The 4 Wisemen of the Founding Era (2)

У-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у У-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у У-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у У-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у-у need to know the truth about their own history because 235 years of lies have led us to this Marxist dominated thing. You can call it government, you can call it whatever you want to. Whatever it is, it's wrong and it's certainly not American. Before I jump back in with both feet into our first Wise Man, Patrick Henry, which we started on with the last edition, I believe that it would behoove us to actually maybe throw in a bit of background before we jump back into discussing Patrick. So in this one, I would like to lead off with a quote from Thomas Paine. And that is this, and folks, this is something that we have to think about today, or we should be thinking about instead of woke football. So well, here it is, quote, the duty of a true patriot is to protect his country from its government, unquote. Folks, I don't know how more concise anyone could ever be than that. But anyway, true rightful liberty and freedom are most likely the two hardest things to promote in this country today because almost everyone wants to hang on to the status quo. They want to be a conservative. They want to conserve what has destroyed us over 235 years. But it makes them feel good and that's all that matters. But in other words, rather than adhere to the words of Thomas Paine above, which I read, most who call themselves patriots in today's world are busy trying desperately to protect their government from true patriots. It has been reversed on us, folks. And those people out there who are standing up and screaming in there, you know, all we need to do to fix this thing is to get the right people into government. Well, you've had 235 years to do that and it hadn't worked yet. I really don't know what else to tell you. But that is true. But if we look back to America's founding era, this can provide some great insight into this dilemma because from 1765 to the end of the Revolutionary War in 1783, the driving force behind the pursuit of freedom from the tyranny of King George III was, you know, this war. And not by the wealthy merchants and politically well-connected of the larger towns. This war was fought by the backwoodsmen or the common farmers of what today we might call rural America. Well, it is certainly true that the leaders, generals of the war for American independence were from the aristocracy of the day, for that was simply the custom of the times. In the British army, of which most in the colonies were familiar, the wealthy or well-to-do class would purchase officer positions in that army, while the common man was the foot soldier that carried out the mission. And so, but then we also have to jump forward and realize that these generals wanted to overthrow the government at the end of the war, and we'll be getting into that as well. But when the war was over, the wealthy aristocracy of the colonies found the Articles of Confederation to be much too restrictive for the government to which they had been accustomed all of their lives, because a monarchy was all that they had ever known. They had existed in that system as merchants, traders, and large plantation owners, and had become quite wealthy by doing so. It was only natural that they would gravitate to that form of government to which they were most comfortable. And let me read you this, quote, although the colonies had fought a successful war of rebellion, English customs and laws had not been extinguished. The Magna Carta was as much an inheritance of the colonists as it was of their English oppressors, irrespective of the form of government in which its principles found expression. The framers of the Constitution had not only been English subjects, but were pure-bred English. Beside, the colonies had not rebelled against the principles on which the English government was founded, but the oppressive manner in which its laws were being administered right in the Thirteen Colonies. It is but natural, therefore, that the delegates who proposed a written constitution to the colonies should have submitted an instrument that largely was declaratory of the principles embraced in the unwritten Constitution of England, King, Lords, and Commons. It may be instanced, found its counterpart in President, Senate, and House of Representatives. Unquote. Well, the true spirit of liberty was espoused by men such as Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, and those who proudly wore the moniker of Minuteman or a Son of Liberty. Those who had been present at Lexington Green or Concord when the shot heard round the world was fired were not of the aristocracy, but were indeed simply the common man. It is true that by 1765 Patrick Henry was a successful lawyer, but his roots were in the common soil of Piedmont, Virginia, and not the rich aristocracy land of Tidewater. Besides, Patrick Henry had failed at being a storekeeper twice, and failed as a farmer once. He loved the common man of Virginia, and the common man of Virginia loved Patrick Henry, because they saw him as one of their own. This was vividly demonstrated by those who cheered for Henry at the trial of the Parsons cause, which we covered in the last session. During the long, hot days of summer at the Virginia Ratification Convention in 1788, Patrick Henry burst into full bloom. In both instances, Patrick Henry saw himself as defending the common man against an overreaching, tyrannical central government, exactly what we need today. Today we might think of Samuel Adams as a successful brewer, you know, everybody likes a little Sam Adams, I guess, but is that accurate just because we can buy beer today with his image on the bottle? Sam Adams inherited his brewery and