The First Constitution of the United States: The Articles of Confederation Were Adopted By the Continental Congress 239 Years Ago Today

On June 7, 1776, Richard Henry Lee of Virginia, introduced a resolution in the Second Continental Congress proposing independence for the American colonies. The resolution read:

Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.

That it is expedient forthwith to take the most effectual measures for forming foreign Alliances.

That a plan of confederation be prepared and transmitted to the respective Colonies for their consideration and approbation.

Four days later, the Continental Congress appointed three committees in response to the Lee Resolution. One of these committee was created to determine “a plan of confederation,” and was composed of one representative from each colony. John Dickinson of Delaware served as the principal drafter.

After 16 months of debate, the Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union on November 15, 1777. The Articles set out that

Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

And that

The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.

The Articles did not go into effect until March 1, 1781, when the last of the 13 states – Maryland – ratified it.

The Articles provided for a loose federation of the states; a single legislative body, where each state had one vote, and a president who chaired the legislative assembly. The Confederation Congress had the following powers: to make war and peace; conduct foreign affairs; request men and money from the states; coin and borrow money; regulate Indian affairs; and settle disputes among the states. The following powers were reserved to the states: enforcing laws, regulating commerce, administering justice, and levying taxes.

No provision was made for an executive authority to enforce the laws or a judicial system to interpret them.

Within a short time, the weaknesses of the Confederation became apparent:

[The Continental Congress] could — theoretically — declare war and raise an army, but it could not force any state to meet its assigned quota for troops or for the arms and equipment needed to support them. It looked to the states for the income needed to finance its activities, but it could not punish a state for not contributing its share of the federal budget. Control of taxation and tariffs was left to the states, and each state could issue its own currency. In disputes between states — and there were many unsettled quarrels over state boundaries — Congress played the role of mediator and judge, but could not require the state to accept its decisions.

The result was virtual chaos. Without the power to collect taxes, the federal government plunged into debt. Seven of the 13 states printed large quantities of paper money — high in face value but low in real purchasing power — in order to pay veteran soldiers and a variety of creditors, and to settle debts between small farmers and large plantation owners.

. . . .

A weak central government, without the power to back its policies with military strength, was inevitably handicapped in foreign affairs as well. The British refused to withdraw their troops from the forts and trading posts in the new nation’s Northwest Territory, as they had agreed to do in the peace treaty of 1783. To make matters worse, British officers on the northern boundaries and Spanish officers to the south supplied arms to various Indian tribes and encouraged them to attack American settlers. The Spanish, who controlled Florida and Louisiana, as well as all territory west of the Mississippi River, also refused to allow Western farmers to use the port of New Orleans to ship their produce.

Although there were signs of returning prosperity in some areas of the fledgling nation, domestic and foreign problems continued to grow. It became increasingly clear that the Confederation’s central government was not strong enough to establish a sound financial system, to regulate trade, to enforce treaties or to exert military force against foreign antagonists when needed. Internal divisions between farmers and merchants, debtors and creditors, and among the states themselves were growing more severe. With Shay’s Rebellion of desperate farmers in 1786 vividly in mind and only recently crushed, George Washington warned: “There are combustibles in every state which a spark might set fire to.”

As a result, the new nation was on the brink of political and economic chaos. In 1785, George Washington wrote to Henry Knox saying “it does not appear to me, that we have wisdom, or national policy enough to avert the evils which are impending—How should we, when contracted ideas, local pursuits, and absurd jealousy are continually leading us from those great & fundamental principles which are characteristic of wise and powerful Nations; & without which, we are no more than a rope of Sand, and shall as easily be broken.” (Emphasis Added).

On July 21, 1786, the Virginia General Assembly passed a resolution proposing “a joint meeting of the states to consider and recommend a plan for regulating commerce.”

That convention met in Annapolis, Maryland, on September 11, 1786. Only 12 delegates were present at the meeting, representing only the states of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Virginia. On September 14, Alexander Hamilton introduced a resolution calling for a special convention of all the states to amend the Articles of Confederation.

This ultimately led to what we now call the Constitutional Convention of 1787. You can read James Madison’s notes of the Constitutional Convention here.

Our Nation’s First Presidential Cabinet

As president-elect Trump considers who he will choose to fill his cabinet, I thought it might be useful to look at the men who comprised our nation’s first presidential cabinet.

Today, the president’s cabinet includes includes the Vice President and the heads of 15 executive departments — the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs, as well as the Attorney General.

