Patrick Henry

Patrick Henry Arguing the Parson's Cause by George Cooke.
​Colonel (1st Virginia Regiment)1775—1776
Governor of Virginia, 1st July 5, 1776 – June 1, 1779, and 6th 1784 – 1786
Delegate from Virginia to the Continental Congress, 1774 – 1775
Virginia House of Delegates
Henry County(1779—1784);
Prince Edward County(1787—1790);
Charlotte County(1799)
Virginia House of Burgesses, (1765—1768), (1769–1776)
Born May 29, 1736, Died(aged 63) June 6, 1799
Spouses: Sarah Shelton​(m. 1754; died 1775); Dorothea Dandridge Henry​ ​(m. 1777)

Patrick Henry

Patrick Henry was an American attorney, planter, and orator best known for his declaration to the Second Virginia Convention: "Give me liberty, or give me death!" A Founding Father, he served as the first and sixth post-colonial Governor of Virginia, from 1776 to 1779 and from 1784 to 1786.

Give me liberty or give me death Text

Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony.

The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss.

Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort.

I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging.

And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves longer.

Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne!

In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free—if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending—if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained—we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?

Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us.

Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable—and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, peace, peace—but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?

Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Opposition to the constitution

In 1787, when the Constitution was ready to be submitted to the Governors of the states for ratification, Patrick Henry lectured against it in the Virginia State House for three weeks, criticizing the Constitution, warning that it had been written “as if good men will take office!” He asked “what they would do when evil men took office!”.

"The President will lead in the treason.

Your militia will leave you and fight against you.

What will you do when evil men take office?

When evil men take office the whole gang will be in collusion.

They will keep the people in utter ignorance and steal their liberty by ambuscade*.

When Government removes your armaments, you will have no power, but government will have all power." Patrick Henry

http://www.hisholychurch.org/study/covenants/ccc1.php

Orator

Even though Patrick Henry opposed the constitution because he knew it would eventually be the instrument of the loss of Rights he did serve in the government. He rejected offers

He returned to the practice of law and in the case Jones v. Walker before the federal court in 1791 with his co-counsel John Marshall, who prepared the written pleadings, Henry did the courtroom advocacy.

Henry argued the case for three days; Marshall, looking back, called him "a great orator ... and much more, a learned lawyer, a most accurate thinker, and a profound reasoner".

Today, the courts are filled with lawyers and judges who are not the "most accurate thinkers, nor profound reasoner" because there is no place in their hearts for the logos of Jesus the Christ and the people have so greatly degenerated because of a hundred years of an appetite for legal charity they no longer have either the heart and mind required for the functioning of a pure Republic.

The case ended inconclusively after one of the judges died, but the legal teams reassembled for the case of Ware v. Hylton.

He argued before another three-judge panel that included Chief Justice of the United States John Jay and Associate Justice James Iredell, Henry's argument provoked Justice Iredell to exclaim,

"Gracious God! He is an orator indeed."

Henry and Marshall were initially successful, but the plaintiffs appealed, and after Marshall argued his only case before the Supreme Court, that court in 1796 ruled for the British creditors.

Life

Patrick Henry shared his name with his uncle, an Anglican minister. The religious revival known as the Great Awakening reached Virginia when Henry was a child. His father was staunchly Anglican, but his mother as more Presbyterian.

Religion as defined as the time played a key role in Henry's life and that of Americans. There was no public religion to speak of although there were elements of tax support for it as we see in the conflict over the Two Penny Act. Tax supported public religion was still seen as immoral until long after David Crockett left office.

He promoted religious liberty throughout his life and wrote to a group of Baptists who had sent a letter of congratulations following Henry's 1776 election as governor, "My earnest wish is, that Christian charity, forbearance and love may unite all different persuasions as brethren."

He knew legal charity was immoral.

He knew that religion was a duty and told the Virginia Ratifying Convention in 1788, "That religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence, and therefore all men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion according to the dictates of (individual) conscience, and that no particular religious sect or society ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others."

Henry married Sarah Shelton, in 1754 in the parlor of her family house, Rural Plains.

As a wedding gift, her father gave the couple six slaves and the 300-acre (1.2 km2) Pine Slash Farm near Mechanicsville.

The land was exhausted from earlier cultivations, and Henry worked with the slaves to clear fresh fields. The latter half of the 1750s were years of drought in Virginia, and after the main house burned down, Henry gave up and moved to the Hanover Tavern, owned by Sarah's father.

Henry often played the fiddle to entertain the guests among whom was was Thomas Jefferson, aged 17. But he also studied law.

In 1760 he applied for a lawyer's license, appearing before the examiners—prominent attorneys in the colonial capital of Williamsburg. His reputation grew because in court "he displayed quick wit, knowledge of human nature, and forensic gifts."

