lantic and Western — whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local in- terests and views. One of the expedients of party to ac- quire influence within particular districts, is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You can not shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heart-burn- ings which spring from these misrepresentations ; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection. Toward the preservation of your government and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite not only that you speedily discountenance irregular opposition to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with 156 George Washington care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect in the forms of the Constitution alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what can not be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of govern- ment as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hyjDothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion. And remember especially that for the ef- ficient management of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispen- sable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guar- dian. It is, indeed, little else than a name where the gov- ernment is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of fac- tion, to confine each member of society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of tlie rights of person and property. I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, -with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discrimination. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you, in the most solemn man- ner, against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, gen- erally. This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our na- ture, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different slia2:)es, in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed. But in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy. The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dis- Farewell Address 157 sensions, which in different ages and countries has perpe- trated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads, at length, to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and mise- ries which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an indi- vidual ; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing fac- tion, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty. It serves always to distract the public councils, and en- feeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded j ealousies and false alarms ; kindles the animosity of one part against another ; foments occasional- ly riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign in- fluence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself, through the channels of party pas- sions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another. There is an opinion that parties, in free countries, are useful checks upon the administration of the government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This, within certain limits, is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain tliere will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame lest, instead of warming, it should consume. It is important likewise that the habits of thinking, in a free country, should inspire caution in those intrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their re- spective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of 158 George Washington the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which pre- dominate in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasion by the other, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern: some of them in our country, and under our own eyes. To preserve them, must be as necessary as to insti- tute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be, in any par- ticular, wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation ; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance, in permanent evil, any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield. Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable sup- ports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriot- ism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of hu- man hapi^iness, these firmest props of the destinies of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connection with private and public fe- licity. Let it simply be asked. Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the in- Farewell Address 159 fluence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious prin- ciple. . . . Promote, then, as an object of primary importance, in- stitutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In pro- portion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened. As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible; avoiding occasions of ex- pense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that time- ly disbursements to prepare for danger, frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding likevrise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have oc- casioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should co-operate. To fa- cilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essen- tial that you should practically bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment, inseparable from the se- lection of the proper objects (which is always the choice of difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for ob- taining revenue which the public exigencies may at any time dictate. Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; culti- vate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be that good policy does not i6o George Washington equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened and, at no distant period, a great nation, to give to man- kind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advan- tages that might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be, that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas ! is it rendered impossible by its vices ? In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essen- tial than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degi'ee a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its aft'ection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another, disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill will and re- sentment, sometimes impels to war the government, con- trary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, and sometimes perhaps the liberty of nations, has been the victim. So, likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the Farewell Address i6i favorite nation facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists/ and infusing into one the enmities of the other, be- trays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justi- fication. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to in- jure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by ex- citing jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld: and it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearence of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commend- able deference for public opinion, or laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation. The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign na- tions is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships and enmities. Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, un- der an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we 11 i62 George Washington may at any time resolve upon, to be scrupulously respected ; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation ; when we may choose peace or war, as our inter- est, guided by justice, shall counsel. Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own, to stand upon foreign ground ? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice? 'Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it ; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genu- ine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary, and would be unwise, to extend them. Taking care always to keep ourselves, by suitable es- tablishments, in a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emer- gencies. Harmony, and a liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial jaolicy should hold an equal and impartial hand: neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences ; consulting the natural course of things ; dif- fusing and diversifying, by gentle means, the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing, with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to de- fine the rights of our merchants, and to enable the govern- ment to support them, conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be, from time to time, abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one Farewell Address 163 nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for what- ever it may accept under that character; that, by such ac- ceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being re- proached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. 'Tis an illusion which ex- perience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard. Though, in reviewing the incidents of my administration, I am unconscious of intentional error, I am, nevertheless, too sensible of my defects, not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope that my country will never cease to view them with indulgence, and that after forty-five years of my life dedi- cated to its service with an upright zeal, the faults of in- competent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the mansions of rest. Relying on its kindness in this, as in other things, and actuated by that fervent love toward it which is so natural to a man who views in it the native soil of himself and his progenitors for several generations, I anticipate with pleasing expectations that retreat in which I promised myself to realize, without alloy, the sweet enjoyment of partaking, in the midst of my fellow-citizens, the benign influence of good laws under a free government — ^the ever favorite object of my heart, and the happy reward, as I trust, of our mutual cares, labors, and dangers. 12. THOMAS JEFFERSON, of Virginia.— FIRST IN- AUGURAL ADDRESS (Delivered at Washington, March 4, 1801.) The retirement of Washington from political leader- ship paved the way for the downfall of the Federalist party. John Adams, with good reason, hated and feared Hamilton for what he believed to be treacherous conduct; and Hamilton, without reason, despised Adams. The Fed- eralist dissensions placed Jefferson in the Vice Presidential chair in 1797; and President Adams's vanity, lack of tact, and general inaptitude for party leadership widened the breach. In this situation the extreme section of the Fed- eralists secured control, and used the popular indignation excited against France by the "X, Y, Z" affair to pass the Alien and Sedition Acts. These prescribed fourteen years' residence as a preliminary to naturalization of immigrants, subjected aliens to arbitrary arrest and removal by the government, and provided severe penalties for political slander and sedition. The Federal government was thus given powers over the persons of its opponents which it is unsafe to place in the hands of any administration; and Jefferson's fears led him to see yet further dangers. "If this goes down," he wrote, "we shall immediately see at- Thomas Jeffkrson. Born in Virginia, 171:5; frraduatcd from William and Mary College; admitted to the bar, 1757; elected to legislature in Hfin, and actively engaged for some years after in the work of the Revolution, and in reforming the laws of Virginia; in Congress, 1775-7fi, 1783-84; governor of Virginia, 1779-81; minister to P'rance, 178t-89; Secretary of State, 1790-94; Vice-President, 1797-1801; President, 1801-09; secured founding of University of Virginia; died, 1826. 164 First Inaugural 165 tempted another act of Congress declaring that the Presi- dent shall continue in office during life, reserving to an- other occasion the transfer of the succession to his heirs, and the establishment of the Senate for life." {Works, IV, p. 258.) Among the people there followed a revulsion of feeling against rampant Federalism. In the presidential election of 1800, the Republicans were therefore success- ful, and Jefferson became President. The Federalist party had established a strong govern- ment, and its work was now done. The failure to rally from this reverse must be sought chiefly in its undemocratic temper. The history of the Revolution, of the period of the Confederation, and of the administrations of Wash- ington and of Adams in their domestic aspects, constitute one long struggle between the forces of aristocracy and democracy. The French Revolution had given the ascend- ency to the party which championed democracy; and the Federalists, with their out-worn idea that government should rest in the hands of the rich and well-born, were out of touch with the times. The election of 1800 is thus rightly held to mark a revolution in the political and social history of the United States ; and Jefferson's first inaugural announces the program of the new era. The inauguration was the first to take place in the new city of Washington. It was marked by simplicity, as be- fitted the principles of its central figure : but the story that Jefferson rode on horseback unattended to the Capitol, and after hitching his horse to the palings went inside to take the oath, is pure invention. The British charge d'affaires, who was present, wrote officially to his government: "He [Jefferson] came from his own lodgings to the house where the Congress convenes ... on foot, in his ordi- nary dress, escorted by a body of militia artillery from the neighboring State, and accompanied by the Secretaries of i66 Thomas Jefferson the Navy and Treasury and a number of his personal friends in the House of Representatives." The inaugural address was moderate in tone, with the design both of showing that Jefferson was no French Jacobin ready to turn the world topsy-turvy, and of con- ciliating the rank and file of the Federalist party. To quote from Henry Adams's great History of the United States under Jefferson and Madison: "Jefferson's first inaugural . . . was for a long time almost as well known as the Declaration of Independence. ... As the starting-point of a powerful political party, the first inaugural was a standard by which future movements were measured; and it went out of fashion only when its prin- ciples were universally accepted or thrown aside." (Vol. I, p. 199.) [Thomas Jefferson, Inaugural Address, at Washington, March 4, 1801.] FRIENDS AND FELLOW CITIZENS: Called upon to undertake the duties of the first executive office of our country, I avail myself of the presence of that portion of mj?