George Washington cabinet, by contrast, included just four original members: Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of War Henry Knox, and Attorney General Edmund Randolph. Below I have included a brief biographical sketch of each cabinet secretary.

(1) Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson

mte5ndg0mdu1mdewmjq4mja3

Thomas Jefferson, after attending my alma mater the College of William & Mary, practiced law and served in local government as a magistrate, county lieutenant, and member of the House of Burgesses. He also served as a member of the Continental Congress and was chosen in 1776 to draft the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson left Congress in 1776 and served in the Virginia legislature. He was elected governor and served in the office from 1779 to 1781. Following his governorship, Jefferson wrote his famous Notes on the State of Virginia. In 1784, he returned to public service by serving first a trade commissioner in France and then as Benjamin Franklin’s successor as minister to France. After serving as Secretary of State during President Washington’s administration, Jefferson went on to serve as Vice President under John Adams and then President of the United States. He sold his collection of books to the government, which formed the nucleus of the collection of the Library of Congress. At the age of 75, he founded the University of Virginia.

(2) Secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton

mte5ndg0mdu0otg3mjq1mdcx

Alexander Hamilton, born in Nevis, British West Indies, left school at King’s College (later renamed Columbia) in 1774 to begin a career in politics. That same year, he wrote “A Full Vindication of the Measures of Congress,” defending the Continental Congress’ proposal to embargo trade with Great Britain. In 1776, after the Revolutionary War began, Hamilton was commissioned as a captain in the Continental Army. In 1777, he accepted a position on General George Washington’s staff. He served admirably throughout the war. After the war’s conclusion, Hamilton passed the New York bar and practiced law in New York City. In 1787, Hamilton served as a New York delegate to the Constitutional Convention, where he advocated for the creation of a stronger central government. Along with James Madison and John Jay, Hamilton wrote “The Federalist,” a collection of 85 essays on the origins, purpose, and design of the United States Constitution. Hamilton wrote 51 of the essays. He served in New York’s ratifying convention and was instrumental in securing ratification of the new Constitution in the state. As the nation’s first Treasury secretary, Hamilton crafted a monetary policy that saved the nation from financial ruin. He was responsible for creating the First Bank of the United States, and his Report on Manufactures promoted commercial and industrial development in the new nation.

(3) Secretary of War Henry Knox

ana_kx_portrait.jpg

Henry Knox began his life as a bookbinder. During the Revolutionary war he served as General Washington’s chief of artillery and eventually rose to the rank of Major General. During the war, his most notable accomplishments include leading the expedition to transfer captured British cannon from Fort Ticonderoga to Boston, directing Washington’s famous crossing of the Delaware River, and take charge of the placement of the artillery at Yorktown. He served as secretary of war under the Articles of Confederation before serving as Washington’s Secretary of War under the new Constitution.

(4) Attorney General Edmund Randolph

220px-EdRand.jpg

 

Edmund Randolph studied at the College of William & Mary and studied law under his father’s tutelage. During the Revolutionary War, Randolph served as aide-de-camp to General Washington, and also attended the convention that adopted Virginia’s first state constitution in 1776 (he was the convention’s youngest member at the age of 23). He served as mayor of Williamsburg, Va, and Virginia’s attorney general. In 1779, he was elected to the Continental Congress, and in 1786 became the Governor of Virginia. He attended the Annapolis Convention in 1786, and was a delegate from Virginia during the Constitutional Convention of 1787. He presented the Virginia Plan on behalf of the Virginia delegation. Despite his support of Virginia Plan, he ultimately declined to sign the Constitution. By the time of the Virginia ratifying Convention, Randolph supported the Constitution and worked to secure its ratification in his state. He stated his reason for his switch as “The accession of eight states reduced our deliberations to the single question of Union or no Union.” He served as attorney general under President Washington until Jefferson resigned as Secretary of States, at which point Randolph assumed the role of Secretary of State.

The Federalist No. 68: A Defense of the Electoral College

As has become customary after a closely divided election (especially, one where the popular vote winner loses in the electoral college), there is a growing chorus of individuals calling for the abolishment of the electoral college. Just last night on Real Time With Bill Maher, former Attorney General Eric Holder called for an end to the electoral college.

I suspect these debates will continue not just this year, but in future elections, as well, and so I thought it might be useful to spotlight The Federalist No. 68, wherein Alexander Hamilton explains why the Framers created the electoral college system.

