As it happens, I’m currently working with Mark Couvillon on a second
edition of his “Patrick Henry: Corrections of biographical mistakes, and
popular errors . . . by Patrick Henry’s great-grandson Edward Fontaine
1872" - based on the MS at Cornell University.
    Making allowances for Fontaine’s post-Civil War perspective (and
possible spin on Henry's views toward the end of this excerpt), it is
an interesting account of Patrick Henry’s reaction to the 12
amendments proposed by Congress that became, after ratification, the
10 amendments of our Bill of Rights.

Jon Kukla


Couvillon's transcription of the relevant part of Fontaine’s text reads:

My father, & Mr. Nathaniel West Dandridge, a nephew of his second wife,
were studying law with him in 1789, 90, & 91 at Red Hill in Charlotte Co.
Va. While living there in retirement with his family as a planter &
practicing lawyer, a pamphlet was brought to him containing the new
Constitution & the 12 Amendments as adopted [ie., by Congress and sent to
the states, of which ten were ratified – jk]. He read it carefully, and
after satisfying himself that the body of the instrument had not been
changed, he examined critically the amendments.
My father said he threw the pamphlet upon the table with an expression of
much dissatisfaction and distress; & turned to him & Mr. Dandridge &
remarked with such solemnity: that Virginia had been outwitted, & her
reserved rights sacrificed by the ingenious wording of the amendments
which had been adopted. He then gave them a history of the instrument, and
of the contest over it in the Virginia Convention of 1788, which adopted
it by a majority of only 10 votes, 89 voting for it, & 79 against it,
which majority was only secured by a compromise. Mr. Madison, Governor
Randolph, Judge Marshall & the other advocates of it having agreed to vote
for whatever Amendments he, Mr. Mason, Mr. Monroe & those opposed to it
might present to remedy, or prevent the evils its adoption might bring
upon the Country.
A bill of rights with 20 clauses, and a list of 20 amendments, such a
preamble to an act of ratification & adoption stipulating for the right on
the part of Virginia to withdraw peaceably from the Union whenever she
might deem it to be in her interest to do so, were presented by the
opposition, adopted by the Convention: & the amendments & Bill of Rights,
after its adoption with the said stipulation, were recommended for
adoption to the other States. He then gave the various reasons of his
opposition to it, & added: “I wrote the first of those 20 amendments in
these words: “Each State in the Union shall respectively retain every
power, jurisdiction & right, which is not by this Constitution delegated
to the Congress of the United States, or to the Departments of the Federal
Government.”
This was worded to prevent it from making the government that of a great
consolidated nation, ruled by the majority of all the people, which would
make it a government ruled by the Northern States, for they have the
majority. For that reason he objected to the first of the preamble: “we
the people.” To prevent a majority of the people from construing “the
general welfare clause.” & other parts of the instrument conferring power,
in such a way as to enable them to legislate for their Sectional benefit
at the expense of the minority, he inserted this strong & intelligible
Amendment which guarded strictly the reserved rights of each State.
“But,” he added, “they have omitted it, or transported it, & changed it
into this equivocal thing [i.e., the 9th Amendment] & they have tacked to
it the objectionable & dangerous clause: “or to the people.” “The powers
not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by
it to the States, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the
people.”! Why did they add: “or to the people?” They determined from the
first that it should be a strong consolidated government.
They inserted this amendment guilefully as something guarding the reserved
rights of the States to induce North Carolina, Rhode Island & others to
adopt it. It would guard them effectively if it ended with the word
“respectively.” But the words, “or to the people,” are added insidiously,
not be used now, but which, he said, those who inserted them would
construe at some future time to suit their own purpose.”



Dr. Jon Kukla, Executive Vice-President
Red Hill - The Patrick Henry National Memorial
1250 Red Hill Road
Brookneal, Virginia 24528
www.redhill.org
Phone 434-376-2044 or 800-514-7463

Fax 434-376-2647

- M. Lynn Davis, Office Manager
- Karen Gorham-Smith, Associate Curator
- Edith Poindexter, Curator

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html