his parents' Boston mansion, but allowed both of those to deteriorate, and within a short time fell deeply into debt. His father's family friends tried to save him from himself, so to speak, by appointing him tax collector for the town of Boston, but within a relatively short time Samuel owed the town something over eight thousand pounds sterling, either from embezzlement or simply failing to collect the taxes at all, who knows? But basically impoverished after years of bad decisions, Sam Adams hated the rule of the king and all of those who profited from their association with the crown. Samuel Adams was anything but aristocracy in 1765. The principal rebellions against the new government established under both the Articles of Confederation and also the new government formed by the Constitution of 1787 were from the backwoods common man. Today's rebellion was just another rebellion against oppressive confiscatory taxation, the same as what had led to the opposition to the Stamp Act in 1765 and the Boston Tea Party in 1773. The Whiskey Rebellion was by the backwoods common man also. Supposedly proposed by Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton, the whiskey of the common backwoods farmer was taxed while the wine and the other alcoholic beverages of the affluent aristocracy of Philadelphia and points east were not taxed at all. Let's not forget folks that one of the largest brewers at the time the whiskey tax was imposed was none other than George Washington himself, but his brewery was not taxed. Yeah, it started a long time ago. To the common American of the day this excise tax imposed by the new government did not look different at all from any of the taxes which had been levied by the crown. Well while the official government narrative is the Whiskey Rebellion was confined to just four counties in western Pennsylvania, the truth is the entirety of the backwoods folks of the entire country refused to capitulate to Alexander Hamilton's tax. The frontier areas of Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and the entire state of Kentucky just outright refused to even appoint a tax collector for Hamilton's tax. Washington and Hamilton chose to concentrate their efforts in Pennsylvania because there was a wealthy group of folks who were willing to be tax collectors for the government. Early day revenue pimps, huh? And statists for sure. In the back country of the other areas of the country there was no violence against tax collectors because there was no tax collectors. Well in typical big government fashion Alexander Hamilton only taxed the smaller distilleries as I said before while exempting all of the larger ones including George Washington. This guaranteed government support for the tax by the larger distilleries as this would force their smaller competitors out of business or at least make them charge higher prices for their whiskey. Just another form of combining government, pardon me, with industry which was Hamilton's published goals. He was very proud of it. So what we have with Alexander Hamilton and his policies is early American fascism. The Whiskey Rebellion was much more than is claimed in the government's rendition of events. No taxes were collected in the back country except for Pennsylvania. Tax collectors could not be found in the other parts of the country as I mentioned earlier nor could volunteers be found to sit on a jury if charges were brought against those who failed to comply. Folks, this is a peaceful revolt. In our revisionist history we are taught the Whiskey Rebellion was ended by the unconstitutional invasion of the state of Pennsylvania by federal tax collectors led by the President and Secretary of State. Now I promise you that's not going to happen today. They're not going out anywhere where they might be opposed. But the fact is the Whiskey Rebellion was quite successful. The noncompliance practiced by the people themselves eventually brought about the repeal of the excise tax on whiskey and led to the rise of the party of Thomas Jefferson which came to power in the election of 1800. Shortly after his election Jefferson repealed the entire Federalist Hamiltonian excise tax program. In fact, in Jefferson's second inaugural address the success of the elimination of taxes was prominently mentioned. And I shall quote from Mr. Jefferson's second inaugural, quote, at home, fellow citizens, you best know whether we have done well or ill. The suppression of unnecessary offices, of useless establishments and expenses enabled us to discontinue our internal taxes. These covering our land with officers and opening our doors to their intrusions had already begun that process of domiciliary vexation which once entered is scarcely to be restrained from reaching successfully every article of property and produce. If among these taxes some minor ones fell which had not been inconvenient, it was because their amount would not have paid the officers who collected them. And because of this, if they had any merit, the state authorities might want to adopt those taxes instead of others less approved. The remaining revenue on the consumption of foreign articles is paid chiefly by those who can afford to add foreign luxuries to domestic comforts. Being collected on our seaboard and frontiers only and incorporated with the transactions of our mercantile citizens, it may be the pleasure and pride of an American to ask what farmer, what mechanic, what laborer ever sees a tax gatherer of the United States, unquote. Yeah, folks, it was actually like that at one time. So well, we are going to, after that, just let me give you a few frames of reference for that part of the program and then we'll jump back to Patrick Henry. So one of those came from a book called If Spencer Rohn Had Been Appointed Chief Justice Instead of John Marshall. And that was actually published by the American Bar Association