University of Virginia Library

CHAPTER V.

It has been said, that the history of Virginia
after the opening of the Revolution, will be found
to turn principally upon two points—civil and religious
freedom; and we have seen the skilful measures
adopted to secure them. It might be supposed,
that now when the struggle of war was over,

and the mother country no longer pretended to
claim jurisdiction, these great blessings were safe,
and that the people of the Commonwealth would
enjoy them in full. But peace had its dangers as
well as war. The pressure of peril had kept together
a system which had little innate tendency
to cohesion. At no time during the actual struggle
for Independence, was America in so much danger
of anarchy, as she was after its close. And as true
liberty is as far removed from licentiousness as
from despotism, so the nation without government
is as miserable as that governed by a tyrant. We
shall see that the patriots of Virginia had yet much
to accomplish, before she could consider her freedom
as secure.

Her people may be pardoned for indulging in
feelings of pride, in reviewing the liberal spirit
which impelled her to sacrifice self to the common
good. From the time when she first became a
member of the American league, it is evident that
she considered her own interests as bound up in
those of the Union. Her conduct was directed not
merely by fraternal love to the other states, but by
a calm exercise of judgment, which taught her
that a wound in the hand affects the nerves of the
whole body, and that the comfort of each member
depends on the general health. The action of
Congress made the cession of her public lands the
first subject for her thoughts after the Revolution.

The charters of King James the First had granted
to Virginia a vast territory on the American continent.
The Charter of 1609, in particular, had

conveyed a huge belt of country, running from
the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean.[424] It had long
been conceded, that the dissolution of the London
Company in 1624, had not deprived the Colony of
a right to her lands. These were still retained
under her control, subject to the final decision of
the King; and the regular mode of obtaining title
to them was by a grant under the seal of the Provincial
authorities[425] By successive charters to the
states of Carolina. Maryland, and Pennsylvania,
the domain of Virginia had been much reduced,
and by operation of the Treaty of Paris, in 1763,
between Great Britain, France and Spain, the territory
west of the Mississippi was taken from the
British Colonies.[426] Yet after these reductions, Virginia
retained title to the country on her west and
northwest, running from latitude thirty-six and a
half to a line touching the southern margins of the
Lakes Erie and Michigan. To this she had
solemnly asserted her right in the Constitution
adopted in 1776, and to prevent all improper interference,
she had declared void every purchase
made from the Indians, unless by authority of her
General Assembly.[427]

Had any thing been necessary to complete the
equity of her claim, it might have been found in
the conquest achieved by Colonel Clarke, in '78
and '79. A native born Virginian commanding
volunteer troops from the soil of the State, raised by
authority of her Assembly, paid by her grants,

commissioned under the seal of her executive,
acting in her name, and receiving the allegiance of
the conquered to her sovereignty, had penetrated
this western region, and reduced it to submission.
We have seen the importance attached to this conquest
in the treaty of peace, and in a recent judicial
decision, it has been vouched as the crown of the
Virginia title.[428] Under these guarantees, none of her
statesmen doubted her right, and it was regarded
by her as resting on the firmest ground of law and
conscience.

But it was to be disputed. During the Revolution,
certain speculators in land had formed themselves
into compact bodies in order to increase
their strength, and had obtained from divers states
acts of incorporation. The principal of these were
known as the Indiana and Vandalia Companies.
Their policy consisted in sending keen agents to
treat with the native chiefs, and the wild white
men who might occupy western lands; to dazzle
simple minds with glittering ornaments, or to
entrap the more wary with hatchets, rifles, and
powder, offered in trade; to obtain grants of unoccupied
tracts, and then to insist, before Congress,
upon the validity of these purchases. It is strange
that such claims ever should have found favour.
Even before the Constitution of '76, the State had
exclusive control over her waste lands, and no

grant from the Indians could have been valid without
her concurrence. But many circumstances induced
Congress to look with unfriendly eye upon
the title of Virginia, and to hear patiently all that
could be said against it.[429]

In addition to individual corporations, the other
states of the Confederacy interposed a claim. It
was contended that when the yoke of the British
Government was thrown off, the waste lands within
the limits of each colony, and over which the
British sovereign claimed full control, became the
common property of the American Union,—that
the states in their federate capacity succeeded to
the rights of the Crown,—that this territory had
been defended by the blood and treasure of all, and
should therefore be applied to the benefit of all.
The weakness of these arguments may be seen at
a glance; for with as much propriety might it have
been insisted that the Confederacy succeeded to all
other rights claimed by the King of England, as
to the control of the colonial lands. On such a
principle, the Union would have had the right to
appoint governors, deputies, and even petty officers
for the states; to veto their laws, and to interfere
in many respects with their internal police.
It is true that when the government of the mother
country was discarded, a sovereignty succeeded to
the rights of the Crown, but it was the sovereignty
of Virginia alone, and not that of the states in
union. Nevertheless this claim was sufficiently
plausible to meet with many advocates in Congress.

The "Articles of Confederacy" contained nothing
which could be construed to impair, or in any
manner to affect the title of Virginia. The question
of western lands formed a great obstacle to
the full adoption of these articles, even to the year
1781. Maryland was inflexible, and refused to become
a party until the claims of the states should
be on a satisfactory basis.

Finding that Congress was disposed to favour
adverse pretensions, the Assembly of Virginia prepared
a remonstrance during its session of 1779.
This paper is clear, calm, dignified,—strong in
reasoning, generous in spirit, but firm in assertion
of right.[430] It declares the attachment of the state
to the common interest; expresses her "surprise
and concern" that Congress should have listened
to the claims of the Land Companies, and should
have attempted to assume jurisdiction, which
threatened to subvert the sovereignty of the individual
states, and to degenerate "into an intolerable
despotism;" clearly defines the rights of Virginia
under charters, treaties, constitutional terms; declares
her willingness to appropriate part of her
lands for the benefit of the Continental troops,
and to make other sacrifices for the general good;
but concludes with a most solemn protest against
any action of Congress "subversive of the internal
policy, civil government, or sovereignty, of this, or
any of the United American States, or unwarranted
by the Articles of Confederation." After
this remonstrance, it must have been evident, that

any law of the federal government, trenching upon
her domain, would have led to a rupture with Virginia;
and that an appeal to her liberality was the
only mode in which the wishes of the other states
could be attained.

This appeal was made, and was effectual. Congress
urged all the states claiming unsettled lands to
cede them for the general benefit, in order that the
Articles of Union might be carried out, and that
America might present an undivided front against
the enemy. We have seen, that in January, 1781,
Virginia responded to the application, by an act
declaring her readiness to cede to Congress her
northwestern domain, provided they could agree
upon the terms of cession. The effect of this act
was in accordance with the hopes of its advocates.
Maryland became a party to the Confederation,
and the government was complete as far as its own
powers could avail for any purpose.