The Two Penny Act

During a drought and dearth the legislature, passed The Two Penny Act of 1755 and again in 1758, allowing debts expressed in tobacco to be paid at the rate of two pence per pound for a limited period.

Anglican Clergy petitioned the king to over rule the Act.

Why?

At that time there were Parish Levies which was a capitation or poll tax. The parish vestries collected this tax to defray the expenses of paying ministers, keeping the churches and chapels in repair until the 1790s. This was paid to provide for the poor and orphans, which was the responsibility of the parishes. This was a form of Legal charity which had been opposed by Lady Godiva.

This brought about the "Parsons Cause lawsuits" which Henry would oppose.

Henry ignored the damages claimed and responded with a one-hour speech, and focused on the unconstitutionality of the veto of the Two Penny Act by the king's government.

Henry deemed any king who annulled good laws that protected the people from abuse by people who should no better as a "tyrant" who "forfeits all right to his subjects' obedience", and the clergy, by challenging an impartial law designed to bring economic relief, had shown themselves to be "enemies of the community".

The opposing counsel accused Henry of treason, and some took up that cry, but Henry fearlessly continued continued, and the judge did nothing to stop him.

Henry urged the jury to make an example of Maury who defended the claim, for the benefit of any who might seek to imitate him and suggested the jury return damages of one farthing to Reverend Maury.

In conclusion, Patrick Henry witnessed after five minutes of deliberation, the jury awarded four times that amount of a farthing which was only one penny. This decision effectively put an end to any more law suits.

Henry was hailed as a hero. According to biographer Henry Mayer, Henry had "defined the prerogatives of the local elite by the unorthodox means of mobilizing the emotions of the lower ranks of religious and political outsiders."

Henry's popularity greatly increased, and he added 164 new clients in the year after the Parson's Cause case.

Patrick Henry's father, Colonel John Henry, was the presiding judge but it was the power of the Jury that decided "fact and law".

Culpeper

“Woe to him that coveteth an evil covetousness to his house, that he may set his nest on high, that he may be delivered from the power of evil! Thou hast consulted shame to thy house by cutting off many people, and hast sinned [against] thy soul. For the stone shall cry out of the wall, and the beam out of the timber shall answer it."

Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and stablisheth a city by iniquity! Behold, [is it] not of the LORD of hosts that the people shall labour in the very fire, and the people shall weary themselves for very vanity?”

(Habakkuk 2:9, 13)

People are looking everywhere but to God. The richest companies and the most autocratic governments in the world are the ones that offer insecure, faithless people security at a vain price.

“Because my people hath forgotten me, they have burned incense to vanity, and they have caused them to stumble in their ways [from] the ancient paths, to walk in paths, [in] a way not cast up;” (Jeremiah 18:15)

Over and over, it is vanity, pride, and arrogance that turns men from the path of the LORD.

“This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind,” (Eph 4:17)

In March 1775, a young Lawyer rode into Culpeper, Virginia on a lean horse. At the whipping post, he saw a man’s shirt removed, his arms tied together and as he watched he saw him whipped with a leather and wire whip, until the bones of his rib cage showed. When the young lawyer asked what the man had done, he was told that he was a fundamentalist preacher who had refused to take a license. Even after they put him in jail with all of his friends he continued to say, “I will not take a license no matter what you do.” The young lawyer who witnessed the lashing was so moved he wrote a speech, and a few days later he delivered it before the Virginia assembly.

He said, “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains of slavery? Forbid it Almighty God. I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death.” Patrick Henry

The seventeenth century Americans came here looking for the religious and civil freedoms that were all but totally gone from Europe and the land of the Anglo-Saxon. They did not gain their freedom by the so-called Revolution, but had earned it by perseverance, hard work, and the grace of God.

“All men are freemen or slaves.” Omnes homines aut liberi sunt aut servi.

The freedom, for which early pilgrims were willing to suffer deprivation, hardship, and even death to obtain and maintain, has all but vanished in today’s comfortable, complacent, and civil society.

“Men often applaud an imitation, and hiss the real thing.” -Aesop.

This modern society is democratic with each man sharing in the ruling class. As the leaders of old who fell prey to their own bloated vanity, so the people of a democracy are no less immune. Each man today can wield the headsman’s ax and lop off the rights of his neighbor both in this country and other countries with a check on a ballot, secretly, safely, securely from the inner sanctum of our voting booth. Is that not the privilege and right of the people in the richest nation, the strongest nation, the greatest nation, the vainest nation under a god?

“Let not him that is deceived trust in vanity: for vanity shall be his recompense.” (Job 15:31)

God created a system, consisting of a man and a woman and their children, under Himself only. He warned against covenants with strangers to His ways, he warned against kings, and He forbade us to put other gods, rulers, and judges over us and before him. He told us that, if we turned from Him, from His way and from His truths, we would be delivered into bondage and the hands of tyrants.

