USA > Virginia > The history of the Virginia federal convention of 1788, with some account of eminent Virginians of that era who were members of the body, Vol. I > Part 25
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39
There was a short intermission while the friends of Pendleton were aiding him to resume his seat, and were congratulating him on his speech. It was remarked that some of his opponents cordially greeted the old man eloquent, and that others gave a silent pressure of the hand, which spoke not less sensibly than · words. In fact, his speech, apart from the speaker, was a really fine effort. The rebukes which he dealt to his opponents were galling, his points were well-made, the turning of the argument of Monroe against his own party was adroit, and the beautiful exposition of the theory of a popular representative system in averting misrule and in preserving the public liberty in the long run intact, and of the defects of the Confederation as resulting from the absence of this principle in that instrument, was inge- nious and happy. But when we add to the intrinsic worth of the speech the picture of the venerable old man, in whose person the infirmity of an irreparable accident was added to the infirmi-
5
Tion almil
السيد الـ
١٩
Lo
222
VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
ties of age, his high authority, which imparted to every word that he uttered an almost judicial dignity, and his still higher spirit beneath which his physical powers sank, the occasion must have excited uncommon interest. Still there were parts of his speech which evinced that the old debater had not forgot his ways. His evident misrepresentation of the argument of Henry in more than one instance, his ungenerous reflection upon that individual for his liberality in lending a helping hand to our infant literary institutions, and, perhaps, his imagined sorrow at an event that never occurred, indicated that personal feelings had mingled with political, and that the man was not wholly lost in the sage.
Madison rose to reply to Grayson. As Grayson had pro- pounded a dilemma for the reflection of the friends of the Constitution, Madison was resolved to return the compliment. . The dilemma of Grayson was that, on their own admission, the advocates of the new plan must either admit the impracticability of laying uniform taxes throughout the States, or surrender the great principle on which the doctrine of representation rests, that those who lay the taxes should pay them. "The honorable gentleman over the way," said Madison, "set forth that by giving up the power of taxation we should give up everything, and still insists on requisitions being made on the States ; and that then, if they be not complied with, Congress shall lay direct . taxes by way of penalty. Let us consider the dilemma which arises from this doctrine. Either requisitions will be efficacious, or they will not. If they will be efficacious, then I say, sir, we give up everything as much as by direct taxation. The same amount will be paid by the people as by direct taxes. But if they be not efficacious, where is the advantage of this plan ? In what respect will it relieve us from the inconveniencies which we have experienced from requisitions ? The power of laying direct taxes by the General Government is supposed by the honorable gentleman to be chimerical and impracticable. What is the con- sequence of the alternative he proposes? We are to rely upon this power to be ultimately used as a penalty to compel the States to comply. If it be chimerical and impracticable in the first instance, it will be equally so when it will be exercised as a . penalty. The dilemma of Madison has not the force of the dilemma propounded by Grayson. Both of its horns have a
mingl
223
VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
rottenness visible on its surface. He assumes a position which he was bound to prove, and which is incapable of proof, that the amount called for by requisition and the amount to be raised by direct taxes levied by the Federal Government could be collected with the same convenience and economy from the citizens of Virginia. In collecting, the amount of a requisition selected its own objects and availed itself of a well-established machinery for the purpose, merely adding a certain per centum to the annual taxes ; while the General Government would be compelled to maintain a staff of officers for carrying into effect a contingency which may happen this year, but which may not happen in the next seven. There was also another consideration in favor of the States in the case of requisitions. The Congress, well know- ing the difficulty and delicacy, as well as the uncertainty and cost, of collecting a given amount by direct taxation over a region of wild country as vast as the whole of Europe, would be inclined, in order to avoid an unpleasant alternative, to exact as little in the first instance by requisition as would satisfy the public exigencies. It was the difficulty of the remedy that induced Grayson to propose it as a penalty, and a penalty it would be to the States to the extent of the difference between the two modes of collection. Nor was the other horn of the dilemma more formidable. It is true that the collection of the direct taxes might be equally difficult, whether as an original measure or as a penalty ; but the argument of Mason was ad hominem, and applied to Madison and to all those who contended that direct taxes could be easily collected by the Federal Government.