But in Congress much difficulty was experienced
before the terms of final cession could be agreed
upon. The delegates from Virginia looked watchfully
upon the progress of the debate, and always
sought to interpose when it assumed a countenance
unfavourable to her rights. It is, however, to be
deplored that sometimes these delegates disagreed
among themselves, and nothing but a spirit of mutual
compromise, could have prevented their conflicts
of opinion from injuring their state. James
Madison had now risen to eminence, and his spotless
character, his undoubted patriotism, his clear
intellect, and expanded knowledge, made him, of

all others, the man best fitted to guard the interests
of Virginia upon this delicate question. Yet his
differences with his colleagues were sometimes so
serious that he feared the worst results; and writing
to a friend at home in October, 1781, he asks with
anxious irony, "Is not my situation an enviable
one?"[431] Finally, on the 13th September, 1783,
Congress declared the terms on which the cession
would be accepted, and though they were not precisely
those which Virginia thought most reasonable,
yet, with true liberality, she waived all farther
objection, and prepared to authorize the ultimate
grant. On the 20th December following,
her Assembly passed an act empowering any three
of her delegates in Congress to execute a deed of
cession, conveying the whole territory within the
Virginia Charter, "situate, lying, and being to the
northwest of the River Ohio."[432] This grant was
on condition that the territory so conveyed should
be laid out and formed into states of a certain size,
which should have republican governments, and
all state privileges; that the Union should reimburse
to Virginia her expenses incurred in subduing
British posts, conquering and defending the
country; that the French and Canadian inhabitants
who had acknowledged their allegiance to
Virginia, should be protected in their rights of
citizenship; that a quantity of land not exceeding
one hundred and fifty thousand acres, should be reserved
for General George Rogers Clarke, and the
officers and soldiers of his regiment, wherever a
majority of them might prefer to have such land;
that, if necessary, other lands between the Scioto
and Little Miami should be reserved for the Virginia
troops of the Continental line; and, at last,
that all the territory ceded and not reserved, or, by
the cession, otherwise appropriated, should be considered
as a common fund, for the use and benefit
of the states existing or to exist, as members of the
American Union, (Virginia inclusive,) "according
to their usual respective proportions in the general
charge and expenditure," and should be disposed
of for that purpose, and "for no other use or
purpose whatsoever."[433] In accordance with these
terms, during the following year, a deed of cession
was duly executed by delegates from Virginia to
the American Congress.[434]

Such was the magnificent gift bestowed by the
"Old Dominion" upon her sisters and daughters of
the Union. We may form some idea of its value,
if we will consider not merely what it then was,
but what it has since become. Without speaking
of Indiana and Illinois, we will take a single state
nearer to the mother's side. Ohio, with her fertile
soil, her well-cultured fields, her grain poured out
each year in millions of bushels, her thousand
miles of railroad and canal, her cities springing
into existence like the palace of Aladdin,—Ohio
has already gone beyond her parent in wealth and
population.[435] And every part of the Union derives

renewed life from the impulses which have produced
results so astonishing. If the new states of
America shall ever be disposed to unite with any
of the old, in seeking to undermine the institutions,
and to endanger the peace of Virginia, they may
be reminded that such a course will involve ingratitude
even more than impolicy. For conduct so
unworthy of the just and the generous, Shakspeare
has furnished an appropriate illustration, and one
able to appreciate his genius has pointed to King
Lear, who, after stripping himself of his broad
lands, and bestowing them on his daughters, was
driven out in old age to feel the pangs that can be
inflicted by "a thankless child."[436]

Since the time of this cession, the public lands
have always been a subject of high interest and
importance to the United States. Nice questions
have from time to time arisen concerning them,
and in late years, the proper mode of disposing of
their proceeds, has drawn much anxious thought
from Congress. Great minds have differed in opinion
on this question; some have contended, that
as the lands were originally granted for purposes
common and federal, their proceeds could not be
distributed among the individual states; others
have argued, that this would be the most appropriate
disposition, and that such was the fair inference
from the clause "according to their usual
respective proportions in the general charge and
expenditure," which occurs in the Act of Cession.[437]

The latter views have prevailed in Congress. It
would not be consistent with the purpose of this
work, to dwell farther upon these questions, but it
is believed that in the detail which has been given,
will be found the basis of every argument that can
be applied to the subject.

(1784) Early in the sessions of this year, the
Assembly was called to decide whether foreigners
should be invited to Virginia, and particularly
whether British refugees should be permitted to
return to her soil. Popular prejudice ran strongly
against the latter, and many enlightened men in
the Legislature thought it hazardous policy to admit
them. But Patrick Henry came forward to
plead for them, not because he approved their conduct,
or found any excuse for their infidelity to
their country, but because he believed they had
been sufficiently punished, and that now they
would make useful citizens. Their condition
abroad had indeed been pitiable; without property,
and generally with luxurious habits, they had found
all things adverse to them in the cold, selfish society
of a crowded kingdom. They had petitioned
in vain for help; worn down by disappointment
and hope deferred, many of them had sunk in utter
degradation, some had become insane, and more
than one had put an end to their lives by suicide,
rather than endure their misery![438] Patrick Henry

found a congenial theme for his eloquence in arguing
for these unhappy men. He pointed to the
fertile lands, the rich wastes, the undeveloped resources
of Virginia, and begged that her ports
might be thrown open and all might be admitted.
He ridiculed the idea of danger from British influence.
What! he asked, shall we who have laid
the proud British lion at our feet, now be afraid of
his whelps?[439] His appeals wrought the desired
effect: all obstacles to the return of the refugees
were gradually removed.

Nearly at the same time, Mr. Henry presented
another proposal, which is so novel, and opens so
inviting a field of speculation, that, though finally
abortive, it deserves to be recorded. We have seen
that white settlements were gradually encroaching
on the red men of the wilderness, and that though
the parties became constantly more like to each
other in habits both of war and peace, yet they
never formed relations of amity. Patrick Henry
wished if possible to destroy this hereditary enmity
of the races, and he believed that for this end
no plan would be more effectual than intermarriages
between them. Therefore he introduced a
bill into the Legislature, providing, that if any
free white male citizen of Virginia would be joined
in bonds matrimonial to an Indian lady of competent
age, he should receive a bounty of ten pounds,
and on the birth of each child from such marriage,
he should receive five pounds, and that he should
be exempt from all taxes on person or property.

Also, that if any free white female citizen would
take an Indian husband, they should have ten
pounds bounty, and every year thereafter the husband
should have three pounds, to be expended for
the benefit of his family; that every male child
proceeding from such marriage, should at the age
of ten years be sent to some public seminary of
learning, and educated at the expense of the state,
until he should be twenty-one years old. Families
so formed were to be free from taxes, and entitled to
all the privileges of citizenship.[440]

This bill passed its first and second readings, and
there was every prospect that it would become a
law. But just at the critical time Patrick Henry
was elected Governor of the state for a second series
of years. His bill, thus left without his aid, was
read a third time, and rejected. We can only indulge
in conjecture as to its effect. Although
whites have not shown the same repugnance to the
Indian as to the African race, yet regular marriages
between native and European Americans have been
very rare. White men have seldom been willing
to admit Indian women to full privileges as
wives, and any other connexion would have been
abhorrent to the sound moralist. And few, indeed,
have been the cases in which women of European
descent, have accepted husbands from the red men
of America. The experiment, therefore, would
probably not have produced even the primary effect
for which it was intended. But, had such marriages
taken place, it is by no means certain they

would have established amicable relations between
the races. There would have been much in the
circumstances attending such ties to feed jealousy,
and make keen a sense of mutual wrong. Yet we
may feel regret that the project was not tried, for
had it done nothing else, it might at least have
shown whether any scheme that the wit of man
could devise, would mould Indians as a people to
the refinements of civilized life.

