Patrick Henry--the forgotten patriot

by Al Benson Jr.

"If you give too little power today, you may give more tomorrow. But the reverse of the proposition will not hold. If you give too much power today, you cannot retake it tomorrow, for tomorrow will never come for that."  Patrick Henry

"Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence..." The Articles of Confderation

Many in Christian and patriotic circles in our day talk with fondness about our Founding Fathers, men God used in His outworking of history during the founding of this republic of republics. Some were Christian, many were not. We hear fond words of Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Madison, etc. Yet how many truly remember one, who, even though seldom mentioned, was one of the most discerning and able among them--Patrick Henry? About all that most patriotic people know about Patrick Henry is his famous "Give me liberty or give me death" speech in St. John's church. Our "history" books, for very obvious reasons, have not given Patrick Henry the coverage he richly deserves.

It is known of Patrick Henry that, in his youth, he was taught "that robust system of theology which is known as Calvinism, and which has furnished to the world so many of her greatest characters." Thus wrote Patrick Henry's grandson, and we can have little doubt from looking at Henry's life and his unceasing quest for liberty, that he was strongly influenced by the great biblical truths that were so staunchly reaffirmed in the Protestant Reformation.

As a lawyer Henry argued strongly for religious liberty so that, in Virginia, Presbyterians, Baptists, and others could freely preach and worship without the binding restrictions of the Church of England. Fully grasping the truth that true Christian faith brings liberty and self-government, Henry was ever in the forefront, speaking for religious liberty.

How many in our day know that as the federal constitution was presented for ratification in Virginia that its ablest and strongest opponent was Patrick Henry? Others also opposed it, well-regarded men such as George Mason. But Patrick Henry spoke against it most strongly. Are there any who would, in spite of his labours in the cause of liberty, dare to call him a traitor because he had the foresight and prescience to question the Constitution?  I would hope not. To many in our day the Constitution has come to be sort of a secular replacement for the Holy Scriptures, sort of a secular scripture, if you will. Questioning any part of it is guaranteed to get you dirty looks and questions as to your "loyalty." Yet Patrick Henry questioned it, and who can doubt his loyalty to the principles of God-given liberty? 

When the U.S. Constitution was presented for ratification in Virginia, all the well-informed clearly understood the issue. It was a strong federalism, or centralism, as opposed to a loose confederacy of state governments where the rights of the individual states were to be the rule. In this vein, it is worth noting that the Constitution of the Confederate States of America contained several things that made it an actual improvement over the U.S. Constitution.

In his speeches opposing ratification Henry noted that the delegates in Philadelphia had overstepped their bounds, in that they had not been given the power to create a central government instead of a confederacy. The delegates had been sent to Philadelphia armed with only the power to amend the Articles of Confederation, and, as Henry observed, "The object of their mission extended to no other consideration." In other words, they usurped power that wasn't theirs. Henry warned the Virginia delegates that they were not to consider how they could increase trade or how they could become a great nation, but rather, how their liberty could best be secured. For, in Henry's words, "...liberty ought to be the direct end of your government."

Henry had many specific concerns about the new document that originated in the city of brotherly love. He was bothered by the fact that the new federal government would control the militia, that the new president would be its commander in chief.  Henry felt that with the federal control of the militia, the states had lost the right to defend themselves. He clearly saw that there would be a problem of federal power overshadowing the rights of the states, and, at this sorry point in history we must admit that his concerns were more than justified.  Look at two situations--the sending of federal troops into Pennsylvania during the "Whiskey Rebellion" and later, the use of federal troops in Mississippi to enforce the federal policy of integration. Federal troops could be used in Mississippi because the precedent had been established in Article 2, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. Think about that for awhile.

Article 1, section 8 bothered Henry also, in that it gave Congress the power to tax. Henry labeled this as "an unlimited and unbounded power of taxation."  His concern was that the people of the individual states would be taxed without their consent, and by people who had no connection with them. Many today look at the monstrosity that the IRS (thanks to Mr. Lincoln's administration) has become, and they hark back to the "good old days" when "Congress passed the tax laws." Yet, to Patrick Henry, even that was an abomination!  How far, indeed, are we moved from the principles of true liberty? We don't have the foggiest notion of what it is anymore. We think it's what the feds tell us it is--which means, in the real world, that we are free to do what they tell us to do.

Henry stated "For they (Congress) shall have the power of direct taxation...and it is expressly provided that they can make all the laws necessary for carrying their powers into execution; and it is declared paramount  to the laws and constitutions of the states." Read that last phrase one more time. It  clearly defines the position of the rights of the states in relation to the national government. States rights are subservient to the national government in taxes and defense, and, if in these areas the states are mere vassals to federalism, does this principal not set a precedent that carries over into lesser areas?  Back during the presidential election of 1980, ancient history now, Reagan and Carter were slightly engaged in some verbal gymnastics over "states rights." It's too bad both did not take a good look at the Constitution and then tell us honestly just who was kidding who. Nowadays we don't even bother to discuss states rights. All we talk about is how the president writes executive orders to give himself the authority of a dictator. Unfortunately, in our shallow age, rhetoric has taken the place of substance and the politicians talk about how "free" we are while they grasp for the power to take what little liberty that may be left.

Article 2, section 2 gives the president and two thirds of the Senate the power to make treaties. According to Henry: "...they may make the most ruinous treaties, and yet there is no punishment for them."

And it came to pass that...

Unfortunately, what Patrick Henry foresaw if enough states ratified the Constitution has come to pass. Henry feared the inadequacies of the checks and balances system, and who, in our day, can in realism doubt that these have ceased to work almost totally? He feared direct taxation--and look what we have today, again, thanks to Mr. Lincoln's administration. In fact it might be a beneficial exercise to look at some of the things the Lincoln administration passed and compare them with what Karl Marx advocated in "The Communist Manifesto." You'd be surprised at the similarities!

Henry feared the unlimited power of judicial intervention and judicial usurpation. Often today, the courts just "make law" with no challenge whatever from anyone. So much for checks and balances! And did not all this begin with the Judiciary Act of 1789, which was made the basis of the federal court system?  This permits the Supreme Court to overturn state court decisions and acts of legislatures as well as changing federal laws. It was because of this that many states, North and South, suffered from forced busing over the years. Henry feared that the Supreme Court, if unchecked by the states themselves, would raise itself into the position of a judicial tyrant. Can we honestly look today and say this has never happened?

Henry's son-in-law, Spencer Roane, shared this conviction. Judge Roane wanted to preserve the Union as a union of states in which each sovereign state exercises full control over its internal affairs. But a reading of the Constitution will show that it does not allow such.

In 1791 the first ten amendments were added to the Constitution. However, Patrick Henry and those of a strong states rights persuasion had sought more amendments. Some were struck down, and Henry and the anti-Federalists only got half a loaf, so to speak.

Having read part of the text of Henry's speeches opposing ratification, I can only say that there is a great deal more in his able arguments than I can cover here. Mr. Henry presented many argument and positions that today we should begin to think seriously about. If Mr. Henry's suppositions are, indeed, correct, then how much of our "conservative" literature today should have, as its basis, the Word of God instead of the Constitution? I have had to ask myself some of these questions. Hopefully some who will read this can begin to ask for themselves. May God give us all insight.