The previous day, June 4, debate on whether Virginia would ratify the Constitution began when George Nicholas delivered a very long speech outlining and defending the organization and major structures of the proposed form of government, concluding “it was founded on the strictest principles of true policy and liberty,” to which “he was willing to trust his own happiness, and that of posterity.”
Earlier, on May 23, South Carolina had ratified, becoming the eighth of nine States required for the Constitution to go into effect. Virginia was now pivotal in the drama that could change not only its own future, but that of all the colonies which had separated from Great Britain twelve years earlier. Patrick Henry rose to respond to Nicholas, warning that “a wrong step, made now, will plunge us into misery, and our republic will be lost.”
Henry’s first salvo against the Constitution came in the form of a question. Asserting his “highest veneration” for the men who drafted the Constitution, he demanded to know, “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?...States are the characteristics and the soul of a confederation. If the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great, consolidated government of the people of all the states.”
Charging that delegates to the Constitutional Convention had exceeded their powers, including even “that illustrious man who saved us by his valor,” a shocking reference to George Washington, Henry insisted that “the people gave them no power to use their name.” Moreover, he wished “to hear the real, actual, existing danger” which should compel Virginia to ratify. “Disorders have arisen in other parts of America,” he asserted, “but here no dangers, no insurrection or tumult have happened; everything has been calm and tranquil.” In short, “what are the causes of this proposal to change our government?”
Governor Edmund Randolph then took the floor. He had led Virginia’s delegation to the Constitutional Convention and formally proposed the Virginia Plan which formed the basis for the Convention’s deliberations. However, in the end Randolph was one of three members of the Convention who had refused sign the Constitution. Not only did it not contain a bill of rights, but Randolph also believed it did not provide for sufficient checks on the executive and legislative branches. He had gone so far as to recommend that state conventions be allowed to propose amendments.
Virginia’s George Mason had also refused to sign the Constitution and campaigned to become a delegate to the ratifying convention from Stafford County by pledging his opposition to ratification. Both Mason and Henry must have been pleased to see Randolph take the floor, anxious to hear his objections to the Constitution repeated once again.
Randolph began by “mentioning the part I have already borne in this great question… continuing as I have begun, to repeat my earnest endeavors for a firm, energetic government.” He had come to this convention “to enforce my objections to the Constitution and to concur in any practical scheme of amendments.” Acknowledging his refusal to sign the Constitution in Philadelphia, he added “if the same were to return, again would I refuse. Wholly to adopt, or wholly to reject, as proposed by the Convention, seemed too hard an alternative…Amendments were consequently my wish.”
For Randolph “the only question” had been whether amendments could be offered before or after the Constitution was ratified. Postponing the Virginia ratification convention “at so late a date extinguished the probability” of adding amendments before the Constitution was ratified, and eight States had already voted to ratify, he observed, then added, “The Union is the anchor of our political salvation, and I will assent to the lopping of this limb (meaning his arm) before I assent to the dissolution of the Union. I shall now follow the honorable gentleman (Mr. Henry) in his inquiry.”
For more than two hours, Randolph responded to Henry’s objections, concluding his rebuttal by focusing on Henry’s demand for an explanation of the Convention’s use of the phrase “We, the people.” “Why not?” asked Randolph. “The government is for the people, and the misfortune was that the people had no agency in the government before…What harm is there in consulting the people on the construction of a government by which they are to be bound?” His final words surely cut Henry and Mason to the core - “I refused my signature,” he reiterated, “and if the same reasons operated on my mind, I would still refuse; but as I think those eight States which have the adopted the Constitution will not recede, I am a friend to the Union.” Randolph had switched sides.
Stunned, Mason was nevertheless quick to respond. “Whether the Constitution be good or bad,” he said, “the present clause [“We, the people] clearly discovers that it is a national government, and no longer a Confederation.” The very idea of converting the confederation to a consolidated government “is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us,” he continued. The question before the convention then “will be, whether a consolidated government can preserve the freedom and secure the rights of the people.” However, he concluded, if were added to the Constitution specific amendments “as shall exclude danger,” he would “most gladly put my hand to it.”
That evening, James Madison summarized the day’s session in a letter to George Washington. “The Governor [Randolph] has declared the day of previous amendments past,” he wrote, “and thrown himself fully into the federal scale. Henry and Mason made a lame figure and appeared to take different and awkward ground. The Federalists are a good deal elated by the existing prospect.” However, he cautioned, “I dare not speak with certainty as to the decision.”