At this time the Established Church, which had
been stunned by the blows previously inflicted, began
again to exhibit signs of life, and peculiar influences
aided its struggles. During the session of
the Assembly, petitions from several counties prayed
that a "general assessment" should be laid on
the people of the state for the support of religion.
This question had never been decided, and now
the plan found favour. Patrick Henry was an
Episcopalian by preference;[441] we have reason to
believe that he was truly a pious man, and that in
religion, as in all other things, his professions were
sincere. He had, indeed, dealt a terrible blow upon
the clergy in the great tobacco case, and he had
eloquently defended Baptist ministers when they
were persecuted in Spotsylvania; but, unless the
Church came in violent contact with his ideas of
liberty, he was ready to uphold her in all her
wishes. He gave his cordial support to the plan
for an assessment. At the same time he urged
with vigour a resolution which declared that "acts
ought to pass for the incorporation of all societies of

the Christian religion which may apply for the
same." This resolution was adopted on the 17th
November, by a vote of sixty-two to twenty-three.[442]

Instantly the Protestant Episcopal Church applied
for incorporation, and an act was passed accordingly.
It provided that the minister and
vestry of each parish in being, or thereafter to
exist, should be a body corporate, with power to
purchase, have, and hold property, and to sue and
be sued in relation thereto. To these corporations
were transferred all the glebes, lands, parsonages,
churches, chapels, books, plate, ornaments, every
thing, in fact, that had been considered as the property
of the late Establishment. They were farther
empowered to purchase, use, and enjoy other
property, provided its income did not exceed eight
hundred pounds a year. Vestries were to be elected
once in three years by the people; but no person
was to vote unless he was a member of the Episcopal
Church, and contributed to its support. The
vestries were required, once in three years, to render
a statement of the amount of their property to
the County Court.

A Convention was to be established, consisting of
forty members at least, which was to have authority
to make rules for the regulation of the Church.[443]
Other provisions were introduced, fitted to complete
the corporate system; but it will not be necessary
to detail them. Enough has been presented to
show that Government had once more formed close
connexion with a Church, and that an approach

had been made to the principle of Establishment.
For the Episcopal Church would now be confirmed
by law in the possession of property, the great body
of which had been taken from the people under the
requirements of the old system. And farther, its
ministers and vestries were furnished with a legal
energy which would incessantly prompt them to
measures for acquiring property and gaining temporal
power. The experience of centuries had
proved how dangerous were such motives, and how
impotent were legislative restrictions to control the
amount obtained by men whose ingenuity had been
sharpened and directed by the pretext of religious
zeal.

The friends of freedom took the alarm. No
other church except the Episcopal, made application
for the benefit of the law; and one ecclesiastical
body had sent a solemn protest against its
passage, because it was believed to be adverse to
religious liberty.[444] This body expressly declined
to take advantage of its provisions. The question
of assessment had now become prominent, and its
friends and opponents were equally active. The
Legislature determined not to decide it immediately;
but having prepared a bill for the purpose,
they caused it to be engrossed, and then sent it out
among the people of Virginia, in order that by the
next session, the popular feeling respecting it
might be known. This bill required that all
taxable persons should, at the time of giving in a

list of their tithes, declare to what religious society
they wished their assessments appropriated; and
if they failed so to declare, the sums assessed on
them were to be appropriated to seminaries of learning
in their counties.[445] Such was the plan submitted
to the judgment of the people.

(1785.) Exciting debates occurred in many counties,
but the result was not long uncertain. A
memorial against the bill was prepared by James
Madison, which is one of the best compositions
ever produced, even by his great mind. Transparent
in style, moderate yet firm in temper, graceful
in proportion, strong in argument, it treats its
subject with a power not to be resisted.[446] It urged
that the system of assessment was vicious, because
it gave civil government control in religion; because
it verged to a union of church and state; because
it violated equality, in requiring men to support
that to which they might not have assented;
because it made the civil magistrate a judge in
matters of faith; because it was unnecessary for
the support of Christianity, who lives best upon
the free love of her children; because it tended to
produce indolence and vice, rather than purity and
zeal. The memorial was carried among the people,
and before the session of Assembly, many signatures
were appended to its various copies.

Early in November, the Legislature took up the
subject. Besides the memorial of Mr. Madison,
one was presented from Hanover Presbytery, which

argued forcibly against the bill.[447] It said that, "if
the Assembly have a right to determine the preference
between Christianity and the other systems
of religion that prevail in the world, they may also
at a convenient time give a preference to some
favoured sect among Christians." In order to obtain
light from all proper sources to aid in their
counsels, the Assembly permitted the Rev. John
B. Smith, a Presbyterian minister, to argue the
question at the bar of the House of Delegates, and
he was heard for three successive days.[448] Finally
the vote was taken, and the bill was rejected[449] by a
small majority. We have reason to rejoice at this
result. Christianity needs no legal taxes to sustain
her life, and liberty is weakened by any contact
between church and state.

While their minds were heated with the subject,
the patriots of Virginia resolved to place religious
freedom upon a firm foundation. (Dec. 26.) It was
at this time that the celebrated bill was adopted
which has drawn attention throughout the Christian
world, and which, in its composition and progress,
offers some phases of thought too singular
to be passed in silence. During the revisal of the
legal code heretofore noticed, Mr. Jefferson had
drawn this bill,[450] and it was printed in the report of
the revisors, but like many other clauses, had not
yet been acted upon. Thomas Jefferson was not a
believer in Christianity as divine, or in Christ as

God. It is doubtful whether he was a simple
Deist, or a Unitarian. If he admitted the existence
of Jesus, it was to ascribe to him weakness, imprudence,
fanaticism,—to degrade him into a self-deceiver;
to reject his atonement, and only to admit
the excellence of his morality, because it was
too plain to be denied.[451] But though infidel in his
opinions, Mr. Jefferson followed the highest reason
in his views of religious liberty. Reason liberty. Reason and Religion
are never contradictory, the one to the other;
the first is inferior to the last, and needs to be instructed;
but the deductions of the first, when
legitimately made, are always consistent with the
teachings of the last. Reason declares that it is
wrong in civil government to seek to control the
conscience, and Revelation approves the judgment.
Thus may it happen that the most learned of infidels,
and the most enlightened of Christians, may
attain to the same conclusions as to religious liberty.
At the very time when Jefferson was embodying
his views in definite form, a number of consecrated
minds were at work on the same subject; and it is
instructive to mark the result. Between the years
1775 and '86, the Presbytery of Hanover sent to
the General Assembly five memorials, in which
the relations of church and state are fully discussed;[452] and a careful analysis of these documents
will draw from them every material argument and
principle, that will be found embodied in the "Act
for establishing Religious Freedom," written by
Mr. Jefferson, and adopted by the Legislature for
the Commonwealth of Virginia.

The preamble to this act[453] is long and argumentative,
and penned in a style peculiar to its author.
Without giving all its recitals, it will be sufficient
to say that it declares that "to compel a man to
furnish contributions of money for the propagation
of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical;"
that "to suffer the civil magistrate to
intrude his powers into the field of opinion, is a
dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious
liberty;" and that "truth is great and will
prevail if left to herself; that she is the proper and
sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to
fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition
disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument
and debate: errors ceasing to be dangerous
when it is permitted freely to contradict them."
Then, it is enacted, "That no man shall be compelled
to frequent or support any religious worship,
place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced,
restrained, molested, or burdened, in his body or
goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his
religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall
be free to profess, and by argument to maintain,
their opinions in matters of religion, and that the
same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect
their civil capacities." The remaining clause in
substance declares, that these are the natural rights

of mankind, and that no act of a subsequent Legislature
could impair them.

This law, with its preamble, has not escaped censure,[454] but all who love liberty have admired it, and
will support it unto the end. Had such a law always
prevailed throughout Christendom, what an
amount of human suffering would have been prevented!
Rome would never have seen Christians
torn by wild beasts in her amphitheatres; the iron
chair would not have consumed the tortured body;
the fagot, the stake, the halter, would have lost
numberless victims. And Papal Rome would not
have incurred deeper guilt than her parent by her
cruelties; the valleys of France would not have
streamed with the blood of murdered men, and
rung with the shrieks of violated women; the fires
of the Inquisition would never have been kindled;
Saint Bartholomew would never have become a
name of horror; Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley, might
all have lived. And England would have been
spared the disgrace of her Protestant persecutors;
John Bunyan might have written his Pilgrim in a
cottage rather than in a jail; Richard Baxter would
have been saved from the insults of Jeffries. But
above all, the soul would have been free; the heart
would have escaped the nameless tortures of devotion
suppressed, of irreligion feigned, of injustice
unreproved. It may be true, that the God of providence
can bring good out of evil, and make "the
blood of martyrs the seed of the church;" but this
can never justify man in sanctioning religious

tyranny. He is no true friend to his country, who
would wish to see the "Act of Religious Freedom"
narrowed in its operation, or who would favour any
measure tending to such result.