“For what nation [is there so] great, who [hath] God [so] nigh unto them, as the LORD our God [is] in all [things that] we call upon him [for]? And what nation [is there so] great, that hath statutes and judgments [so] righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day? Only take heed to thyself, and keep thy soul diligently, lest thou forget the things which thine eyes have seen, and lest they depart from thy heart all the days of thy life: but teach them thy sons, and thy sons’ sons;” Deuteronomy 4:7, 9

Politics

Turning down an offer from President Adams to make him an envoy to France, Henry, at the urging of President Washington to run for the legislature in early 1799 Henry gave in.and was elected as delegate from Charlotte County on March 4, 1799. The legislature had no immediate session scheduled, so he returned to Red Hill and never left again, dying there of intussusception at his home on June 6, 1799.

The intussusception may have included peritonitis or bowel perforation because of a growth of a neoplasm or tumor which could have been connected to parasite damage froyears of hard living.

Patrick was buried at the Red Hill estate. In Henry's will, he left his estates and his 67 slaves to be divided between his wife and his six sons. He did not free any slaves, because if there was ebt it was still illegal despite the efforts of him and Jefferson.

The tributes to Henry upon his death were many. The Virginia Gazette printed a death notice bordered in black:

"As long as our rivers flow, or mountains stand, Virginia ... will say to rising generations, imitate my H E N R Y".

The Petersburg Intelligencer regretted the death of a man who might have been able "to conciliate all parties and produce that harmony and accord" needed at a time of national controversy.

The Argus, a paper which supported Jefferson's faction, noted that Henry "pointed out those evils in our Constitution ... against which we now complain ... If any are disposed to censure Mr. Henry for his late political transition if anything has been written on that subject, let the Genius of American Independence drop a tear, and blot it out forever."

The transition they speak of was his work under the constitution had opposed. Patrick Henry never waivered from his criticism of US Constitution and knew in 1787, when that Constitution was ready to be submitted to the Governors of the states for ratification, Patrick Henry lectured against it in the Virginia State House for three weeks, criticizing the Constitution, warning that it had been written “as if good men will take office!” He asked “what they would do when evil men took office!”.

"The President will lead in the treason."

"Your militia will leave you and fight against you."

"What will you do when evil men take office?"

"When evil men take office the whole gang will be in collusion.

They will keep the people in utter ignorance and steal their liberty by ambuscade". Patrick Henry

Evil men will take office when the people sit in darkness due to their appetite for the dainties of rulers.

"When Government removes your armaments, you will have no power, but government will have all power." Patrick Henry

Quotes

“Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason toward my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.”

― Patrick Henry

“The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.” ― Patrick Henry

“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” ― Patrick Henry

“They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power.” ― Patrick Henry

“I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past.” ― Patrick Henry

“Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense?” ― Patrick Henry

“The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.” ― Patrick Henry

“The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave.” ― Patrick Henry

“It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, “Peace! Peace!” — but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!” ― Patrick Henry

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” ― Patrick Henry

“It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains.” ― Patrick Henry

“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?” ― Patrick Henry

“When the American Spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different; Liberty, sir, was then the primary object.” ― Patrick Henry

“The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery” ― Patrick Henry

“It is the business of a virtuous clergy to censure vice in every appearance of it.” ― Patrick Henry

Articles that mention Patrick Henry

Audio2010

The REAL forefathers, What sets man free?, Patrick Henry - the barefoot lawyer, "beast" nature of government, Strive to be like Christ - WWJD, Pentecost, Lifeboat example...
http://keysofthekingdom.info/KOK-100220.mp3

Audio2014

Patrick Henry opposed the Constitution. History, Civilizations collapse. Unanimous consent; Ratify the Constitution. The natural souls. Rights didn't come from the Constitution.
http://www.hisholychurch.net/kkvv/020/141004ccc1fr.mp3

Public schools

“We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth… For my part, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst; and to provide for it.” Patrick Henry

Live as if the state does not exist

What you wrote on Strike the Root was great. Henry David Thoreau was not stupid : Patrick Sellman

Democracy

Nothing is beyond re-examination. In a constitutional republic, you might have some safeguards but Patrick Henry argued against the Constitution of the United States because he saw that “When evil men take office, the whole gang will be in collusion! They will keep the people in utter ignorance and steal their liberty by ambuscade!”

The Constitution was flawed from a biblical point of view of we understood Deuteronomy 17.

Do we understand those flaws, and are we prepared to guard against them?

Are Christians Idiots

...know the whole truth -- to know the worst and to provide for it.

