F (32:38)
Post. On June 29, 1776, Henry was chosen as the first governor of Virginia. As governor, Henry worked closely with George Washington to raise and equip forces. Henry was re elected twice for one year terms and served as governor until June 1779 when he was succeeded by Thomas Jefferson. Henry remarried in October 1777 and he and his second wife Dorothy Dandridge Henry had 11 children together, adding to the six children from his first wife. In 1779, Henry was elected to the Virginia House of Delegates. During this time, Virginia politicians were split into two Anti Federalist and Federalist. That is one side wanted to have a federal government, the United States. The other side wanted to strengthen the states and called themselves the Anti Federalist because they didn't want a strong central government. They wanted to continue the Articles of Confederation, which were very weak and which really reposed power in each individual state. Henry often found himself in opposition to James Madison over the separation of church and state. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson advocated strict separation of church and successfully pushed for the Virginia Statute for Religious freedom. Henry, on the other hand, advocated for state support for religious teachers. As governor of Virginia, he introduced a plan for a tax to support Christian teachers, a plan that was vividly opposed by Madison and Jefferson. Madison took this opportunity to rally support for Jefferson's bill for establishing religious freedom. And since Henry was denied a vote in the legislature, since he'd been elected governor, the bill passed. Henry and Madison also differed in what role the federal government should play. In 1785, Henry pushed to strengthen the Articles of Confederation. He told Madison to sketch out some plan for giving greater powers to the federal government and he would support it on the floor. Madison, however, pushed for a much more centralized national government. So where Henry wanted to strengthen the Articles of Confederation, Madison wanted to replace them. Henry was elected, but refused to attend the constitutional convention of 1787, where the articles of Confederation were supposed to be revised. But in an amazing coup d', etat, by the way, the Constitutional Convention decided they would replace the Articles, not revise them. When Washington sent him a copy of the constitution and asked him to support it, Henry expressed concerns, writing to Washington on October 19, 1787, quote, I have to lament that I cannot bring my mind to accord with the proposed constitution. The concern I feel on this account is really greater than I am able to express. Perhaps mature reflection may furnish me with reasons to change my present sentiments into a conformity with the opinion of those personages for whom I have the highest reference. In other words, Henry found himself in the awkward position of turning down his fellow Virginian and the first great American, George Washington. But he did turn him down during the Virginia Convention of 1788, aimed at ratifying the Constitution. Henry and George Mason led the anti federalist in debate against the plan, saying, and this is very important because you need to remember this wasn't automatic, it was not inevitable that we were going to end up with a centralized government and with a Constitution of the United States as opposed to a confederation of the individual states. So Henry and Madison wrote, quote, what right had they to say we the people? Who authorized them to speak the language of we the people instead of we the states? If the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great consolidated national government. I am not free from Suspicion, I am apt to entertain doubts. I arose yesterday to ask a question which arose in my own mind. When I asked the question, I thought the meaning of my interrogation was obvious. The fate of this question in America may depend on this. Have they said we the states? Had 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 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 England, 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 retain its individual sovereignty? It is not a democracy when the people retain all their rights securely. Had these principles been adhered to, we should not have been brought to this alarming transition from a confederacy to a consolidated government. We have no detail of these great considerations which, in my opinion, ought to have abounded before we should recur to a government of this kind. Here is a revolution 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 be relinquished. And cannot 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 same relinquishment of rights worthy of free men? 