The constitution of this committee proves, that in those days of genuine patriotism, there existed a mutual and noble confidence, which deemed the opponents of a measure no less worthy than its friends, to assist in its execution. A correspondent,[1] who bore himself a most distinguished part in our revolution, in speaking of the gentlemen whom I have just named as having opposed Mr. Henry’s resolutions, and of Mr. Wythe who acted with them, says—“these were honest and able men, who had begun the opposition on the same grounds, but with a moderation more adapted to their age and experience. Subsequent events favoured the bolder spirits of Henry, the Lees, Pages, Mason, &c. with whom I went in all points. Sensible, however, of the importance of unanimity among our constituents, although we often wished to have gone on faster, we slackened our pace, that our less ardent colleagues might Keep up with us; and they on their part. differing nothing from us in principle, quickened their gait somewhat beyond that which their prudence might, of itself, have advised, and thus consolidated the phalanx which breasted the power of Britain. By this harmony of the bold with the cautious, we advanced, with our constituents, in undivided mass, and with fewer examples of separation than, perhaps, existed in any other part of the union.”
- ↑ Mr. Jefferson.
patriots, from the considerations which have been stated in the text, to resistance, at this particular point of time) was, nevertheless, one of the firmest supporters of the principles of the revolution. As soon, therefore, as the measure of resistance was carried, in order to give to it the greatest effect, he rose and moved to change the system; and, instead of arming the militia, to raise ten thousand regulars for the war; but the motion was overruled. Chief justice Marshall says—“I have frequently heard my father speak of colonel Nicholas’ motion, to raise ten thousand men for the war.”