After having gone so far, the Assembly would
not stop in its reform. Convinced that the act authorizing
incorporations was inconsistent with true
policy, they prepared to repeal it. A bill for the
purpose was introduced at the October Session of
the next year, and on the 9th of January, 1787, the
late law incorporating the Protestant Episcopal
Church was repealed, and the property it claimed
was confided simply to trustees.[455] Thus a false
step hastily taken was withdrawn. As we advance
in her history, we shall see that the statesmen of
Virginia again turned to this subject, and gradually
removed every vestige of a privileged church.

While seeking to secure the advantages of the
Revolution, the state did not forget the great leader
who had been chief in effecting it. She determined
to adorn her capital city with a State House,
and to place in it a statue of George Washington.
Mr. Jefferson was now in Paris, as Minister to
France from the United States, and his taste in the
fine arts was so exquisite, that he was well fitted to
aid his state in accomplishing her object. For the
Capitol, he selected the "Maison quarrée" of
Nismes as a model; it was simple, elegant, majestic,
"yielding to no one of the beautiful monuments
of Greece, Rome, Palmyra, and Balbec."[456]

Learning, with horror, that the first bricks of the
Capitol were soon to be laid, and that the directors
were proceeding on a plan of their own, he hastened
to arrest a work which must inevitably have
entailed a mass of architectural infamy upon the
state. His views prevailed, and in due time the
building arose. Its position is elevated, and the
grounds encircling it are full of the picturesque;
the Capitol itself charms by its massive grace, and
gains more and more upon the beholder as he looks
upon it; but it has been strangely deformed by a
departure from the model. A noble flight of steps,
that ought to have descended from the portico to
the ground, has been omitted; hence, one approaching
on that side, feels as though he were
sternly repulsed; and if he walks in the portico, he
has fear of a fall, which Lucius Cæsar and Louis
XIV. would fain have prevented.

To make the statue, Mr. Jefferson employed
Houdon, a French statuary, distinguished in his
art, perhaps, beyond any then in the world.[457] He
was "disinterested, generous, candid, and panting
after glory;"[458] nevertheless, he could not live upon
glory, and, therefore, he was to receive a thousand
English guineas for the figure and pedestal, to have
his expenses to, in, and from America paid, and in
case of his death during his absence from France,
his family were to receive ten thousand livres.[459] To
make this last sum secure, the great sculptor's life
was insured when he sailed for America. In three

years the work was complete, and it now adorns
the central hall of the Capitol. The Father of his
country is represented standing in an easy and
graceful position; the majestic form is clothed in
the military costume of his age; the right hand
rests upon a cane; the head is bare and the expanded
brow is seen in full; a sword hangs near
his side; and the only departure from the modern
is found in the Roman "fasces," emblematic of
authority. To the uninitiated, at least, this statue
is more pleasing than the taste which has enveloped
George Washington in a flowing toga, covered
his feet with sandals, and placed a short
Roman sword in his hand.

In the same hall, and near the figure of Washington,
is a bust of Lafayette, voted by the Legislature
in 1781. While in life they were often united,
and now that each has ceased to live, it is meet that
the "silent marble" should recall both together, to
the eye and heart of the beholder.

(December, 1786.) Edmund Randolph was
elected to succeed Patrick Henry as Governor
of the Commonwealth. He was nephew to Peyton
Randolph, so favourably known as the friend
of the people, even when he was the King's
Attorney-General, and as the conservative advocate
for freedom in the early stages of the Revolution.
The new chief magistrate was an eminent
lawyer; he had long filled the office of Attorney
for the state, and his great skill had attracted
to him an amount of practice which would have
interfered materially with the discharge of executive

duties. He thought himself bound to withdraw
from the active part of his profession, and therefore,
through the papers, informed his clients of his
design, and requested them to transfer their business
to John Marshall, to whom he had consigned
his dockets.[460] However great in the law Mr. Randolph
may have been, it is presumed that few
suitors could have suffered by confiding their interests
to the man whose fame as a jurist, is now wide
as the bounds of civilization.

With the progress of the new Executive, we
open a subject which must receive careful thought;
for of all others it most deeply affected the interests
of Virginia, and will continue to affect them,
while the Federal Constitution endures. It is
always interesting to watch the phenomena attending
the changes in human governments; the bringing
in of a single new principle, or the loss of any
one feature, will often mould the fortunes of a people
for centuries. But in the peaceful revolution
which the statesmen of America accomplished,
when they discarded one system of rule, and deliberately
assumed another, there are some things
which cause it to differ from every prior change in
government the world had ever known. That
we may appreciate this singular action, it will be
necessary to unfold the motives which induced it.

The "Articles of Confederacy" had been prepared
by men patriotic and wise, yet inexperienced
in the practical workings of the American system.

They could not possibly have known what could
only be developed by events unlike any that had
occurred in past ages. Hence this union never
gave satisfaction; it was watched with jealousy,
and adopted with reluctance. While the war
lasted, its defects were little felt, because necessity
compelled the states to exert themselves, and to
sacrifice selfish views for the common defence.
But in each year, from the close of the Revolution
to 1787, the vices of the system became more
glaring, and its results more disastrous.

We have already seen that the public lands had
been a subject on which several states had based
their unwillingness to adopt the Articles. This
difficulty had been happily removed; but permanent
evils of far greater importance yet remained.
The control of Congress in matters of trade and commerce
was inefficient, and as each state sought to
guard her own interests, ceaseless murmurings were
heard. Some states had seaports and others had
not; those having ports of course demanded duties
on goods imported, which were always paid by consumers
at last, and thus the interior states thought
themselves unjustly taxed. New Jersey, between
New York and Philadelphia, was compared to "a
cask tapped at both ends;" and North Carolina,
between Virginia and South Carolina, was likened
to "a patient bleeding at both arms."[461] The want
of a general power of supervision, led to many irregularities:
some states claimed standing armies;
some violated contracts by making depreciated

paper a legal tender; and others declared that property
under certain circumstances should be taken
for money.[462]

But the fatal defect in the Government was the
want of power in Congress to force a payment of
the public dues. The federal body had no right
even to lay duties on imports; it must humbly ask
permission of the states before this could be done,
and though in two instances most of them granted
such permission, yet their compliance was reluctant,
and fettered by so many terms that it produced
very little revenue.[463] Whenever money
was to be raised, the regular mode was that Congress
should send a polite request or "requisition"
to the states, setting forth the urgency of the case,
and praying that it might be promptly met. These
appeals, though loud and earnest, were heard by
the states generally with indifference, sometimes
with impatience; seldom with a disposition to comply.
The demands of Congress were evaded as
eagerly as a proud debtor escapes from a dun, or
rather as a penurious citizen turns from the importunity
of a beggar in the streets. The result was
soon apparent. At the close of the war, the Federal
Government owed forty-three millions of dollars,
and the states nearly one half that sum. The
public debt was due to three classes of creditors:
first, to individuals at home, old soldiers who had
fought, and capitalists who had advanced funds for
their country; secondly, to individuals abroad, men
who were willing to help freedom by lending their
money to its supporters; thirdly, to foreign powers,

as France and Holland. All these expected to be
paid, if not the principal, at least the interest of
their debts; but Congress had no power to raise
money; the states had the power but not the will;
and the effect was national disgrace and humiliation.
The republic, from which so much had been
hoped, became contemptible in the eyes of the old
world, and of her own most virtuous citizens. If
there was no positive repudiation of debts at this
time, there occurred what was equivalent,—a refusal
to take any steps to meet payments which were
justly due. None of the states complied with the
entreaties of Congress; Rhode Island was specially
intractable, and New Jersey at one time passed an
act expressly refusing the aid demanded.[464]

The Federal Government sought by every means
within its reach to sustain the national character;
but it was impotent; its arms were pinioned.
France looked on in sorrow and doubt. Holland
began to fear she would lose her money. English
monopolists secretly rejoiced in the failure of the
great republican experiment, and were already
busy in seeking gain from its downfall. Under
these circumstances, the wise men of America
could no longer doubt that a change was necessary
if they would avert ruin. All believed that the
"Articles of Confederacy" needed revising, and
many thought that the proper remedy could be
found in the adoption of a new and well-digested
Constitution. A happy concurrence of events led

to the last, and it must now, for a season, engross
our thoughts.