Madison replied to the arguments urged by Grayson against the policy of creating a navy in prospect of the uncertain and ephemeral profits to be derived from a neutral trade. "The gentleman has supposed," he said, "that my argument with respect to a future war between Great Britain and France was fallacious. The other nations of Europe have acceded to that neutrality, while Great Britain opposed it. We need not suspect in case of such a war that we should be suffered to participate of the profitable emoluments of the carrying trade, unless we were in a respectable situation. Recollect the last war. Was there ever a war in which the British nation stood opposed to so many nations? All the belligerent nations of Europe, with nearly one-half the British empire, were united against it. Yet
-
224
VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
that nation, though defeated and humbled beyond any previous example, stood out against this. From her firmness and spirit in such desperate circumstances, we may divine what her future conduct may be. I did not contend that it was necessary for the United States to establish a navy for that sole purpose, but instanced it as one reason out of several for rendering ourselves respectable. I am no friend to naval or land armaments in time of peace ; but if they be necessary, the calamity must be sub- mitted to. Weakness will invite insults. A respectable govern- ment will not only entitle us to a participation of the advantages which are enjoyed by other nations, but will be a security against attacks and insults. It is to avoid the calamity of being obliged to have large armaments that we should establish this govern- ment. The best way to avoid danger is to be in a capacity to withstand it.''
As a specimen of fair debating, we annex the reply of Madi- son to the arguments of Grayson in relation to the probable increase of the revenue from imports: "The imports, we are told, will not diminish, because the emigrations to the westward will prevent the increase of population. The gentleman has rea- soned on this subject justly to a certain degree. I admit that the imports will increase till population becomes so great as to com - pel us to recur to manufactures. The period cannot be very far distant when the unsettled parts of America will be inhabited. At the expiration of twenty-five years hence, I conceive that in every part of the United States there will be as great a popu- lation as there is now in the settled parts. We see already that in the most populous parts of the union, and where there is but a medium, manufactures are beginning to be established. Where this is the case, the amount of importations will begin to dimin- ish. Although the imports may even increase during the term of twenty-five years, yet, when we are preparing a government for perpetuity, we ought to found it on permanent principles and not on those of a temporary nature." He next reviewed the Mississippi question, and the explanations of Grayson respecting Holland ; and examined the distinction made by Grayson be- tween the carrying and the producing States, showing that the majority of the States would probably be non-carrying, and would unite with Virginia in opposing them when necessary. In the course of his speech he answered the inquiry, "How
225
VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
came the New England States to object to the cession of the navigation of the Mississippi, when the Southern States were willing to part with it? What was the cause of the Northern States being the champions of this right, when the Southern States were disposed to surrender it? The preservation of this right will be for the general interest of the Union. The West- ern country will be settled from the North as well as from the South, and its prosperity will add to the strength and security of the union."
Henry followed Madison and observed that, however painful it was to be making objections, he was compelled to make some observations. He said that the dangers with which we have been menaced have been proved to be imaginary; but the dangers from the new Constitution were real. Our dearest rights would be left in the hands of those whose interest it would be to infringe them. He reviewed Mr. Jefferson's letter, which had been read by Pendleton, and insisted that according to that letter four States ought to reject the Consti- tution. Where are the four States to come from if Virginia approves the new plan ? Let Virginia instantly reject that instru- ment, and all amendments necessary to secure the liberties of the people will certainly be adopted. But how can you obtain amendments when Massachusetts, the great Northern State, Pennsylvania, the great Middle State, and Virginia, the great Southern State shall have ratified the Constitution ? He exam- ined the doctrine that all powers not expressly granted are re- served, and showed that henceforth our dearest rights would rest on construction and implication. Did this process satisfy our British ancestors ? Look at Magna Charta, at the Bill of Rights, and at the Declaration of Rights, which prescribed on what terms William of Orange should reign. "The gentleman (Randolph) has told us his object is union. I admit that the reality of union, and not the name, is the object which most merits the attention of every friend of his country. He told you that you should hear many sounding words from our side of the House. We have heard the word union from him. I have heard no word so often pronounced in this House as he.did this. I admit that the American union is dear to every man. I admit that every man who has three grains of information must know and think that union is the best of all things. But we must not mis-
15
6
开心
2:26
VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
take the ends for the means. If he can show that the rights of the union are secure, we will consent. It has been sufficiently demonstrated that they are not secured. It sounds mighty prettily to curse paper money and honestly pay debts. But look to the situation of America, and you will find that there are thousands and thousands of contracts, whereof equity forbids an exact liberal performance. Pass that government, and you will be bound hand and foot. There was an immense quantity of depreciated paper money in circulation at the conclusion of the war. This money is in the hands of individuals to this day. The holders of this money may call for the nominal value, if this government be adopted. This State may be compelled to pay her proportion of that currency pound for pound. Pass this government, and you will be carried to the Federal court (if I understand that paper right), and you will be compelled to pay shilling for shilling. A State may be sued in the Federal court, by the paper on your table."