in 1934. And some of the other information that came from a book by the name of The Lion of Liberty, Patrick Henry and A Call to a New Nation by Harlow Giles Unger. And so with that being put out there, let's jump back to Mr. Patrick Henry. So let's just take this little opportunity here, pardon me, to jump back to our Patrick Henry portion of our Four Wise Men series here. And so here we go. In our first, you know, look around at Patrick Henry and the fact that Patrick Henry lit the fuse that led to the resistance of the Stamp Act and how that spread throughout the colonies. What we haven't really talked about in detail were the events surrounding Henry's impassioned pleas before the vaunted House of Burgesses and the spirit of resistance to government overreach in the segment of Virginia society, which supported him way back then. As is true throughout recorded history, wars and the debts they create, which leads to loss of property and the freedoms of the people themselves, played a leading role in the events of colonial America in 1765. Just as today here in America, we're staring down a debt that we absolutely know could never ever be repaid. And the majority of that debt has been created by unconstitutional, immoral wars. And yet Americans love to cheer for those unconstitutional, illegal wars. To completely understand the history of this country's founding, some uncomfortable truths must be addressed. Had members of the wealthy aristocracy had their way, there would have been no war or separation from England. Most of them could trace their wealth to their associations with the Bank of England or with the crown itself. It was the backwoods farmer and common man, as we have talked about before, who tired quickly of supporting an oppressive government, which they saw as totally unnecessary in their lives. The fire eaters of the backwoods were largely responsible for the creation of the Articles of Confederation. Unfortunately, they had little to nothing to do with the creation of the Constitution of 1787, a fact that the Federalists made sure of. Well, in my opinion, for what it's worth, therein lies the problem. For the wealthy aristocracy sought a form of government with which they were familiar and comfortable, and one which preserved and protected their wealth and power. The bottom line is, whatever you call it, it was a monarchy consisting of a highly centralized authority with no accommodation whatsoever to the will of the common man. Now, maybe it will help us to understand a drop back, you know, a century or so, and read the words of one of the authors of Patrick Henry, and that would be Harlow Giles Unger. So I will quote from his work. Indeed, few but the world's most disgruntled citizens would have paid any attention to it, the excessive taxation brought on by the expenses of war, except in North America, where settlers isolated in the hamlets and the woods of New England had lived free of almost any government authority for more than 150 years. They had cleared the land, felled great forests, built homes and churches, planted their fields, hunted, fished, and fought off Indian marauders all on their own, cooperating with each other, collectively governing themselves, electing their own militia commanders and church pastors, and turning to assemblies of elders to mediate any disputes. Self-reliant, often courageously so, they had thought and acted independently for four or more generations, seldom hearing, let alone responding to utterances from the church, the throne, or parliament in far-off London. Now like Patrick Henry, they had lived in freedom, without government intrusion in their lives, and saw very little need for government, nor had London objected. With a wealth of lumber, furs, pelts, and other resources flowing across the Atlantic to enrich the British merchants, the British government had left the American colonists free to, in essence, in the rural parts, to govern themselves and to trade with the world. In 1651, however, Parliament began to interfere in colonial affairs after Dutch cargo ships began capturing more and more of the trade between America and Europe, threatening the health of Britain's merchant fleet. Parliament passed a series of Navigation Acts which, one by one, over the next fifty years, banned all American trade with any country but England, and forced all ocean-going trade onto British or American shores. Although galled by Parliamentary intrusions into their efforts, most New England lumbermen and shipbuilders still profited handsomely from the Navigation Acts and the massive expansion of the British and American fleets which they engendered. In any case, smuggling goods onto unguarded landing points avoided duties altogether. The unexpected economic collapse that followed the Seven Years' War, however, left New Englanders easy prey for Boston's wealthy aristocracy rabble-rousers and the frenzied warnings that the Stamp Act would bankrupt them. With their economy tied to tobacco and agriculture rather than to shipbuilding, Virginians and most other Southerners were less agitated." So even Boston's own James Otis conceded, and I quote, "'Nine hundred and ninety-nine and a thousand of the colonists will never once entertain a thought but of submission to our sovereign and to the authority of Parliament.'" Things really haven't changed very much, have they? So in 1765, when the Virginia House of Burgesses met in Williamsburg in May of that year, the wealthy aristocracy of Virginia which controlled that body was more than ready to acquiesce to the coming heavy taxation and to move on to other affairs of the colony government. But no one was quite ready for the upstart from the Piedmont region of Virginia who was stopped by the sentries and sergeant-at-arms when he arrived to enter the proceedings of the august body of Burgesses for the first time. Well, it seems Patrick had the gall