The mode of appointment of the chief magistrate of the United States is almost the only part of the system, of any consequence, which has escaped without severe censure, or which has received the slightest mark of approbation from its opponents. The most plausible of these, who has appeared in print, has even deigned to admit, that the election of the president is pretty well guarded. I venture somewhat further; and hesitate not to affirm, that if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent. It unites in an eminent degree all the advantages; the union of which was to be desired.

It was desireable, that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any pre-established body, but to men, chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analizing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favourable to deliberation and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements, which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to so complicated an investigation.

It was also peculiarly desirable, to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government, as the president of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. The choice of several to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community, with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of one who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each state, are to assemble and vote in the state, in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.

Nothing was more to be desired, than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the president to depend on any pre-existing bodies of men who might be tampered with before hand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the president in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the number of electors. Thus, without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task, free from any sinister byass. Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it. The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time, as well as means. Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen states, in any combinations, founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty.

Another and no less important desideratum was, that the executive should be independent for his continuance in office on all, but the people themselves. He might otherwise be tempted to sacrifice his duty to his complaisance for those whose favor was necessary to the duration of his official consequence. This advantage will also be secured, by making his re-election to depend on a special body of representatives, deputed by the society for the single purpose of making the important choice.

All these advantages will be happily combined in the plan devised by the convention; which is, that the people of each state shall choose a number of persons as electors, equal to the number of senators and representatives of such state in the national government, who shall assemble within the state and vote for some fit person as president. Their votes, thus given, are to be transmitted to the seat of the national government, and the person who may happen to have a majority of the whole number of votes will be the president. But as a majority of the votes might not always happen to centre on one man and as it might be unsafe to permit less than a majority to be conclusive, it is provided, that in such a contingency, the house of representatives shall select out of the candidates, who shall have the five highest numbers of votes, the man who in their opinion may be best qualified for the office.

This process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of president, will seldom fall to the lot of any man, who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue and the little arts of popularity may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single state; but it will require other talents and a different kind of merit to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of president of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue. And this will be thought no inconsiderable recommendation of the constitution, by those, who are able to estimate the share, which the executive in every government must necessarily have in its good or ill administration. Though we cannot acquiesce in the political heresy of the poet who says–

“For forms of government let fools contest–  That which is best administered is best.”

–yet we may safely pronounce, that the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration.

Book Spotlight: Alexander Hamilton: From Obscurity to Greatness

John Kaminski, founder and director of The Center for the Study of the American Constitution at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and director and co-editor of The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution series, has a new book out on Alexander Hamilton.

In “Alexander Hamilton: From Obscurity to Greatness,” Kaminski brings Hamilton to life by publishing the words of not only Alexander Hamilton but also his contemporaries. The quotations in this volume were taken from the letters of the Founder, journals, diaries, newspaper essays, and speeches.

A few quotes I’d like to spotlight from the book –

(1) President George Washington to Alexander Hamilton, 2 February 1795 – “In every relation, which you have borne to me, I have found that my confidence in your talents, exertions and integrity, has been well placed. I the more freely render this testimony of my approbation, because I speak from opportunities of information which cannot deceive me, and which furnish satisfactory proof of your title to public regard.”

(2) John Adams to Abigail Adams, 9 January 1797 – “Hamilton I know to be a proud Spirited, conceited, aspiring Mortal always pretending to Morality, with as debauched Morals as old Franklin who is more his Model than any one I know. As great an Hypocrite as nay in the U.S. His Intrigues in the Election I despise. That he has Talents I admit. But I dread none of them. I shall take no notice of his Puppyhood but retain the same Opinion of him I always had and maintain the Same Conduct towards him I always did, that is keep him at a distance.”

(3) The Federalist No. 34, 5 January 1788 – “We must bear in mind, that we are not to confine our view to the present period, but to look forward to remote futurity. Constitutions of civil Government are not to be framed upon a calculation of exigencies; but upon a combination of these, with the probable exigencies of ages, according to the natural and tried course of human affairs. Nothing therefore can be more fallacious, than to infer the extent of any power, property to be lodged in the National Government, from an estimate of its immediate necessities. There ought to be a capacity to provide for future contingencies, as they may happen; and, as these are illimitable in their nature, it is impossible safely to limit that capacity.”

