So, as I said, the ratification vote has happened. Virginia has ratified the U.S. Constitution. But things aren't completely over. The evening of the vote, some of the anti-federalists called a meeting in Richmond to discuss what they were going to do about this new Constitution. Apparently the meeting is led by George Mason. Very strange meeting, a very disturbing meeting, potentially very threatening. They're talking about open opposition to the new government because they had lost a legitimate vote in the Ratification Convention. Patrick Henry apparently attends. Now there's some dispute historically about what Patrick Henry does at this meeting. But I think that,... Some dispute as to whether he's supporting George Mason in this effort to oppose the Constitution or whether he takes a different tack. I think given that concession speech, which is well recorded, we actually have that speech transcribed where he says, I will act "in a constitutional way," I think that it's fairly clear that Patrick Henry goes to this meeting and suggests that the people are engaged in a very dangerous effort to oppose the legitimate authority of government. It is reported by one source that what Patrick Henry says is this. "The question had been fully discussed and settled, and that, as true and faithful republicans, they had all better go home; they should cherish it [the new government], and give it fair play...." It's been adopted. We lost. We have to work within this Constitution, within the law that we've been given. And he does. Now, if we pause for a moment and think about the alternative, what might have happened if Patrick Henry and the anti-federalists had formed in essence a fifth column effort to undermine the Constitution, even though it had been ratified in the states. And we can have debates about there were more anti-federalists, and there were newspaper shenanigans and the editorials. But what would have happened if Patrick Henry had opposed the Constitution's governance after 1788? It could have been devastating. One of great issues in the Revolution, in the early Republic was a recognition that whenever you're talking about a Republic government, a democracy, call it what you will, there is always a tension between great power and personal liberty, government power and personal liberty. In the one hand, there is a danger of anarchy if there's too much personal liberty. On the other hand, there's a threat of despotism if there's too much power at the expense of liberty. Henry and many of the leaders understood that there had to be a balance between government power and liberty. And in this case, he's clearly choosing the legitimate government power, the interests of the community as a whole which has voted, legally implemented, against control by personal interests or beliefs. He thought the Constitution was too powerful, it was creating a government that was too powerful; he thought it was too distant. But he said that personal belief, that personal liberty to oppose has to be subjugated to the legitimate authority of the community, the communitarian interests versus what classically liberal interests, we use the word differently today, classically liberal interest of my personal rights. Henry says no, the community interest legitimately implemented by government, they have to control. And he says go home. Abide by this new Constitution. We can think of a lot of implications today for that kind of a lesson. But, but perhaps not surprisingly, Henry doesn't give up. He did say that he would take action consistent with the Constitution, in a constitutional way, to try to preserve liberties to the maximum extent possible. Patrick Henry is still a member of the Virginia legislature at this point, and he decides that one of the things that needs to be done is we need to elect anti-federalists to the new federal government to make sure that the people who are running the government are going to be very concerned about personal rights, about state's rights, and about creating a government that's not too powerful and too distant from the people, but always abiding by the law. Both Patrick Henry and George Washington use a very interesting analogy. They say it's as if we're on a ship at sea, and we know that the ship needs some repairs, but you can't do the repairs at sea. You have to wait till you're in safe harbor, and then you try to fix things legitimately, legitimately there. Now one of the things that's interesting about all that is that Patrick Henry asked, in the Virginia legislature, he's still a very popular politician in Virginia, the most popular politician in Virginia, except George Washington, he sees to it that Virginia sends anti-federalists to New York initially, it's where the new federal government is going to meet, but to the national government. So, James Madison, for example, was suggested as one of the new senators from Virginia. He had led the Constitutional Convention, he had led the federalists at the ratification debates. Wouldn't James Madison be the rational choice for Virginia as a new senator? Patrick Henry stands up and says no. We don't want James Madison. He's a federalist. I'm afraid that he will support too much government power. I'm afraid that he will not bring us those amendments that we need. And so Henry sees to it that other men are made senators. In fact, when James Madison then runs to become a member of the House of Representatives, and Henry engages in some gerrymandering. The gerrymandering we know, Elbridge Gerry in Massachusetts becomes known for manipulating congressional districts. Maybe it should have been called Henry-mandering, because Henry does it before Gerry thought of it. He tries to create a different electoral district so that James Madison will not be elected to the House of Representatives. And in fact, he gets another gentleman, an anti-federalist, to run in opposition to James Madison for the House of Representatives. James Madison we know of today as the fourth President, after he's in the House of Representatives, becomes Secretary of State under Jefferson and becomes the fourth President. The person that Henry chose to run in opposition to Madison, I say Henry, the anti-federalists, put up as their candidate, James Monroe, the fifth President of the United States. So Henry, by the way, we know that Madison wins that election and importantly, one of the key factors that allows him to win that election is that he promises the people in Culpepper and Orange County and central Piedmont of Virginia that if he is elected, he will get a Bill of Rights. Even though in the ratification debates he said, I don't think we need a Bill of Rights, we need to approve the Constitution, he started to think about this a little bit. He started to be concerned about some of the issues that Patrick Henry has raised. One of the things Madison starts to say is you know, that "necessary and proper" clause that says Congress has all authority to do things "necessary and proper" to implement its other powers? That could be a very powerful grant to the government. And James Madison really comes around and says, no. I will see to it if you make me a member of Congress that we have a Bill of Rights. And as I said earlier, in many respects, James Madison becomes the Father of the Bill of Rights as we know it today. But, he is being influenced by the anti-federalist message that we need to make sure that there are legitimate constraints on the government. Now, all of this leads to an interesting question: What if other anti-federalists had been as diligent as Patrick Henry in trying to influence the new government? If, after all, the anti-federalists supposedly exceeded in population the federalists, what, if in all of these states with very serious anti-federalist populations, New York, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, what if they had acted like Patrick Henry and tried to see to it that anti-federalist senators were elected and anti-federalist members of the House? Well, it doesn't happen. It seems as if many of the anti-federalists, a little bit like George Mason, take the position that if,... once we've lost the constitutional debates, we're going to oppose. And if we're told that that's not legitimate, we're just going to go home and do nothing. Not what Patrick Henry is doing, which is trying to use the legitimate power of government to influence this new national government. Well we, of course, we don't know. That once the Congress is formed in New York, it's by and large federalist. And we're of course going to have the history with George Washington, and Alexander Hamilton, and Thomas Jefferson. And ultimately the growth of parties in the 1790s. But Patrick Henry, he'd fought the good fight in the Ratification Convention, but then he's not done. He comes back as a legislator and tries to ensure that everything possible is done to make sure that the federal government will not abuse its authority. Well, after ratification and these political maneuverings, Patrick Henry once again decides that perhaps it's time to retire and go back to law. He's having more children, and he's concerned about his finances. And so, once again, Patrick Henry retires.