to arrive on horseback instead of a fancy, elegant carriage drawn by teams of horses. He was wearing common everyday work clothes of his farmer, you know, that's what he was doing, and being an attorney. But Patrick was required to produce his election certificate in order to gain entrance to the proceedings. Contrast this with the other members of the House of Burgesses who arrived bewigged and dressed in elegant morning clothes who simply walked into the building. Three-fourths of these men in the Virginia House of Burgesses owned more than 10,000 acres. George Washington owned more than 20,000 acres and 300 slaves, while John Robinson, the current Speaker of the House, owned over 30,000 acres and 400 slaves. The Tidewater region of the state dominated the government over the western Piedmont region of where Patrick Henry and the other more common folks lived. The representatives from the Piedmont needed a leader, and according to the man who would become governor of the state, Edmund Randolph, they found a leader in Patrick Henry. Now Randolph described Henry and his relationship with his fellow rural Virginians, and I quote, They wanted a leader. From birth, he, Patrick Henry, derived neither splendor nor opulence. The mildness of his temper rendered him amiable to everyone. He was never profound, but had no reason to shrink from a struggle with any man he ever encountered. Not always grammatically correct and sometimes coarse in his language, he taught those who listened to him how to forget his inaccuracies by his action, his very encountenance, and his voice. He was naturally hailed by his friends and neighbors as their democratic chief." Unquote. Well, it is important that we look at the significance of the size and the population in the state of Virginia in 1765 as it related to the other 12 colonies. Virginia was the most populated of any of the colonies with a population of about 800,000 people, which at that time was 27% of the entire population of the country. Not only the most populated, Virginia was also the most wealthy of all 13 colonies. Well, Patrick Henry's inauspicious beginning in this political environment was something else. He very quickly launched into an indictment of the Speaker of the House, Mr. John Robinson, for blatant corruption, and after four days Henry had asked to be recognized by the Speaker, totally unheard at that time for a freshman representative, especially one from the backwoods who was considered being know-nothing like Patrick. John Robinson was not only Speaker of the House, but was also the treasurer for the colony of Virginia. Robinson had been using this position of power and influence to make unauthorized loans to other members of the planter aristocracy. In other words, the political class, wealthy aristocracy of the state, had been using the people's treasury, established by taxation, as their own private finance company. Imagine that. What do we call the Federal Reserve? The aristocracy of Tidewater, Virginia had intermarried for years and therefore considered their individual survival as critical to the health of Virginia. The problem now was that due to several years of poor fields and poor yields in those fields, the treasury was depleted to the point the state was seeking a $240,000 loan from the crown in order to put back the funds that John Robinson had loaned to his fellow House of Burgesses members. Yeah, folks, it hadn't changed much. Quote, it had been urged that from certain unhappy circumstances of the colony, men of substantial property had contracted debts which, if exacted suddenly, would ruin them and their families, but with a little indulgence of time, might be paid with ease. Unquote. Now, that came from Thomas Jefferson. Patrick Henry's question to the body was scathing, especially to Robinson, the Speaker of the House, and here is what he said, and I quote, What, sir, is it proposed then to reclaim the spendthrift from his dissipation and extravagance by filling his pockets with money? Unquote. Patrick Henry's question was just completely and totally ignored in the House of Burgesses and simply passed over, but John Robinson's reputation, political reputation, was destroyed and he would die in disgrace within a year's time. But with this one simple question, Patrick Henry became the hero and the mouthpiece of the common man in Virginia. And another quote, if I may. What he lost on one side of the house he gained on the other. Members who, like himself, represented the yeomanry of the colony were filled with admiration and delight for Patrick. They rallied around the man who was one of themselves and who showed himself able to cope with the ablest of these old leaders. He was the first who broke the influence of the aristocracy. Edmund Randolph would say of Patrick Henry that he possessed abounding good humor and described his language as peculiar and at sometimes even quaint, which he expressed with a certain homespun pronunciation which won the hearts of Virginia's popular majority. He identified with the people and they clothed him with the confidence of a favorite son. Perhaps this move by the young upstart Patrick Henry was what gave his later comments and resolutions against the Stamp Act the validity which they achieved and most assuredly deserved. So anyway, just to throw a couple of references at you here, which I like to do, and I highly recommend these, and these will all be on my reading list. Number one was Preliminaries of the American Revolution, which was written by a G.E. Howard, and you can find quite a bit of information there. There is another one called The History of Virginia by Edmund Randolph, and this was published in the University of Virginia Press in 1970. And then there also I got some of my information from the actual journal of the House of Burgesses, 1761 to 1765, which was published by the Richmond Colonial Press. And then