He reverted to the frequently cited case of Scotland, contend- ing that the Scotch, like a sensible people, had secured their rights in the articles of union. He said that, if this new scheme would establish credit, it might be well enough ; but if we are ever to be in a state of preparation for war on such airy and imaginable grounds as the possibility of danger, your govern- ment must be military and dangerous to liberty. "But we are to become formidable," he said, and have a strong government to protect us from the British nation. Will that paper on your table prevent the attacks of the British navy, or enable us to raise a fleet equal to the British fleet? The British have the strongest fleet in Europe, and can strike everywhere. It is the utmost folly to conceive that that paper can have such an opera- tion. It will be no less so to attempt to raise a powerful fleet. He urged the advantage of requisitions, in preference of direct taxation by the Federal Government, on the ground that "the whole wisdom of the science of government with respect to tax- ation consisted in selecting that mode of collection which will best accommodate the convenience of the people. When you come to tax a great country, you will find ten men too few to settle the manner of collection. 193 One capital advantage
193 The number of representatives to which Virginia would be enti- tled in the first Congress was ten.
1
0
خدمات
n
227
VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
which will result from the proposed alternative will be this : that there will be a necessary communication between your ten mem- bers of Congress and your one hundred and seventy representa- tives here. We might also remonstrate, if by mistake or design the sum asked for is too large. But, above all, the people would pay the taxes cheerfully. If it be supposed that this would occasion a waste of time and an injury to public credit, which would only happen when requisitions were not complied with, the delay would be compensated by the payment of interest, which, with the addition of the credit of the State to that of the general government, would in a great measure obviate that objection." He repelled the idea that responsibility was secured by direct taxation, maintaining his denial by arguments drawn from the construction of the House of Representatives, and that the State governments would exercise more influence than the general government, contending that the larger salaries and the multiplicity of Federal offices would cast the balance against the State. He recurred to the argument of Pendleton on the nature of representative government, and sought to prove that the prin- ciple was only nominally adopted in the new scheme, enforcing his views by a reference to the inequality of representation in the Senate. Rulers are the servants of the people-the people are their masters. Is this the spirit of the new scheme? It is the spirit of our State Constitution. That gentleman (Pendleton) helped to form that government; and all the applause which it justly deserves go to the condemnation of this new plan. The gentleman has spoken of the errors and failures of our State government. "I do not justify," he said, " what merits censure, but I shall not degrade my country. The gentleman did our judiciary an honor in saying that they had the firmness to coun- teract the Legislature in some cases. Will your Federal judi- ciary imitate the example? Where are your landmarks in this government? I will be bold to say that you cannot find any in it. I take it as the highest encomium on Virginia that the acts of the Legislature, if unconstitutional, are liable to be opposed by the judiciary."1 He proceeded to show that the two execu-
194 It is remarkable that Henry rarely replied to any personal remark made against him in debate. In this instance he could easily have retorted on Pendleton the censure which that gentleman cast upon him for helping private literary institutions, but he passed the matter over.
d r am ingy o urod
8
E
£
-
228
VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
tives and the two judiciaries must necessarily interfere with each other, and that of the State must go down in the collision. The citizen would be oppressed by the Federal collector, and dragged into some distant Federal court, unless there was a Federal court in each county, which he hoped would not be the case. ·
.
Madison rose to reply to Henry. He made his usual apology for departing from the order of the day, but was compelled to follow gentlemen on the other side, who had taken the greatest latitude in their remarks. He argued that, if there be that terror in direct taxation, which would compel the States to comply with requisitions to avoid the Federal legislature, and if, as gen- tlemen say, this State will always have it in her power to make her collections speedily and fully, the people will be compelled to pay the same amount as quickly and as punctually as if raised by the Federal Government. "It has been amply proved," he said, " that the general government can lay taxes as conveniently to the people as the State governments, by imitating the State systems of taxation. If the general government has not the power of collecting its own revenues in the first instance, it will be still dependent on the State governments in some measure ; and the exercise of this power after refusal will be inevitably pro- ductive of injustice and confusion, if partial compliances be made before it is driven to assume it. Thus, without relieving the people in the smallest degree, the alternative proposed will im- pair the efficacy of the government, and will perpetually endan- ger the tranquility of the union." He next combatted with great force the charge of the insecurity of religious freedom under the new system. " Is a bill of rights," he said, " a se- curity for religion ? Would the bill of rights in this State exempt the people from paying for the support of one particular sect, if such sect were exclusively established by law ?195 If there were a majority of one sect, the bill of rights would be a poor protection for liberty. Happily for the States they enjoy the utmost freedom of religion. This freedom arises from that mul- tiplicity of sects which pervade America, and which is the best and only security for religious liberty in any society. For where
195 Since the delivery of this speech, the bill of rights has been decided to be a part of the Constitution of the State, and the question has lost its force. Edmund Randolph declared in this debate that it was not a part of the Constitution.
.