"Patrick Henry"

Fiction of law

“While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.”[11]

Neither the people of America nor the States they instituted created or legally ratified the Constitution. While the States did adopt that document many years ago, the march of history has changed the course of mankind.

Edmond Pendleton, who debated Patrick in his opposition to the phrase “We the People”, stated, “Permit me to ask the gentleman who made this objection, who but the people can delegate powers? Who but the people have the right to form government?”.

The term federal is from Latin faedus, a league by contract derived from an agreement between parties or nations.[12]

The Democracy Cult

Many people who today oppose men like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, and George Washington and the Constitution do so for all the wrong reasons. If any of the modern critics of these founders were given the power to alter government they would only make things far worse because of their lack of knowledge or character or both.

Patrick Henry was one of its most ardent opponents yet he served in an office under its authority. Most Americans saw great dangers in that structure and form of government and to know their concerns is to be forewarned and forearmed.

“Just as the revolutionary Adams opposed the Constitution in Massachusetts, so did Patrick Henry in Virginia, and the contest in that most important State of all was prolonged and bitter. He who in Stamp Act days had proclaimed that there should be no Virginians or New Yorkers, but only Americans, now declaimed as violently against the preamble of the Constitution because it began, ‘We the People of the United States’ instead of ‘We, the State’. Like many, he feared a ‘consolidated’ government, and the loss of states rights. Not only Henry but much abler men, such as Mason, Benjamin Harrison, Munroe, R.H. Lee, were also opposed and debated... others in what was the most acute discussion carried on anywhere...” “Owing to the way in which the conventions were held, the great opposition manifested everywhere, and the management required to secure the barest majorities for ratification, it seems impossible to avoid the conclusion that the greater part of the people were opposed to the Constitution.”

“It was not submitted to the people directly, and in those days of generally limited suffrage, even those who vote for delegates to the State conventions were mostly of a propertied class, although the amount of property called for may have been slight.” History of the United States by J.T. Adams V.I 258-259.

Undocumented

...to be willing to know the whole truth and provide for it like Patrick Henry. You would have to study and learn about history and law and the meaning of

Ye are bought

We must be like Patrick Henry who was "willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide

Ekklesia 10

... to be submitted to the Governors of the states for ratification, Patrick Henry, the immortal voice for Liberty, lectured against it in the Virginia State ...he worst truth; to know the worst; and to provide for it."

Water

...people want to hear, but that is what they need to hear. It is what Patrick Henry called the whole truth. The question is why does congress have that power a ...deprived of that right.”

Not my constitution

a ‘consolidated’ government, and the loss of states rights. Not only Henry but much abler men, such as Mason, Benjamin Harrison, Munroe, R.H. Lee, wer Patrick Henry was one of its most ardent opponents yet he served in an office under its a

Not a party

The question asked by Patrick Henry on March 23, 1775 remains ours to answer, “Are we disposed to be of the n ...ment, “We the People” consisted of the names on that document. Patrick Henry, who opposed the Constitution, aptly asked “Who authorized them to speak

Deception

have some safeguards but Patrick Henry argued against the

Types of citizen

“Just as the revolutionary Adams opposed the Constitution in Massachusetts, so did Patrick Henry in Virginia, and the contest in that most important State of all was prolonged and bitter. He who in Stamp Act days had proclaimed that there should be no Virginians or New Yorkers, but only Americans, now declaimed as violently against the preamble of the Constitution because it began, ‘We the people of the United States’ instead of ‘We, the State.’ Like many, he feared a ‘consolidated’ government, and the loss of states rights. Not only Henry but much abler men, such as Mason, Benjamin Harrison, Munroe, R.H. Lee were also opposed and debated…others in what was the most acute discussion carried on anywhere…”

“Owing to the way in which the conventions were held, the great opposition manifested everywhere, and the management required to secure the barest majorities for ratification, it seems impossible to avoid the conclusion that the greater part of the people were opposed to the Constitution.”

“It was not submitted to the people directly, and in those days of generally limited suffrage, even those who voted for delegates to the State conventions were mostly of a propertied class, although the amount of property called for may have been slight.” History of the U.S. by James Truslow Adams V.1. pp. 258-259.

Was the Constitution of the United States ever ratified and what is its true source of authority? : There has been serious questions raised and continuous arguments made about the lawful passing of certain amendments. The fact is that the Constitution of the United States was never ratified according to the law at the time and its creation was an act of revolution against the law and the will of the people.

“If a constitution expressly provides that it may be amended only in a certain way and another way followed, such an attempted amendment is illegal; but if it is acquiesced in it becomes effective as a peaceful revolution such as took place when the United States Constitution took effect upon the ratification by nine states in spite of the fact that the old Articles of Confederation provided that they should not be amended without unanimous consent of the states.” Clark’s Summary of American Law, Constitutional Law Chapt 1, §1 p. 462