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 12 states and a 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. Now, obviously, this is a huge fight between those who want America to become a country and those who want America to become a confederation of independent states. On June 4, 1788, in a speech during the Virginia ratifying convention later entitled A wrong step now and the republic will be lost forever, Henry said, quote, I conceived the republic to be in extreme danger if a wrong step be now made, the republic may be lost forever if this new government will not come up to the expectation of the people, Their liberty will be lost and tyranny must and will arise. Henry was wary of the powers that the executive branch would have, saying during the Virginia convention, quote, if your American chief be a man of ambition and abilities, how easy is it for him to reduce himself absolute? The army is in his hands, and where is the existing force to punish him? Can he not, at the head of his army, beat down every opposition? What will then become of you and your rights? Will not absolute despotism ensure? Despite this, Henry's opponents won over enough moderate, anti federalist to ratify the Constitution 89 to 79. But think about that. In the largest state, the central state, that ultimately was the key to whether or not you could create a United States. The margin was 10 votes 89 to 79. So even with Washington on the other side, even with Jefferson on the other side, there were still 79 Virginians who said no. In 1791, an ailing Henry retired from active politics. In 1793, Henry worked with John Marshall to defend a Virginia physician, a lawsuit by a British merchant house to recover pre war debts. Henry won, cementing his reputation as a lawyer. Washington in 1799 convinced Henry to return to politics after the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions were passed, Henry stood again for election to the Virginia House of Delegates in the spring of 1799, and he delivered his last public speech on his election day. If I am asked what is to be done when a people feel themselves intolerably oppressed, my answer is ready. Overturn the government. Wait at least until some infringement is made upon your rights that cannot be otherwise redressed. Otherwise, like failed republics of the past, you might bid adieu forever to representative government, for you can never exchange the present government but for a monarchy. Henry won the election, but he died on June 6, 1799, a few months before the assembly was to be convened. He was 63 years old. Henry left a small envelope with his last will and testament inside, in addition to his will was a single sheet of paper with his 1765 resolutions against the Stamp Act. And on the back, he left a brief message about his resolutions. It said, quote, the within resolutions passed the House of burgesses in May 1765. They formed the first opposition to the Stamp act and the scheme of taxing America by the British Parliament. All the colonies, either through fear or want of opportunity to form an opposition, or from influence of some kind or other, had remained silent. I had been for the first time elected to Burgess a few days before, was young, inexperienced, unacquainted with the forms of the House and the members that composed it. Finding the men of weight averse to opposition, and the commencement of the tax at hand, and that no person was likely to step forth, I determined to venture, and alone, unadvised and unassisted, on a blank leaf of an old law book, wrote to within, upon offering them to the House. Violent debates ensued, many threats were uttered, and much abuse cast on me by the party for submission. After a long and warm contest, the resolutions passed by a very small majority, perhaps of one or two only. The alarm spread throughout America with astonishing quickness, and the ministerial party were overwhelmed. The great point of resistance to British taxation was universally established in the colonies. This brought on the war, which finally separated the two countries, and gave independence to ours. Whether this will prove a blessing or a curse, will depend upon the use our people make of the blessings which a gracious God has bestowed on us. Pretty good line for today, too. On June 14, 1799, the Virginia Gazette announced the death of Patrick Henry, writing as long as our rivers flow, our mountains stand. Virginia will say to rising generations, imitate my Henry. It's about as good a cause for liberty, for freedom, for thinking clearly, for having the courage to stand for what you believe as anything I've ever heard or read. And Patrick Henry was essential in defining the cause of freedom, essential in establishing that we had to be a country that was free and courageous in his willingness to stand up when necessary to the British King and of the necessary to George Washington. He's a life worth studying, and he was a remarkable advocate for the freedom which we now cherish. Thank you for listening to Founding Fathers Week on Newts World. You can learn more about Patrick Henry on our show page@newtsworld.com Newts World is produced by Gingrich360 and iHeartMedia. Our executive producer is Garnesey Sloan and our researcher is Rachel Peterson. The artwork for the show was created by Steve Pendley. Special thanks to the team at Gingrich360. If you've been enjoying Newts World, I hope you'll go to Apple Podcast and both rate us with five stars and give us a review so others can learn what it's all about. Right now, listeners of newtsworld can sign up for my three free weekly columns at Gingrich Research Newsletter. I'm Newt Gingrich. This is New.