It is unfortunate that man should have found it
necessary to yield himself at all to the dominion of
his fellow-mortals. There is but one perfect government
in existence, and that is the government
of God. This is a pure monarchy. The Sovereign
unites in himself all powers, and infinite perfections.
He is all-wise to conceive proper laws,
all-benevolent to enact them, and almighty to enforce
them. And had his moral creatures on earth
retained the purity originally bestowed upon them,
his dominion would have been the only rule they
would have needed. There would have been no
necessity for subordinate jurisdictions, for all men
would have pursued the path of virtue. No unholy
passion, no selfish motive, no craving appetite,
would have seduced them from their duty. In
every thought and feeling, and therefore in every
word and act, they would have been perfectly conformed
to Divine law. Not the slightest inequality
would have disturbed the moral mechanism. But
man has become depraved, and his very depravity
compels him to submit to human government. The
Deity is no longer obeyed; he does not directly interpose;
he reserves the enforcement of his law for
the retributions of the future. And as men have
forgotten God, they need a government which shall
come in immediate contact with them, and restrain,
in some measure, their wickedness; otherwise society
could not long subsist. The existence of
kings, rulers, magistrates, law-makers, and statute-books,

courts of justice, and executive officers, are
all so many illustrations of the great revealed doctrine
of human depravity. The infidel sees this as
well as the believer, and in admitting it, unconsciously
bears testimony to the truth.[465]

But though man is now compelled to establish
government on earth, it does not follow that it should
be a system of pure monarchy, like the government
of God. The same innate wickedness which requires
the establishment of human sovereignty,
will make dangerous its exercise by any single
man. In order to secure the happiness of its subjects,
government must have the three qualities of
wisdom, goodness, power. Wisdom to suggest the
best means of promoting the public welfare, goodness
to impel to their adoption, and power to make
them efficacious. It must have a head to direct,
a heart to feel, and a hand to execute. And the
only reason why the Divine Government is perfect,
is because it at once unites, in their fulness, all
these qualities. But it will be impossible to find
them in any one of the three principal forms of
sovereignty that have been known on earth. An
absolute king may be powerful, but he may be a
Sardanapalus in folly, or a Nero in depravity; an
oligarchy may have wisdom, but it may be corrupt
and impotent like that of Venice; a simple democracy
may put forth some signs of virtue, but it

will have neither wisdom nor strength. Therefore
a mixed government, combining in proper proportions
the incidents of the three great forms, has
been found to be the best, perhaps the only system
that promises to secure the welfare of the human
race.

Two thousand three hundred and sixty-eight
years ago, a debate on government took place,
which proved that the distinctions between the
three prevalent forms were then well known, and
yet neither at that time, nor for twenty-one centuries
thereafter, did speculations on the subject
lead to results of practical value. The "father of
history" tells us, that after the death of Cambyses,
King of Persia, and of Smerdis, the Magus, who
by fraud had obtained the throne, a meeting of
seven of the highest chiefs of the kingdom was
held to discuss public affairs. They were first to
decide the question of government. Otanes opened
the debate, and in a set speech urged the claims of
democracy; he reminded them of the insolence,
the injustice, the debauchery and cruelty of kings,
how often they had violated the chastity of women,
and put to death innocent men; he told them that
if the magistrates were elected by the people, they
would serve them faithfully, and always be moderate
in their conduct.[466]

Then followed Megabyzus, who was in favour of
aristocracy. Like Otanes, he disapproved of monarchy,
but he equally distrusted the people; he
thought the multitude would always be stupid and

insolent; a blind monster, governed by nothing but
its appetites and passions. He urged them to
adopt a government conducted by a few virtuous
men, who would by their wisdom provide for the
public happiness.[467]

Next came Darius, an open advocate for monarchy.
He agreed with Megabyzus, that the
people at large could not be trusted; but he feared
also the factions of an oligarchy. He contended
that a king could keep his own counsel, but that
among several, emulation would prevail, jealousies
would arise, sedition would creep in; hence murder,
and at last a necessity for a monarch.[468]

This last counsel prevailed. By a vote of four
to three, monarchy was selected as the form of
their government; and after this wise decision,
they adopted even a wiser mode of choosing the
king to whom their liberties were to be entrusted!
They resolved that all should assemble the next
morning at a certain spot, and that he whose horse
neighed first should be their monarch! As a
closing commentary, we may add that Darius,
triumphant in debate, was victor also in the equine
contest. Taking learned counsel of his groom, he
brought the charms of a young mare to act upon
his steed, who on reaching the spot in the morning,
forthwith neighed aloud![469] Thus was made
the King of Persia.

Until the American Revolution had wrought out

its principles, men had never learned so to combine
the elements of "the three forms," as to obtain at
once strength for the government and liberty for
the people. The British Constitution had unquestionably
approached more nearly to this than any
other, and there were many on each side of the
Atlantic, who believed it to embody all that the
wisdom of man could accomplish for human sovereignty.
This Constitution was not written—that
is, it was not drawn out on paper in articles, and
sections, and clauses,—but it was written in the
history of five centuries,—in the charter wrested
from John, in the blood which ran from the scaffold
of Charles the First, in the compact between William
of Orange and the people who received him.
Yet this government was a monarchy, and it could
never have been fitted to the wants of the American
nation.

When the defects of the Confederacy became
apparent, the change required was one which
would, of necessity, give greater strength to government;
and it was this fact that placed the conduct
of America in bold relief, and caused it to differ
from all the experience of the past. The sovereignties
of the Old World had been apparently built up
by accident, but whenever a change did occur, it
always involved a struggle of the government
against the people. The government sought to
increase or to retain its powers; the people sought
to weaken them. It is believed that the measures
of 1787 and '88, in the United States, present the
first instance in which a nation of four millions of

people prepared to reject a weak, and to assume a
strong government. To do this immediately after
emerging from a bloody war, waged for liberty,
and to accomplish it not in enthusiasm or passion,
but by a written constitution, definite in all points,
and bearing perpetual testimony that their conduct
was deliberate! such a scene exhibits the highest
triumph of reason; it is a standing proof that the
people, in a proper sense, are capable of self-government.
It merited the reward it has actually
gained, in producing a system of sovereignty,
beautiful in its very complication, and happily
combining the essentials of wisdom, virtue, and
power.