again another quote was from The Life of Patrick Henry by William Wirt Henry, I believe who was his grandson, if I am not mistaken. Folks, I think I may have been remiss in not starting this thing out with Patrick Henry with what I consider to be one of the most challenging quotes, you know, to really make you think from Patrick Henry. And so I want to do that because, again, I think this one was spot on. Patrick Henry saw it like few others did. And this is what he had to say, and I quote, Those who have no similar interest with the people of the South are to legislate for us. Our dearest rights are to be put in the hands of those whose advantage it will be to infringe upon them. They will rule by patronage and sword. The states are committing suicide. Now, folks, if you happen to hear a little funny sound in the background here, we are having very heavy rains, and I sure hope it doesn't come across as sounding like I'm doing my program from my shower. But anyway, I just wanted to let you know if that comes across on the other side. I apologize for it. To continue on with our lesson or our segment today, I guess we could call it a lesson in certain framework. But from my early childhood on, and I'm not sure exactly what made it different for most people, but my all-time favorite hero from American history was always Patrick Henry. Now, although his Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death speech from St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia in March of 1775 is probably the highlight of Patrick Henry's life to most people, and it may be the only thing they've ever been taught. But his passion and dedication to liberty and to the individual rights and state rights throughout his lifetime is a wonderful example for all of us to aspire to emulate. Now, on June the 4th of 1788, Patrick Henry gave voice to that passion in his opening speech to the delegates and the spectators who had gathered to hear the debates of the Virginia Ratification Convention. Now it is very important that we remember that Patrick had declined that invitation to the Constitutional Convention, stating he smelt a rat leaning toward a monarchy, and oh, how correct he was. But let's look at exactly the things that happened on June the 4th, because I think some of these are very, very critical. And I want to start this off with a quote from Patrick himself that explains who he is and who most anti-Federalists were. Now I want you and I challenge you to go out and find anything like this among the Federalists. None of them, that even anywhere near, said anything like this. And I quote, I consider myself as the servant of the people of this Commonwealth, as a sentinel over their rights, their liberty, and their happiness. I represent their feelings when I say that they are exceedingly uneasy at being brought from that state of full security, which they enjoyed, of course under the Articles of Confederation, to the present, delusive appearance of things, unquote. Well, Patrick said he represented so many of the people, and yet we are taught that the people were tired of the Articles of Confederation and that they were too weak, and all that's a lie. But, you know, when has the government ever lied? Oh, well, anyway. I believe that that quote from Patrick Henry on that day in June, that we can find a true difference between Patrick Henry, his fellow anti-Federalists, and those whom history has bequeathed the name, oh no, they gave it to themselves, Federalists. But history has continued it. From his words, Patrick considered himself not the master of the people, or the boss of the people, or the controller of the people, but their servant. And more importantly, he saw himself as the sentinel or protector of their rights, liberties, and happiness. Now, folks, if you go back and examine Patrick Henry's tenure as governor in Virginia, you will find he followed that to the letter as governor of being the sentinel of the people's rights. And there are so many examples, and maybe we'll get to a couple of those. But this contrasted starkly with the Federalists who saw themselves as the masters and controllers of the people and their property. Now let's just, you know, just for that, let's look at the words of Patrick Henry above, as to those of George Washington and Gouverneur Morris, premier Federalists, quote, experience has taught us that men will not adopt and carry into execution measures the best calculated for their own good, without the intervention of a coercive power. And Congress has too frequently made use of the suppliant humble tone of requisition in applications to the states, when they had a right to assume their imperial dignity and to command obedience, unquote. Yes, that was in a letter. And that's what Washington believed, is that he and his Federalists were smarter than these people, and they had to be controlled with a coercive power. Now let's look to the words of Gouverneur Morris, who at the convention said the following, and I quote, this country must be united. If persuasion does not unite this country, the sword will, unquote. Oh, such wonderful people those Federalists were, weren't they? Well in the comparison of these words can be found the basic difference between those known as Federalists and Anti-Federalists, and their preferred form of government, servant versus master. Patrick Henry saw himself as the servant of the people, George Washington and the Federalists saw themselves as the master of the people. But the claim was made at some point in time, you know, and I've even thought about this myself and it's been kind of tough for me to reconcile when I read through these, but you know, I was later able to find some good evidence that helped me with this. But there was a time I thought that somehow Patrick dropped the ball on this day, on June the 4th, in his pursuit of liberty and the protection of the