I’ve never read that before. Thanks for posting it.
My pleasure. Patrick Henry’s speeches from the Virginia Ratifiying Convention are extremely illuminating. They lift the fog of romantic attachment to the Constitution and expose it for what it was and is—a mistake.
The first glaring point of the debates is that neither Henry nor any anti-federalists ever offered corrections to the awful Articles of Confederation. Henry denied that there were any problems within Virginia under the Articles, a classic lawyer move.
Henry later represented wealthy anti-federalist Virginia planters who had a monetary interest in keeping alive the near anarchy under the Articles. He lost his suit in front of Chief Justice John Jay.
He also thought the British parliamentary system, the system we just revolted against, with a monarch and disproportional representation in Parliament was preferable to the Constitution.
The Articles granted authority, but no power. They lead to Shay's rebellion, talk of other confederacies and even return to allegiance to England among some states. The Articles were no more than treaties among sovereign states who could and did ignore at their will.
The Constitution put the Natural Law philosophy of our founders into practice. The most perfect governing document ever created.
By all means don't take my word or the word of others, but read the transcript of the Virginia ratifying convention.