0
229
VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 178S.
there is such a variety of sects, there cannot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest. Fortunately for this Commonwealth, the majority of the people are decidedly against any exclusive establishment. I think it is so in the other States. There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it would be a most flagrant usurpation. I can appeal to my uniform con- duct on this subject, that I have warmly supported religious freedom.16 It is better that this security should be depended upon from the general government, than from one particular State. A particular State might concur in one religious project. But the United States abound in such a variety of sects, that it is a strong security against religious persecution, and is sufficient to authorize a conclusion that no one sect will ever be able to outnumber or depress the rest." He animadverted on the intro- duction of Mr. Jefferson's opinions in debate, and sought by an appeal to the pride of the House, couched in terms as sarcastic as his strict sense of propriety allowed him to indulge, to impair the force of Henry's arguments drawn from the contents of the letter of that statesman. "Is it come to this, then," he inquired, "that we are not to follow our own reason? Is it proper to introduce the names of individuals not within these walls? Are we, who, in the honorable gentleman's opinion, are not to be governed by an erring world, now to submit to the opinion of a gentleman on the other side of the Atlantic?" He then most adroitly quoted the authority which he had so explicitly con- demned as out of place in that hall. "I am in some measure acquainted with his opinions on the question immediately before the House. I will venture to say that this clause is not objected to by Mr. Jefferson. He approves of it because it enables the government to carry on its own operations." He declined to follow the gentleman through all his desultory objections, but would recur to a few points. He rarely fails to contradict the arguments of those on his own side of the question. He com- plains that the numbers of the Federal Government will add to
196 This is as near an approach to his own personal acts as Mr. Madi- son ever made. He drew the memorial in favor of religious freedom, which is one of the finest State papers in our language. Had his mod- esty been less, many a letter and State paper in our historical literature, now passing under the name of another, would be known to be his.
1
Pursi
10
230
VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
the public expense a weight too formidable to be borne, while he and other gentlemen on the same side object that the number of representatives is too small. He inveighs against the govern- ment because such transactions as require secresy may be kept private ; yet forgets that that very part of the Constitution is borrowed from the Confederation-the very system which the gentleman advocates. He seeks to obviate the force of my observations with respect to concurrent collections of taxes under different authorities, and says there is no interference between parochial and general taxes because they irradiate from the same centre. Do not the concurrent collections under the State and general government, to use the gentleman's own term, all irradiate from the people at large? The people is the common superior. The sense of the people at large is to be the pre- dominant spring of their actions. This is a sufficient security against interference. He observed that he would reply to other arguments offered by the gentleman in their proper places.
The House then adjourned.
On Friday morning, the thirteenth day of June, the people began to assemble at an early hour in the new Academy. The seats set apart for spectators were soon filled, and an eager crowd had collected about the windows and beset the approaches to the hall. At the first stroke of the bell which announced the hour of ten every member was in his place. It was observed that the voice of Waugh, as he read the collect for the day, had a tone of more than usual solemnity. For it was generally known that the subject of the navigation of the Mississippi-a subject which enlisted the passions equally of the rich and the poor, and was the absorbing topic of the age in the South-would that day be discussed in a most imposing form ; and it was thought not improbable that under the daring lead of Henry the opponents of the Constitution, who had suddenly sprung this mine under the feet of its friends, might seek to carry their point by an imme- diate vote on the ratification of that instrument. George Nicho- las.was the first to rise. He was friendly to the Constitution, and doubtless desired its success ; but he was deeply connected with Kentucky, whither he was soon to remove, and he was indisposed from motives of present as well as future policy to thwart the wishes of the delegation from the district. He urged the Convention either to proceed according to their original
231
VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1788.
determination of discussing the Constitution clause by clause, or to rescind that order, and discuss that paper at large. Henry opposed the policy of proceeding clause by clause, and thought that the mode of discussion should be at large. He observed that there was one question which had taken up much time, and he wished before leaving that subject that the transactions of Congress relative to the navigation of the Mississippi should be communicated to the Convention, in order that the members might draw their conclusions from the best source. With this view he hoped that those gentlemen who had been then in Con- gress, and the present members of Congress in Convention, could communicate what they knew on the subject. He declared that he did not wish to hurt the feelings of the gentlemen who had been in Congress, or to reflect on any private character; but that for the information of the Convention, he was desirous of having the most authentic account, and a faithful statement of facts. Nicholas assented to the proposition of Henry. Madison, who had at the commencement of the session written his fears to Washington that the topic of the Mississippi might jeopard the success of the Constitution, felt indignant at the snare which he believed Henry had spread for his destruction, and seemed not in- disposed, contrary to his usual habit, to construe the action of that individual into a personal reflection upon himself. He rose and declared that, if Henry thought that he had given an incorrect account of the transactions relative to the Mississippi, he would on a thorough and complete investigation find himself mistaken ; that it had always been his opinion that the policy which had for its object the relinquishment of that river was unwise, and that the mode' of conducting it was still more exceptionable. He added that he had no objection to have every light on the subject that could tend to elucidate it.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.