In this work, we have so long been viewing Virginia
alone, first as a Colony and then as a State,
that we shall be the better able to understand the
relation she bears to the Federal Government,
which was soon to be adopted. During the colonial
period, she had been governed by her Assemblies,
subject to the negative of the King, and to
the general control of the British Parliament. But
the moment the dominion of England was thrown
off, she became sovereign, possessing within herself
every power that can belong to an independent
nation. She had a right to erect such a government
as she pleased, and exercised it by adopting
a Bill of Rights and Constitution, in which her
people first reserved certain privileges and immunities
to themselves, and then vested the residue of
sovereignty in their rulers. And her people and
her government together form the complex idea

which, in this work, we express by the word
"State." If after this, she deemed it expedient to
unite with other states, and to form a Federal
Government, it is evident that, as to herself, such
government would have only the powers she delegated
to it, and that she would lose only the
powers she consented to resign. For the federal
system would have no natural existence; it would
derive its being and its power entirely from the
people and the state governments; from the
people, who had reserved to themselves some of
the incidents of sovereignty, and from the state
governments, which held the remainder. Therefore,
prior to the adoption of a Federal Constitution,
her people and her government together, held all
the powers of sovereignty that could be exercised
within the limits of Virginia. The paper containing
this Constitution, if it gained her assent, would
define the extent to which these powers were to be
affected for the future. If she granted a power to
the general government, and denied it to herself,
then that government could exercise the power,
and she could not; if she granted a power, and
yet did not deny it to herself, then the general
government might exercise the power, and she
might also; their powers would be concurrent. If
on any subject of legislation she granted no power
to the Federal Government, then from no other
source could that government possibly obtain it,
and an attempt to exercise it would be vain. A
most delicate task, therefore, was the making of
this Constitution. Virginia saw not the full results
of her course, when she introduced the measures
which led to the new government.

In March, 1785, the Legislature had appointed
Commissioners to meet similar delegates from Maryland,
at Alexandria, and to form, if possible, a
compact between the two states, as to the navigation
of the Potomac and Pocomoke rivers, and as to
trade in the upper part of Chesapeake Bay. While
at Mount Vernon, the Commissioners resolved to
recommend the appointment of deputies from all
the states, to meet at some convenient time and
place, and suggest measures as to trade and commerce
for the benefit of the Union.[470] On the 21st
January, 1786, Virginia met this suggestion by
appointing deputies, and in September, Edmund
Randolph, St. George Tucker, and James Madison,
joined Commissioners from four other states at Annapolis.
They had not long debated, ere they
found that improvement in trade was beyond their
reach, while the federate government remained as
it was; accordingly, they recommended that the
states should appoint Commissioners to form a
Convention in Philadelphia, in May, 1787, and
there to devise and suggest such changes and improvements
as might be necessary for the Articles
of Union.[471] Acting in accordance with this advice,
on the 4th of December, Virginia elected seven deputies,
to meet those appointed by the other states,
for the purpose of "devising and discussing all such
alterations and farther provisions as may be necessary

to render the Federal Constitution adequate to
the exigencies of the Union."[472]

(1787, May 25.) At the appointed time the Convention
assembled in Philadelphia. Deputies were
present from all the states except Rhode Island;
with her wonted intractability, she had refused to
concur. From Virginia, the Commissioners were
George Washington, Edmund Randolph, John
Blair, James Madison, George Mason, George
Wythe, and James McClurg. General Washington
was elected President of the body. Mr. Madison
had determined to preserve notes of a debate,
which he foresaw would be one of the most important
that men had ever conducted. He took his
seat in a suitable place in front of the President's
chair, and losing no time either in or out of the
meetings, he wrote a clear record of the discussion,
which, since his death, has been given to the
public.

It would be foreign to our purpose, to give even
a rapid sketch of these celebrated debates, but a
single allusion may show, that the wisest of statesmen
cannot look into futurity. From the whole
course of reasoning adopted by the speakers on
state interests, it is evident that they believed that
the small states were in danger of being devoured
by the large. Hence the struggles to obtain for all
the states an equal representation, which finally resulted
in the judicious clause which made the
Senate the peculiar guardian of state rights. What

conflict of interest would have induced the large
states to prey upon their small neighbours, it is not
easy to discover, but this fear filled the minds of
many delegates from Connecticut and New Jersey,
Maryland and Delaware. Luther Martin, of Maryland,
spoke two days on the subject, and exhausted
all appeals from law and conscience in
maintaining the rights of the little members.[473] Subsequent
experience has shown, that the conflict
has been not between the large and the small states,
but between the northern and the southern, the
free and the slave, the manufacturing and the producing.
Mr. Madison alone seems to have apprehended
this tendency.[474]

On the 17th September, the labours of the Convention
closed; they had prepared a Form of Government
which was now to be submitted to the
people. Of the Virginia delegates, only George
Washington, James Madison, and John Blair,
signed the Constitution. The others all disapproved
of it on points concerning which they could
admit no compromise, though afterwards two of
them at least became advocates for its adoption.[475]

The Form of Government having been engrossed
and duly authenticated, was to be debated in Conventions
elected by the people of the individual
states, and by them ratified or rejected. In Virginia,
the highest excitement and anxiety prevailed;
we may judge from the division among the delegates,

how serious would probably be the conflict
of opinion in the masses of society from which they
came. Preparations were immediately made to
elect delegates from the several counties to serve
in the State Convention, which was to decide upon
the new government. Deep feelings were roused;
the people were stirred to the soul; meetings were
held in all parts of the state, and every where the
one great theme was the Plan of Union. It is said
that even in the churchyard, and on the Sabbath,
the absorbing subject could not be suppressed; at
home and abroad, in public and private, men
thought, spoke, contended concerning little save
the States and the Confederacy; the checks and
the balances; the executive; the legislative; the
judiciary.[476] In America the people have long gloried
in the privilege of meeting in popular assemblies,
and hearing debated before them all matters affecting
their interests; but we have reason to believe
that the discussions of 1787 and '88 were the first
general displays of the kind that Virginia had
known, and thus, in addition to their other charms,
they had the zest of novelty. Orators travelled
abroad, sending messages before them to call the
people together, and to invite a contest with some
opponent. Thousands assembled at the day and
place appointed, and when we remember what
minds were then in the state, we readily believe
that these mental tournaments were equal in brilliancy
to the shock of steel-clad man and horse, in
the days of knight-errantry.

(1788.) On the 2d day of June, the Convention
assembled at the public buildings in Richmond,
and prepared to enter upon its high duties. When
fully organized, this body contained one hundred
and sixty-eight members, and its character for
talents and patriotism has become a part of our
proverbial knowledge. It will not be necessary to
give a preliminary sketch even of the more prominent
individuals who composed it, inasmuch as
they have often been under our notice in years
through which we have passed, and as they will
successively present themselves upon the stage in
the debate that is to follow. Edmund Pendleton,
venerable in years, yet still unclouded in mind,
was unanimously elected President, John Beckley
was made Secretary, and Rev. Abner Waugh was
appointed Chaplain, to read morning prayers.[477]

Then, after some preliminaries, commenced the
struggle. In its very threshold, Patrick Henry insisted
that the Federal Convention had exceeded its
powers: appointed merely to revise the old system,
it had concocted one perfectly new; but Mr. Pendleton
answered, that from whatever source the
proposed form had come, the people had sent them
to decide upon it, and that if it had "dropt from
one of the planets," it was yet competent for them
to accept it.[478] With great propriety it was resolved,
in the beginning of the debate, that the Constitution
should be discussed regularly, article by article,
and clause by clause, but this rule was wholly disregarded
in practice, and more than half the session

passed before the parts were taken up in natural
order. The minds of members were too full of the
whole subject to be confined for debate to an isolated
clause. They sought to grapple with each
other throughout the length and breadth of the
field; those who defended the Constitution, presented
it as a system beautifully adapted to their
wants, and well fitted to cover the chasm left by
the Confederation; those who opposed it, declaimed
against it as a monster, dangerous in his single
traits, and in his full developement.