rights of the people. Now on the opening day of this ratification convention in Virginia, you know, we're just getting started. Henry was well aware of the move for an entirely new form of government to be accomplished with the elimination of all of the restrictions of the Articles of Confederation, especially Articles 2 and 13. So he knew that this had been a conspiracy and he had stated so, and he believed it began with the meeting at Mount Vernon in 1785 and had continued with the Annapolis Convention in 1786. Patrick was also aware of that which has been established on several occasions, that the delegates to the Philadelphia Convention had been authorized only to amend the Articles as opposed to creating an entirely new form of government. They broke the law. They conspired to break the law. They are not great men. While the Federalists continually fostered their claim that the purpose of those meetings was to deal with commerce, they were not at all forthcoming with the fact that the commerce they were concerned with was their own commerce and they cared nil for the people. The Federalists sought to establish a government which would allow them to feather their own nest with the power of taxing the people to pay for their own commercial ventures, and they succeeded in that endeavor. The Assumption Act, which we will cover later, is proof positive of this. Patrick Henry, probably better than most, had seen through the machinations of these designing men and sought to bring it to the attention, the full attention, of the delegates at the Virginia Convention. Now here, the Convention, according to the order of the day, resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole to take into consideration the proposed plan of government. Mr. George Wythe was in the chair. Patrick Henry made a motion, and here it is, that the Act of Assembly appointing deputies to meet at Annapolis to consult with those from some other states on the situation of the commerce of the United States, the Act of Assembly appointing deputies to meet in Philadelphia to revise the Articles of Confederation, and other public papers relative thereto should be read at this point." So Patrick Henry was asking for the background of why all of this was done. And you know, I just stop and think, the Federalists at that point must have absolutely almost panicked. Had all of these Federalist machinations to form a new government been made public to that Convention, the very idea of ratification would have been blown out of the water. But immediately, passionate Federalist Edmund Pendleton, who repeatedly clashed with Patrick Henry over his stance on the Stamp Act and other issues with England, he considered to be divisive, and had previously referred to Patrick Henry as a demagogue, made a completely absurd yet revealing objection to Patrick Henry's motion. Now, folks, listen carefully. And I quote, Mr. Chairman, we are not to consider whether the Federal Convention exceeded their powers. It strikes my mind that this ought not to influence our deliberations. So what? People who break the law are to be ignored, according to the Federalists. People who conspire to break the law are to be ignored, according to the Federalists. Do you see any relationship in today's government, people? I certainly do. Well, let me continue with Mr. Pendleton's statement. This Constitution was transmitted to Congress by that Convention, by the Congress transmitted to our legislature, by them recommended to the people. The people have sent us hither to determine whether this government be a proper one or not. I did not expect these papers would have been brought forth, although those gentlemen were only directed to consider the defects of the old system and to not devise a new one. They found it so thoroughly defective as not to admit a revising, and instead submitted a new system to our consideration, which the people have deputied us to investigate. I cannot find any degree of propriety in reading those papers. So the Federalists just did not want the evidence of their crimes produced at the Constitutional Convention because they knew good and well that it would have a damaging effect on what they were trying to do. So these Federalists, as voiced by Edmund Pendleton, here stated that it was irreverent as to whether they had acted unconstitutionally or illegally in forming the new Constitution, and such crimes ought not to influence the Convention in its decision-making process. Man, that sounds so much like politicians of today, it's unreal. Edmund Pendleton goes on to admit the Convention in Philadelphia was only directed to consider the defects in the old system and offer amendments to that end, and had no authority whatsoever to devise a new one. Exactly how anyone cannot determine the Federalists were not, as Samuel Bryan would write, engaged in a criminal conspiracy is absolutely beyond my understanding. Edmund Pendleton would here make the case that if this crime was ratified by a majority of delegates and eventually the states, it would somehow take on the mantle of legality. Really? How many people does it take to condone child molestation, murder, or treason for it to be declared legal, people? This is the exact position I have heard taken by the leaders of the libertarian movement in recent months. Can a valid Constitution be created by a totally invalid or immoral or illegal act? You have to ask yourself, and be careful how you answer to yourself. But for some never-disclosed reason, after Edmund Pendleton's objection to his motion, Patrick Henry didn't continue in that vein. But when I did my further research, I was almost ready to say, Patrick, you dropped the ball, you should have pushed this. But then finding more source documents, I was able to find out that Edmund Pendleton and others, yes, Edmund Pendleton and many of the others within the others, just ignored