Anti-Federalist No. 4

Insights – Antifederalist No. 4 FOREIGN WARS, CIVIL WARS, AND INDIAN WARS - THREE BUGBEARS

Perhaps no voice in the late 18th century was more energetic than that of Patrick Henry. Remembered for his weighty and patriotic statement, “…as for me, give me liberty or give me death,” this man fervently opposed ratification of the proposed founding document that came out of the constitutional convention in Philadelphia. In fact, he refused to attend Philadelphia, standing in full opposition to the convention itself. He took the position that the Articles of Confederation, which had served as a provisional constitution in the earliest stages of the union, could be minimally amended to provide a federal government sufficient to serve the union of the states. In that vein, Anti-Federalist No. 4 is excerpted from Henry’s speeches in the Elliot’s Debates – a series of debates in various state conventions where the topic was ratification of the proposed constitution.

Mr. Henry began this particular session by noting that certain proponents of the constitution warned of the serious dangers that could befall the union should ratification fail. Thus, this might be considered at least an indirect, if not a direct response to John Jay’s Federalist No’s 4 and 5 where he considers the calamitous exposure for the states in the absence of a strong federal military presence. Speaking specifically about exposure in the commonwealth of Virginia, and depicting those dangers as imaginary, Patrick Henry argued that such alleged dangers were far exceeded by the potential threats Virginians could face from a too powerful national government.

If we recollect, on last Saturday, I made some observations on some of those dangers which these gentlemen would fain persuade us hang over the citizens of this commonwealth [Virginia] to induce us to change the government, and adopt the new plan. Unless there be great and awful dangers, the change is dangerous, and the experiment ought not to be made. In estimating the magnitude of these dangers, we are obliged to take a most serious view of them – to see them, to handle them, and to be familiar with them. It is not sufficient to feign mere imaginary dangers; there must be a dreadful reality. The great question between us is: Does that reality exist?[1]

Mr. Henry continued, making his case before the assembly. Acknowledging that certain individuals saw advantages in making powerful governmental change, he was more than willing to have that discussion. However, his position was that far more people were opposed to the change. One may wonder, if more people opposed than supported ratification, why even have debates? It is important to recall that the proposed constitution would not be ratified by popular vote. It would be ratified by state legislatures. Consequently, it was not the people, but their representatives who must be dissuaded. To Patrick Henry, ratification would lead the United States down a slippery slope toward a far too authoritarian government – the very thing they had fought against in the Revolutionary War. This was especially true if that new government was established without the consent and support of the people. He argued:

Patrick Henry saw the Articles of Confederation as a sufficient guide for the nation, and he provided his reasoning. In the speech he cited various examples, such as control of the Mississippi River and certain lands. Those will not be detailed here, but his point is that the pseudo-dangers claimed by his opponents were easily prevented within the framework of the Articles of Confederation. In fact, that document prevented states from going off the rails and making agreements not approved by a super-majority of the states. Indeed, it was ratification of this new document that could easily be seen as the catalyst for the nation to depart from the unity provided by the Articles of Confederation. According to Patrick Henry:

It is said the people wish to change the government. I should be happy to meet them on that ground. Should the people wish to change it, we should be innocent of the dangers. It is a fact that the people do not wish to change their government. How am I to prove it? It will rest on my bare assertion, unless supported by an internal conviction in men's breasts. My poor say-so is a mere nonentity. But, sir, I am persuaded that four fifths of the people of Virginia must have amendments to the new plan, to reconcile them to a change of their government. It is a slippery foundation for the people to rest their political salvation on my or their assertions. No government can flourish unless it be founded on the affection of the people. Unless gentlemen can be sure that this new system is founded on that ground, they ought to stop their career.[2]

We have information come from an illustrious citizen of Virginia, who is now in Paris, which disproves the suggestions of such danger. This citizen has not been in the airy regions of theoretic speculation-our ambassador [Thomas Jefferson] is this worthy citizen[4]

There is no danger of a dismemberment of our country, unless a Constitution be adopted which will enable the government to plant enemies on our backs. By the Confederation, the rights of territory are secured. No treaty can be made without the consent of nine states. While the consent of nine states is necessary to the cession of territory, you are safe. If it be put in the power of a less number, you will most infallibly lose the Mississippi. As long as we can preserve our unalienable rights, we are in safety.[3]

Patrick Henry was not the only renowned patriot who questioned the wisdom of ratification. There were others who held his views and questioned why the Articles of Confederation must be discarded in favor of the new national direction. Thus, Mr. Henry employed the following tool of name-dropping as a matter of support to make his case.

Many are unaware, but Thomas Jefferson did not sign his name to the U.S. Constitution. In fact, both Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were in Europe during the convention serving as U.S. ambassadors in discussions with European nations. Whether he would have signed the document had he been available is difficult to say. Yet, it is highly likely that John Adams would have approved of and willingly signed the document.