(4) Caesar No. II, 17 October 1787 – “There are always men in society of some talents, but more ambition, in quest of that which it would be impossible for them to obtain in any other way than by working on the passions and prejudices of the less discerning classes of citizens and yeomanry. — It is the plan of men of this stamp to frighten the people with ideal bugbears, in order to mould them to their own purposes. The unceasing cry of these designing croakers is, my friends, your liberty is invaded! Have you thrown off the yoke of one tyrant, to invest yourselves with that of another! Have you fought, bled, and conquered, for such a change! If you have – go – retire into silent obscurity, and kiss the rod that scourges you.”

(5) The Federalist No. 15, 1 December 1787 – “The best oracle of wisdom, experience.”

(6) The Federalist No. 30, 1 January 1788 – “In disquisition of every kind there are certain primary truths or first principles upon which all subsequent reasonings must depend. These contain an internal evidence, which antecedent to all reflection or combination commands the assent of the mind.”

I highly recommend that any fans of Hamilton, his eponymous Broadway show, or the Founders generally pick up this book! It’s available for purchase via Amazon.com here.

 

 

 

The Federalist No. 1 is Published 229 Years Ago Today, on October 27, 1787

Cross-posted on the ConSource blog

The Federalist No. 1 was published 229 years ago today, on October 27, 1787. The Federalist, or Federalist Papers as they have come to be known, are a collection of 85 essays on the origins, purpose, and design of the United States Constitution. The authors and collaborators behind these essays were Alexander Hamilton writing 51 papers, James Madison writing 29 papers, and John Jay writing five papers. At the time of their publication, Hamilton, Madison and Jay did not sign their names to the essays. Instead, they wrote all of the essays under the pseudonym Publius.

James Madison in an 1818 letter explained that “[t]he immediate object of [The Federalist Papers] was to vindicate & recommend the new Constitution to the State of [New York], whose ratification of the instrument was doubtful, as well as important.”

The essays were designed to help solidify support amongst existing proponents of the Constitution, and to persuade undecided and unsympathetic citizens to support ratification.

Overview of the Essays

In The Federalist No. 1, Alexander Hamilton outlined the topics addressed by each of the essays. He wrote,

“I propose in a series of papers to discuss the following interesting particulars: – The utility of the UNION to your political prosperity– The insufficiency of the present Confederation to preserve that Union– The necessity of a government at least equally energetic with the one proposed to the attainment of this object– The conformity of the proposed Constitution to the true principles of republican government– Its analogy to your own state constitution– and lastly, The additional security, which its adoption will afford to the preservation of that species of government, to liberty and to property. In the progress of this discussion I shall endeavour to give a satisfactory answer to all the objections which shall have made their appearance that may seem to have any claim to your attention.”

Essays 1 – 14 discuss the necessity of a strong union.

Essay 15 – 22 primarily address issues with the Articles of Confederation.

Essays 23 – 35 discuss how the powers enumerated in the Constitution provide for an “energetic” federal government.

Essays 36 – 50 focus on the structure of the proposed government and the principles of Republican government.

Essays 51 – 66 provide a detailed discussion of the House of Representatives and Senate.

Essays 67 – 77 discuss the design and powers of the executive branch.

Essays 78 – 83 cover the federal judiciary.

Essay 84 responds to the objections raised over the lack of a federal bill of rights.

Essay 85 concludes the essay series by stating: “A nation, without a national government, is, in my view, an awful spectacle. The establishment of a Constitution, in time of profound peace, by the voluntary consent of a whole people, is a prodigy, to the completion of which I look forward with trembling anxiety. I can reconcile it to no rules of prudence to let go the hold we now have, in so arduous an enterprise, upon seven out of the thirteen States, and after having passed over so considerable a part of the ground, to recommence the course. I dread the more the consequences of new attempts, because I know that powerful individuals, in this and in other States, are enemies to a general national government in every possible shape.”

Read The Federalist Papers

“The importance of The Federalist cannot be overstated. Throughout American history it has provided a pivot point of argument in great struggles over constitutional meaning. Hamilton and Madison themselves drew on The Federalist in debates over the constitutionality of the National Bank Act and other early assertions of federal authority. In the years leading up to the Civil War, Southern nullificationists and Northern unionists both invoked the essays, and modern-day proponents and opponents of sweeping executive powers have done so as well. In scores of cases, and with much-increased frequency in recent decades, the Supreme Court has drawn on The Federalist in resolving hard-fought battles over what the Constitution means for disputants in the context of federal litigation.”[i]

You can read all 85 essays in the ConSource Digital Library.