anything Patrick Henry said after that, until he got quite loud. Now this might have been the only opportunity the Anti-Federalists had to fully expose the criminal conspiracy which brought about the Constitution of 1787 and its ratification in a public forum. Well, that is something that we, you know, I don't think as had been reported in one of the things I found at the University of Virginia, it said that Patrick Henry withdrew the motion, but I can't find anything to prove that point. But I do know that he continued to petition the delegates for a revelation as to why these unconstitutional steps were taken by the Federalists. And I quote, Mr. Chairman, the public mind, as well as my own, is extremely uneasy at the proposed change of government. Now that's kind of crazy, because we're told everybody just loved him. Give me leave to form one of the number of those who wish to be thoroughly acquainted with the reasons of this perilous and uneasy situation, and why we are brought hither to decide on this great national question. Before the meeting of the late Federal Convention at Philadelphia, a general peace and a universal tranquility prevailed in this country. But since that period, they are exceedingly uneasy and disquieted. When I wished for an appointment to this Convention, my mind was extremely agitated for the situation of public affairs. I conceived our Republic to be in extreme danger. If our situation be thus uneasy, whence has arisen this fearful jeopardy? It arises from this fatal system. It arises from a proposal to change our government, a proposal that goes to the utter annihilation of the most solemn engagements of our states. I expected to hear the reasons for an event so unexpected to my mind and many others. Was our civil polity or public justice endangered or sapped? Was the real existence of the country threatened, or was this preceded by a mournful progression of events? This proposal of altering our Federal Government is of a most alarming nature. It will be necessary for this Convention to have a faithful historical detail of the facts that preceded the session of the Federal Convention, and the reasons that actuate its members in proposing an entire alteration of government, and to demonstrate the dangers that awaited us. If there were of such awful magnitude as to warrant a proposal so extremely perilous as this, I must assert that this Convention has an absolute right to a thorough discovery of every circumstance relative to this great event. And here I would make this inquiry of those worthy characters who composed a part of that late Federal Convention. I am sure that they were fully impressed with the necessity of forming a great consolidated government instead of a Confederation. That this is a consolidated government is demonstrably clear, and the danger of such a government is, to my mind, most striking." Now those words from Patrick Henry are both compelling and passionate. It just doesn't make sense. And folks, my sources for this last part of the program came from George Washington to John Jay, the letter, 15 August 1786, and that can be found at founders.archives.gov, and also look at James Madison's report on Gouverneur Morris' address to the Constitutional Convention that was found in James Madison's notes. So you know, as we look at this, and we think about it, and we look at all of the things that have happened, this becomes quite a point. Now obviously the Federalists were content to hide all of the paperwork because they sure didn't want to present it. And then again, you know, we looked at the circumstances and looked at who controlled the Convention, and there were no anti-Federalists in a position of control. And poor Patrick Henry on June the 4th at the opening day was kind of just beaten backwards. So now folks, to kind of close out this lesson on the wise men of the founding era, the four wise men of the founding era, I thought it would be appropriate to follow up here with a bit of Patrick Henry's speech on the next day. And if I might, here is the quote. Mr. Chairman, I rose yesterday to ask a question which arose in my own mind. When I asked that question, I thought the meaning of my interrogation was obvious. The fate of this question, and of America, may depend on this. Have they said, we the states? Have they made a proposal of a compact between states? If they had, this would be a confederation. It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turned, sir, on that poor little thing, the expression, we the people, instead of we the states of America. I need not take much pains to show that the principles of this system are extremely pernicious and politic and dangerous. Is this a monarchy like England, a compact between prince and people with checks on the former to secure the liberty of the latter? Is this a confederacy like Holland, an association of a number of independent states, each of which retains its individual sovereignty? While it is not a democracy wherein the people retain all their rights securely, had these principles been adhered to, we should not have been brought to this alarming transition from a confederacy to a completely consolidated government. We have no detail of these great considerations which, in my opinion, ought to have abounded before we even took a look at a government of this kind. Here is a revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain. Well, actually, Patrick, you were rejoining Great Britain with their new government, but we'll get into that later. Continuing with Patrick, it is radical in this transition. Our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the states will be relinquished. People, you still think you got them back with the Tenth Amendment, and you did not. And we'll get into that. The rights of the states were diminished, and all we have to do is jump back to last March and the decision on the