This free mode of discussion made their conflicts
animated and keen. The combatants darted from
point to point with the quickness of thought; they
used every weapon that the laws of honourable
warfare would admit,—the pointed sarcasm, the
witty jest, the vivid flash of repartee, the trenchant
blade of argument, the thunder of declamation.
From time to time the battle grew hot, and passion
rose high. Mr. Henry bore down with vigour upon
Edmund Randolph, criticised his expressions with
severity, and attributed to him inconsistency in
opposing the government in Philadelphia, and yet
supporting it at home. To this the Governor replied
with deep feeling, and retorting the charge,
used the words, "If our friendship must fall, let it
fall like Lucifer, never to rise again."[479] Yet mutual
concessions soon restored peace between them;
great minds cannot long cherish malice against
those they are compelled to respect.

The large liberty allowed in the first part of the

debate, soon brought the whole body of the Constitution,
in detached members, to the view of the
House. They debated in a committee of all, and
George Wythe was generally in the chair. The
disputants passed, quick as lightning, from standing
armies to militia trainings, from taxes to treaties,
from disunion to consolidation, from the "ten miles
square" to the mouth of the Mississippi. But
gradually, as the first overflow of feeling and argument
exhausted itself, the debate assumed a more
regular form; thought was condensed, logic was
triumphant, and truth was unfolded.

George Nicholas had opened the argument of
the general subject, in a speech of high order for
clearness of detail, and strength of reasoning. He
maintained that the democratic feature of the Constitution
was all that could be desired; that the
basis of the people was broad and permanent. He
showed an intimate acquaintance with the British
representative system, and drew a happy contrast
between the delusive democracy which apparently
elects the House of Commons, and the real republicanism
of Congress.[480] Through the whole contest
he was the calm advocate for the government,
and did much for its adoption.

Governor Randolph held a position peculiar, and
not a little embarrassing. He had been so much
displeased with some parts of the Constitution, that
he had refused to sign it; nevertheless, when he
found that eight states had adopted it, and that party
spirit threatened to rend asunder the Union, he threw

aside minor objections, and lent his powers to the
support of the plan. In his speeches he exposed
the defects of the "Confederacy" with searching
skill, and after becoming warmed in the cause, he
seemed to lose sight even of the difficulties which
had before pressed upon him. It is certain that
his arguments were among the best for the entire
system that were delivered during the debate,
and at its close he had a right to claim from posterity
a verdict affirming the soundness of his
motives.[481]

General Henry Lee, of Westmoreland, was prominent
in supporting the plan. He was the well-known
"Legion Harry," of Revolutionary times;
he had often led his dragoons to the charge, and
crossed sabres with tories and Englishmen; yet he
was withal a fine scholar, and a competent statesman.
His speeches sometimes exhibited the spirit
of the camp and the battle-ground; he was fond of
personal encounter, and took special delight in
throwing himself before the breach made by the
great guns of Patrick Henry.[482] His firm sense, and
military knowledge, made him a valuable ally to
those who possessed only civic talents.

Francis Corbin sustained the plan. Without
the genius and the eloquence of others, he had a
well-balanced mind, and habits of industry which
brought masses of historic facts to his aid. He
spoke strongly of the derangement of finance, and
reminded the House of a motion introduced into
the Legislature in 1784, to compel the states by

force of arms, to pay their dues.[483] Surely such a
course would be more adverse to freedom than the
adoption of a strong government, which would
raise money by regular process! He prophesied
that increase of trade would make imports alone
sufficient to pay the expenses of the system, if it
were allowed to act, and his prophecy has been
fulfilled. Mr. Corbin's name deserves honourable
notice for his labours, though he has not been
reckoned among the brilliant and the great.

John Marshall spoke but little, yet always with
signal success, for the new government. His was
a rare mind. He has been thought to have been
without imagination, and deficient in the higher
sensibilities, which give power to words. But he
reasoned with resistless force; he seized upon the
attention, and carrying it captive with him, pressed
into the centre of opposing arguments, until they
were undermined and destroyed. He kept before
him the point to be proved, and having laid his
premises, he built upon them until the truth was
forced into the mind of the hearer, with a certainty
approaching the theorems of exact science. In the
balances of the Constitution he found appropriate
matter for an exercise of his analysis, and he unfolded
them with a clearness and skill which made
doubt irrational, and faith secure.[484]

James Innes was eloquent in behalf of the government
proposed. He was Attorney-General of the
State, and had been so closely employed in the
Court of "Oyer and Terminer," that he could not

attend the early stages of the debate. He did not
utter a word until the very last day of the argument,
but he then made a speech of great strength
and beauty. Deprecating local prejudices, he
asked, "Had we this political jealousy in 1775? If
we had, it would have damped our ardour and intrepidity,
and prevented that unanimous resistance
which enabled us to triumph over our enemies. It
is not a Virginian, Carolinian, or Pennsylvanian,
but the glorious name of an American, that extended
from one end of the continent to the other,
that was then beloved and confided in."[485] Colonel
Innes was an orator in every sense of the word; if
he erred in any respect, it was in continuing too
long the march of mind; he never descended from
the "car of triumph" when once it was gained;
Patrick Henry bore high testimony to his powers,
when he declared him "to be endowed with great
eloquence; eloquence splendid, magnificent, and
sufficient to shake the human mind!"[486]

But beyond all others, James Madison was the
successful champion of the Constitution. He knew
it in all its parts, from the most expanded to the
most minute; he had been the author of many of
its provisions, and had studied its character with
the eye of a philosophic patriot. He was ready to
meet every objection brought against it, and did in
fact, during the debate, defend it first as a whole,
and then clause by clause, to the end. He showed
the mixed nature of the scheme. Some objected
because it was a government of the people: it con-

solidated instead of confederating, and melted the
states into one popular mass; yet were there others
who thought the states would have too much contact
with Congress, and the people too little. Mr.
Madison proved that the Government was in some
respects popular, in some respects federal. It was
to be ratified by the people in conventions: in this
it was popular; but by the people divided into
thirteen sovereignties: in this it was federal. The
House of Representatives were to be elected by the
people: in this it was popular; but the Senate was
to be equally filled from the states: in this it was
federal. Congress was to have power to lay taxes
on individuals: in this the Government was consolidated;
but the states might effect amendments:
in this it was confederate. The President was to
be commander-in-chief of army and navy: this was
a feature of consolidation; but the states might arm
and train the militia: this preserved the confederacy.[487] So ingenious a system was worthy of so
able an advocate.

The ranks of the opposers were marshalled and
led on by Patrick Henry. We have seen enough
of his past displays to know, that now when a subject
was before him which enlisted his strongest
feelings, he would not sink beneath it. Some of
the most powerful speeches he ever delivered, were
made during this debate. He felt alarm, apprehension
for his country; the new government seemed
to him to threaten her liberties; he feared its consolidating
tendencies. He asked why the Constitution

had dared to say, "We, the people," instead
of "We, the states." The powers of the President
seemed to him enormous, ruinous. "This 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 towards mo-
narchy!"[488] The federal judiciary encountered his
warm opposition. He could not separate from it
the ideas of injustice, of expense, of hazard, to the
people. As the time for a final vote approached,
Mr. Henry's anxiety increased, and his eloquence
grew more impressive. While he was once speaking,
and when he had wrought his hearers to a
paroxysm of feeling, a furious storm arose; lightnings
flashed, thunder pealed, and rain poured
down in torrents. At the same time the spirit of
the orator had soared to "etherial mansions," and
invoked celestial witnesses to view the crisis of his
country. The effect could not be borne; the members
rose in confusion, and the meeting was dissolved.[489]

Yet the attentive reader of the "Debates," will
find in Mr. Henry's speeches, more of declamation
than of argument; more appeals to passion, than
addresses to reason. It was indeed found by the
reporter, impossible to follow him in his loftiest
flights, yet it is believed that all of sound logic that
he presented, has been preserved, and it bears but
a small proportion to his glowing remonstrances
and passionate harangues. He entered the body

determined to oppose the new government to the
last, and this spirit made him undiscriminating.
He found nothing to approve in the Constitution.
Assuredly it could not have been expected that the
wisest men in America should have debated four
months, and yet produced nothing good; but it
would be hard to find a single clause in the Constitution,
which was received with favour by Patrick
Henry.