Thomas Jefferson’s was a powerful voice in the United States and his absence left a vacuum where the debates were concerned. However, Patrick Henry was evidently in contact with Mr. Jefferson during the time of these debates and, according to Henry, Jefferson agreed with his assessment that the warnings of danger invoked by proponents of the new constitution were overstated. It appears that Thomas Jefferson would have been in favor of relying on the Articles of Confederation, at least for a time. Speaking of Jefferson, Patrick Henry continued:

I might go farther. I might say, not from public authority, but good information, that his opinion is, that you reject this government. His character and abilities are in the highest estimation; he is well acquainted, in every respect, with this country; equally so with the policy of the European nations. Let us follow the sage advice of this common friend of our happiness.[5]

Continuing his thoughts from statements made earlier in the speech, Henry renewed his contention that changing constitutions should be considered more perilous than the invented dangers of those who insist on that change. Introducing a specific dispute over certain lands, his point was that such disputes could be settled amicably, and more quickly, under the Articles of Confederation. Involving the federal government by ratifying this new constitution would surely complicate an uncomplicated situation.

When gentlemen are thus driven to produce imaginary dangers, to induce this Convention to assent to this change, I am sure it will not be uncandid to say that the change itself is really dangerous. Then the Maryland compact is broken, and will produce perilous consequences. I see nothing very terrible in this. The adoption of the new system will not remove the evil. Will they forfeit good neighborhood with us, because the compact is broken? Then the disputes concerning the Carolina line are to involve us in dangers. A strip of land running from the westward of the Alleghany to the Mississippi, is the subject of this pretended dispute. I do not know the length or breadth of this disputed spot. Have they not regularly confirmed our right to it, and relinquished all claims to it? I can venture to pledge that the people of Carolina will never disturb us. . . .[6]

The Articles of Confederation, which established a federal system that interfered very little with the independence of the states, had seemed to serve the nation well. Indeed, according to the following statement by Henry, it was not the federal government, but the American spirit that had brought them successfully through the war and it was the American spirit that had earned them their independence. During all of this, they were able to rely, not on federal laws, but on the laws of Virginia. He saw no danger in continuing to rely on the laws of Virginia if the people wished to continue living a life of freedom, unity, and peace.

Nothing gives a decided importance but this federal government. You will sip sorrow, according to the vulgar phrase, if you want any other security than the laws of Virginia.... Where is the danger? If, sir, there was any, I would recur to the American spirit to defend us; that spirit which has enabled us to surmount the greatest difficulties--to that illustrious spirit I address my most fervent prayer to prevent our adopting a system destructive to liberty. Let not gentlemen be told that it is not safe to reject this government. Wherefore is it not safe? We are told there are dangers, but those dangers are ideal; they cannot be demonstrated...[7]

Henry’s point, which he has made profoundly, is that the Articles of Confederation have been sufficient to see the United States through the most difficult times. Indeed, he says: Look what we have gained – “a territory greater than any European monarch possesses.”[9] While many insisted that the current government was weak and insufficient, he considered it “strong and vigorous.”[10] He then cites historical examples of civilizations losing their freedoms through foolish decisions such as the changing of governments.

The Confederation, this despised government, merits, in my opinion, the highest encomium--it carried us through a long and dangerous war; it rendered us victorious in that bloody conflict with a powerful nation; it has secured us a territory greater than any European monarch possesses--and shall a government which has been thus strong and vigorous, be accused of imbecility, and abandoned for want of energy? Consider what you are about to do before you part with the government. Take longer time in reckoning things; revolutions like this have happened in almost every country in Europe; similar examples are to be found in ancient Greece and ancient Rome--instances of the people losing their liberty by their own carelessness and the ambition of a few. We are cautioned . . . against faction and turbulence. I acknowledge that licentiousness is dangerous, and that it ought to be provided against. I acknowledge, also, the new form of government may effectually prevent it. Yet there is another thing it will as effectually do--it will oppress and ruin the people.[11]

If the patriot offers a chink in his armor, it is in the following statement concerning self-indulgence among the states: “I acknowledge that licentiousness is dangerous, and that it ought to be provided against. I acknowledge, also, the new form of government may effectually prevent it.”[12] Still it is but the slightest of openings in his otherwise reasoned debate, and he closes it quickly, insisting: “Yet there is another thing it will as effectually do--it will oppress and ruin the people.”[13]

[1] Federalist No. 4

[2] Ibid

[3] Ibid

[4] Ibid

[5] Ibid

[6] Ibid

[7] Ibid

[8] Ibid

[9] Ibid

[10] Ibid

[11] Ibid

[12] Ibid

[13] Ibid

------------------------------------------------------------------------------If you enjoyed this article, please encourage your friends to visit us here at constitutionmatters.net where the Constitution really does matter. Also, if you appreciate the articles and insights provided here, feel free to contribute to the cause by clicking below.

This book will truly enhance your understanding of the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. Click the button below to check it out.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Feel free to visit restoretheword.com

Contact

Questions? Reach out anytime.

Email:

contact@constitutionmatters.net

© 2025. All rights reserved.