^ fellow-citizens which is here assembled, to express my grateful thanks for the favor with which they have been pleased to look toward me, to declare a sincere consciousness that the task is above my talents, and that I apjDroach it with those anxious and awful presentiments which the greatness of the charge and the weakness of ray powers so justly inspire. A rising nation, spread over a wide and fruitful land, traversing all the seas with the rich productions of their industry, engaged in commerce with nations who feel power and forget right, advancing rapidly to destinies beyond the reach of mortal eye, — when I contemplate these transcendent objects, and see the honor, the happiness, and the hopes of this beloved country com- mitted to the issue and the auspices of this day, I shrink from the contemplation, and humble myself before the First Inaugural 167 magnitude of the undertaking. Utterly, indeed, should I despair, did not the presence of many whom I here see remind me that in the other high authorities provided by our Constitution I shall find resources of wisdom, of virtue, and of zeal on which to rely under all difficulties. To you, then, gentlemen, who are charged with the sovereigii func- tions of legislation, and to those associated with you, I look with encouragement for that guidance and support which may enable us to steer with safety the vessel in which we are embarked amidst the conflicting elements of a troubled world. During the contest of opinion through which we have passed, the animation of discussions and of exertions has sometimes worn an aspect which might impose on strangers unused to think freely and to sj^eak and to write what they think; but this being now decided by the voice of the na- tion, announced according to the rules of the Constitution, all will of course arrange themselves under the will of the law, and unite in common efforts for the common good. All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that tliough the will of tlie majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority pos- sess their equal rights, which equal law must protect and to violate would be oppression. Let us then, fellow-citizens, unite with one heart and one mind. Let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which lib- erty and even life itself are but dreary things. And let us reflect that, having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political in- tolerance as despotic, as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions. During the throes and convulsions of the ancient world, during the agonizing spasms of in- furiated man, seeking through blood and slaughter his long-lost liberty, it was not wonderful that the agitation of the billows should reach even this distant and peaceful shore ; that this should be more felt and feared by some and 1 68 Thomas Jefferson less by others, and should divide opinions as to measures of safety. But every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans, we are all Federal- ists. If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve the Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it. I know, indeed, that some honest men fear that a republican government cannot be strong, that this govern- ment is not strong enough: but would the honest patriot, in the full tide of successful experiment, abandon a govern- ment which has so far kept us free and firm, on the theo- retic and visionary fear that this government, the world's best hope, may by possibility want energy to preserve itself? I trust not. I believe this, on the contrary, the strongest gov- ernment on earth. I believe it the only one where every man, at the call of the law, would fly to the standard of the law, and would meet invasions of the public order as his own personal concern. Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he then be trusted with the government of others.'' Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him.'' Let history answer this question. Let us then with courage and confidence pursue our own federal and republican principles, our attachment to union and representative government. Kindly separated by na- ture and a wide ocean from the exterminating havoc of one-qiiarter of the globe; too high-minded to endure the degradations of the others ; possessing a chosen country, with room enough for our descendants to the thousandth and thousandth generation ; entertaining a due sense of our equal right to the use of our own faculties, to the acquisi- tions of our own industry, to honor and confidence from our fellow-citizens resulting not from birth but from our actions and their sense of them; enlightened by a benign religion, professed indeed and practiced in various forms. First Inaugural 169 yet all of them inculcating honesty, truth, temperance, gratitude, and the love of man ; acknowledging and adoring an overruling Providence, which by all its dispensations proves that it delights in the happiness of man here and his greater happiness hereafter, — with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens: a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, sliall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor tlie bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities. About to enter, fellow-citizens, on the exercise of duties which comprehend everything dear and valuable to you, it is proper you should understand what I deem the essen- tial principles of our government, and consequently those which ought to shape its administration. I will compress them within the narrowest compass they will bear, stating the general principle but not all its limitations: Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friend- ship with all nations, entangling alliances with none; the support of the State governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against anti-republican tendencies ; the preservation of the general government in its whole constitutional vigor, as the sheet anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad; a jealous care of the right of elec- tion by the people, — a mild and safe corrective of abuses wliich are lopped by the sword of revolution where peace- able remedies are unprovided; absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority, the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism; a well-disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war till regulars may relieve them; the supremacy of the civil i-o Tlioinas JctTcrson over the military nuthority : ooononiy in the public oxpcnse. that labor may be lightly burtlu-nod ; tho honest payment of our ilebts and sacred preservation of the public faith; en- eouraiivmeut of asi-rieulture, and of eommeree as its h:md- uiaid ; tlie ditrusion of information and arraiixmnent ot' all abuses at the bar of tlie public reason; freedom of religion; freedom of the press; and freedom of person under the pro- tection of the halwas corpus, and trial by juries impartially soleeted. These principles form the bright constellation which lias giuie before us and guided our stops through an age o( revolution and reformation. The Avisdou\ ot' our sages and blood of our heroes have been ilevoted to their nttainn\ent. They should be the creed of our political faith, the text of civic instruction, the touchstone by which to try tlie services of those we trust; and slunild we wauiler from theu\ in mouunts of error or o( nlaru\. let us hasten to re- trace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety. I repair then. fellow-citiiRens. to the post you have as- signed me. With experience enough in subordinate otlices to have seen the ilitliculties o( this the greatest of all. I have learnt to expect that it will rarely fall to the lot of imperfect man to retire t'roin this station with the reput.-i- tion .and the favor which bring him into it. Without pre- tensioTis to that high contidenee you reposed in our tirst and greatest revolutionary character, whose pre-eminent services had entitled him to the tirst place in his ciMuitry's love and destitied for hiu\ the fairest page in tlie volume of t'aithful history. 1 ask so umch contidenee only as may give tlrnmess and etfect to the legal administration of your atl'airs. I shall ot'ten g\> wrong through defect of judg- ment. When right. I shall often be thought wrong by those whose positions will not comu\and a view of the whole ground. 1 ask your indidgtMice for my own errors, which will never be intentional, and your support against the errors of others, who may ci^ndemn what they would not if seen in all its parts. The approbation implied by your First Iii;uii;ur;il 171 sufTrnivo is n f^rcnl oonsol;ilit)ii to 111c for UiO p.nst; find my f iiliirc soliciliult; will he lo rtlnin tlic <^()i)(l opinion of lliosc who li;ivc besLowcd it in .ulv.-incr, lo roncilijilc that of otliers by doiiij»; them all the ^ood in my power, .-ind to be instrii- meiitnl to lh(^ lia|)pines.s and l'ree(U)m ol" ,ill. Ili'lyinf;- liien on the patrona