George Mason waged war upon the system. He
had opposed it in Philadelphia, and now carried
his struggle to the final vote in Virginia. He urged
that it was not a federal but a national government;
that the power to collect taxes directly from the
people proved its character, and that no republic
could long endure in a country as extensive as
America.[490] He thought the power of the President
overwhelming, and strongly inveighed against the
extensive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which
was to cover "law and fact." Once he crossed
swords violently with Mr. Madison, but before their
colloquy was closed, all bitter feeling was removed.[491]

James Monroe opposed the government, at the
head of which his country was afterwards to place
him. He loved the Union, and believed that the
states loved the Union; but he thought their government
ought to be strictly a union of the states,
and not a melting together of the people. He believed
democratic independencies might safely confederate.
The great leagues of the world passed
in review before him: the Amphyctionic, the

Achaean, the Germanic, the Swiss Cantons. Polybius
furnished him with passages to prove the
happy structure of the Achaean League, but the
German princedoms were only kept together by
danger and the Emperor. He compared the Confederation
and the Constitution: add to the first
absolute power over commerce, and he would approve
it; take away from the last the power of
direct taxes, and he would approve it.[492] This right
to tax the people was the point he dreaded: how
could a few representatives from a country covering
nearly a million of square miles, tell what would
be most suitable subjects of taxation; what would
least oppress, what would best be endured?[493]

Among the ablest opponents of the system, was
William Grayson, from the county of Prince William.
He was always heard with attention, and
he poured out streams of legal and historical light
upon his subject. Yet one of his objections would
now fall harshly upon the ear of America. "It
would be dangerous to have a fleet in our present
weak, dispersed, and defenceless situation. The
powers of Europe, who have West India possessions,
would be alarmed at any extraordinary maritime
exertions; and knowing the danger of our
arrival at manhood, would crush us in our infancy."[494]
Views like these would not long have suited the
people that could send forth such frigates as the
Constitution and the United States, and such naval
chiefs as Hull and Bainbridge, Decatur, Lawrence,
Perry and MacDonough.

Of the powers given to the Legislature of the
General Government, none was regarded with more
jealousy than that providing that Congress should be
authorized to make all laws "necessary and proper"
for carrying out its own powers or any powers
given by the Constitution to the Government, or to
any of its departments.[495] This was familiarly called
the "sweeping clause," and was viewed in very
different lights by the contending parties. The
friends of the plan insisted that this clause conveyed
no new power to Congress; that it was provided
simply to make efficacious the powers already
given; that it was only the means to enable the government
to meet its prescribed ends. But on the
other hand, it was insisted that the clause was
broad enough to include any and every power that
Congress might choose to claim; that, by construction
and implication, it would authorize an infringement
of the liberty of the press, and of the right of
jury trial; that, in truth, it was the germ from
which might grow powers of undefined magnitude,
and destructive of freedom.

Another objection to the plan strongly urged by
its opponents was the want of a "Bill of Rights."[496]
The advocates of the system urged that this was
not necessary; that the proper office of a Bill of
Rights was to limit the general sovereignty of government,
and reserve certain immunities to the

people; that this had been its ascertained meaning
in English history; that such precaution was not
required in the government proposed, because its
sovereignty was not general but special, because its
powers were few and clearly defined, and because
beyond them it could not act. But many were not
satisfied with this reasoning; they looked to the
"sweeping clause" with apprehension, and wished
to see farther barriers erected around their liberties.

We will not dwell farther upon the objections to
the plan, urged in this celebrated debate. Those
most prominent have been set forth in the views
already given, and it will be the less necessary to
display them in full, because they are reflected in
the Amendments to the Constitution, which Virginia
advised, and to which we must now attend.
As the struggle approached its close, it became
evident that the plan would be adopted; but it was
equally evident that a large majority of members
wished for additions and changes in order to make
the Government acceptable to them. The question
then arose whether these amendments should be
previous or subsequent, that is, whether they should
be insisted on before the Constitution was ratified
at all, or whether it should first be ratified and then
efforts be made to amend it. Patrick Henry fought
bravely for previous amendments, and introduced
a scheme of his own for the purpose;[497] but he was
opposed with equal vigour, and was at length defeated.

On the 25th day of June the final vote was taken

on the question of ratification. Eighty-nine members
voted in the affirmative, and seventy-nine in
the negative. Thus ten voices made Virginia a
party to the Federal Union under the New Constitution.
Immediately after this vote, two committees
were appointed, one[498] to prepare and report
a proper form for ratifying the system adopted; the
other[499] to prepare and report such amendments as,
in their opinion, ought to be recommended for the
new Government. The first committee soon reported
a form, which was adopted without delay.
It is cautiously worded, and though, in a spirit of
high patriotism, it ratifies the Constitution in full,
yet, in behalf of the people of Virginia, it declares
the limits of Federal power, and the inviolability of
the rights of conscience and of the press.[500]

The other committee reported on the 27th of June.
They had prepared a Bill of Rights and a list of
amendments, which they wished added to the
Constitution. These were nearly identical with
those previously offered by Patrick Henry, in his
effort to obtain a conditional ratification.[501] It will
not be necessary to detail them in full;[502]
but it will
be highly proper to show how far they finally prevailed,
in order that we may see to what extent

Virginia has been instrumental in securing liberty
for America. Immediately after the new Government
went into effect, amendments were proposed,
and having been duly ratified by the Legislatures
of nine states, were made parts of the Constitution.
Nearly every material change suggested by Virginia
was adopted. For, one article of amendment
provided for freedom in religion, and of speech,
and of the press, and for the right of the people
peaceably to assemble and petition for redress of
grievances.[503] Others declared that the people should
have a right to have and bear arms, that soldiers
should not be improperly quartered in private
houses; that no unreasonable searches and seizures
should take place; that excessive bail, and excessive
fines, and cruel and unusual punishments
should not be.[504] Others secured a fair trial by jury
in criminal and civil cases, and took away the
jurisdiction of the Federal courts in all cases where
individuals sought to sue a state.[505] And another
said that, "the powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to
the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or
to the people."[506]

Thus we have conducted the "Old Dominion"
from feeble beginnings, to her appropriate place in
the most powerful and enlightened confederacy of

states that the world has ever known. We have
seen that when she first became independent of the
mother country, she adopted, with singular directness
of purpose, measures necessary to secure civil
and religious freedom within her own borders.
We have seen that when the proposed Union was
presented, she examined it with jealous eyes, and
subjected it to the ordeal of minds keen, brilliant,
learned, and ardently in love with liberty. We
have marked her care in debating, and her caution
in adopting it. We have seen that even in the act
of receiving it, she sought, and sought with success,
to infuse into its soul some of her own healthful
qualities; that she procured amendments guarantying
the natural rights and the first interests of
man. And now it might be supposed that, as she
had become incorporated in a Union which will,
we hope, endure to the end of time, at this point
her individual history would properly close. Most
true it is, that henceforth in the American heavens,
the great system absorbs the thoughts, and Virginia
is but a single planet, revolving in this system.
Yet her very change of position had presented
phases interesting to behold; and if she was
no longer paramount in dignity, she had at least
not lost her power to maintain the equilibrium of
other planets, or to develope the rich resources hid
in her own bosom.