Missouri Second Amendment Protection Act, when the wonderful federal judge said that the Supremacy Clause overruled the Tenth Amendment and the Second Amendment. So, if it overrules two of them, it overrules them all, does it not? Well, he said, and Patrick says, and cannot we plainly see that this is actually the case? The rights of conscience, trial by jury, liberty of the press, all of your immunities and franchises, of course, like I said, this was, you know, before a Bill of Rights was added. And if you're like me, I didn't even know that their Bill of Rights wasn't added for over a year, until, or about a year, until I actually got into the background study. But to continue with what Patrick said, he said, it is said eight states have adopted this plan. I declare that if twelve states and a half have adopted it, I would, with manly firmness, and in spite of an erring world, I would reject it. You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured, for liberty ought to be the direct end of your government. Having premised these things, I shall, with the aid of my judgment and information, which, I confess, are not extensive, go into the discussion of this system more minutely. Is it necessary for your liberty that you should abandon those great rights by the adoption of this Constitution? Is the relinquishment of the trial by jury and the liberty of the press necessary for your liberty? Will the abandonment of your most sacred rights tend to the security of your liberty? Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings, give us that precious jewel, and you may take everything else. But I am fearful that I have lived long enough to become an odd fellow. Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned. If so, I am contented to be so. I say the time has been when every pore of my heart beat for American liberty, and which, I believe, had a counterpart in the breast of every true American. But suspicions have gone forth, suspicions of my integrity, publicly reported that my professions are not real. What he's saying here is that the Federalists printed in papers, because they were so worried about Patrick Henry, they published in papers, not only in Virginia, but in other states, that Patrick Henry had changed his mind and was in full support of the Constitution. Now how many people in how many states voted for the Constitution ratification based on those lies before, because Virginia was next to last with their ratification convention? He said, 23 years ago, I was supposed a traitor to my country. I was then said to be the bane of sedition, because I supported the rights of my country. I may be thought suspicious when I say our privileges and rights are in danger, but, sir, a number of the people of this country are weak enough to think these things are too true. I am happy to find that the honorable gentleman on the other side declares that my thoughts are groundless, but, sir, suspicion is a virtue, as long as its object is the preservation of the public good, and as long as it stays within proper bounds. Should it fall on me, I am contented. Conscious rectitude is a powerful consolation. I trust that there are many who think my professions for the public good are real. Let your suspicion look to both sides. There are many on the other side who possibly may have been persuaded of the necessity of these measures which I conceive to be dangerous to our liberty. Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined. I am answered by a gentleman that though I might speak of terrors, yet the fact was that we were surrounded by none of the dangers I apprehend, I conceive this new government to be that danger. It has produced those horrors which distress many of our best citizens. We are come hither to preserve the poor commonwealth of Virginia, if it can be possibly done. Something must be done to preserve your liberty and mine. This confederation, the same 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 this government. Take a 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 carelessness and the ambition of a few. We are cautioned by the honorable gentleman who presides 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 that. Yet there is another thing it will as effectually do. It will oppress and ruin the people. There are sufficient guards placed against sedition and licentiousness. For when power is given to this government to suppress these or for any other purposes, the language it assumes is clear, express, and unequivocal. The language it assumes is clear, express, and unequivocal. But when this constitution speaks of privileges, there is an ambiguity, sir, a fatal ambiguity, an ambiguity which is very astonishing. In the clause under consideration, there is the strangest language that I can conceive. And so then, folks, Patrick goes into a full dissertation on voting and the things that he sees as to be perilous. And if you continue with the June 5th speech, which I highly recommend, I hope that you will read it in its entirety and many of the others. Well, folks, that will complete the second part of the Four Wise Men of the Founding Era. And I do not mean for an instant to implicate that I have fully covered Patrick Henry. What I would really like for you to do is for you to do a more exhaustive search on Patrick Henry. Learn about this man and learn why he opposed the constitution and then look at all of the predictions he made that would happen if this constitution was ratified, including a prediction that it would lead to a civil war. So how can you discount a man with that kind of farsightedness? But anyway, folks, thanks again and I hope that you will find it within your means to support my work here on my Substack and become a paid subscriber. But I shall see you very quickly, possibly tomorrow, with the third chapter in this rendition. Folks, God bless. Have a wonderful day.