The Founders on the Presidency

As someone who runs a non-profit (www.ConSource.org) focused on making U.S. constitutional history more accessible to and understandable by the American public , I often spend my time steeped in the writing of the Founding Fathers. We are now exactly one month from election day and so I thought I’d share some of their thoughts on the presidency in today’s blog post.

(1) “This process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of president, will never fall to the lot of any man, who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue and the little arts of popularity may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single state; but it will require other talents and a different kind of merit to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of president of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue.” – Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 68 

(2) “The powers of the Executive of the U. States are more definite, & better understood perhaps than those of almost any other Country; and my aim has been, & will continue to be, neither to stretch, nor relax from them in any instance what ever, unless imperious circumstances shd. render the measure indispensible [sic].” – George Washington to Alexander Hamilton (July 2, 1794)

(3) “The next good quality that I remark is, that the executive authority is one. By this means we obtain very important advantages. We may discover from history, from reason, and from experience, the security which this furnishes. The executive power is better to be trusted when it has no screen. Sir, we have a responsibility in the person of our President; he cannot act improperly, and hide either his negligence or inattention; he cannot roll upon any other person the weight of his criminality; no appointment can take place without his nomination; and he is responsible for every nomination he makes. We securevigor. We well know what numerous executives are. We know there is neither vigor, decision, nor responsibility, in them. Add to all this, that officer is placed high, and is possessed of power far from being contemptible; yet not a single privilege is annexed to his character; far from being above the laws, he is amenable to them in his private character as a citizen, and in his public character by impeachment.” – James Wilson, Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention (December 4, 1787)

(4) “There is an idea, which is not without its advocates, that a vigorous executive is inconsistent with the genius of republican government. The enlightened well wishers to this species of government must at least hope that the supposition is destitute of foundation; since they can never admit its truth, without at the same time admitting the condemnation of their own principles. Energy in the executive is a leading character in the definition of good government. It is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks: It is not less essential to the steady administration of the laws, to the protection of property against those irregular and high handed combinations, which sometimes interrupt the ordinary course of justice, to the security of liberty against the enterprises and assaults of ambition, of faction and of anarchy. Every man the least conversant in Roman story knows how often that republic was obliged to take refuge in the absolute power of a single man, under the formidable title of dictator, as well against the intrigues of ambitious individuals, who aspired to the tyranny, and the seditions of whole classes of the community, whose conduct threatened the existence of all government, as against the invasions of external enemies, who menaced the conquest and destruction of Rome. . . . Taking it for granted, therefore that all men of sense will agree in the necessity of an energetic executive; it will only remain to inquire, what are the ingredients which constitute this energy–how far can they be combined with those other ingredients which constitute safety in the republican sense? And how far does this combination characterise the plan, which has been reported by the convention? The ingredients, which constitute energy in the executive, are first unity, secondly duration, thirdly an adequate provision for its support, fourthly competent powers.” – Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 70

(5) “If your American chief be a man of ambition and abilities, how easy is it for him to render himself absolute! The army is in his hands, and if he be a man of address, it will be attached to him, and it will be the subject of long meditation with him to seize the first auspicious moment to accomplish his design; and, sir, will the American spirit solely relieve you when this happens? I would rather infinitely–and I am sure most of this Convention are of the same opinion–have a king, lords, and commons, than a government so replete with such insupportable evils. If we make a king, we may prescribe the rules by which he shall rule his people, and interpose such checks as shall prevent him from infringing them; but the President, in the field, at the head of his army, can prescribe the terms on which he shall reign master, so far that it will puzzle any American ever to get his neck from under the galling yoke. I cannot with patience think of this idea. If ever he violates the laws, one of two things will happen: he will come at the head of his army, to carry every thing before him; or he will give bail, or do what Mr. Chief Justice will order him. If he be guilty, will not the recollection of his crimes teach him to make one bold push for the American throne? Will not the immense difference between being master of every thing, and being ignominiously tried and punished, powerfully excite him to make this bold push? But, sir, where is the existing force to punish him? Can he not, at the head of his army, beat down every opposition? Away with your President! we shall have a king: the army will salute him monarch: your militia will leave you, and assist in making him king, and fight against you: and what have you to oppose this force? What will then become of you and your rights? Will not absolute despotism ensue?” – Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention (June 5, 1788)

This seems like a good time to encourage folks to read Article II of the Constitution, as well. You can read it here.