General Welfare (Part 5) Final thoughts on the Constitution Convention

I think it is something of note that very little was debated in the Convention on the term General Welfare throughout the entire Convention of 1787 (that was discussed in Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4). This point I believe is amplified when one looks at how much other aspects of power debated feverishly. When one looks at how it may be contended to how much power General Welfare carries to how little debate revolved around it, when related to other comparatively smaller powers dealing with power at the Federal Level this must speak to what the true intention of what it was felt it meant.

But maybe the most telling non-debate of “General Welfare” was the total lack of it in the Slavery issue. As contended by some, general welfare was meant to give the Congress the power to make laws for the overall general welfare of the people or the Union. By using this clause by this meaning, would this not then give the power to Congress to outlaw Slavery or Indentured Service outright for the general welfare of those bound by it? But this possibility was never addressed once in the Convention by the accounts of the notes we have available to us today.

The issue of Slavery was a very tense issue throughout many parts of the Convention, and it can be seen addressed or referenced in differing aspects in several parts of the Constitution, with each of these clauses being thoroughly debated.

The three-fifths clause dealing with apportionment of Representatives to the States was debated off and on for over two weeks from the end of June until an agreement was finally passed on how non-freeman [Slaves] would be counted for both taxation and Representation. Without this compromise, it is doubtful the Constitution would have ever been ratified by the southern States, or even reach the Nine required to enact it at all. The southern States believed that they were the region of wealth, largely based off of their agricultural economy, but they also new they were outnumbered by a large amount in population by the Northern States [when counting only free men who could vote]. As pointed out on June 28th, “Virginia, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania, have forty two ninetieths of the votes, they can do as they please, without a miraculous union of the other ten”.

The main concern here was the Southern States being outnumbered in the House of Representatives by only a few of the Northern States and imposing its will on the South. But even with this concern, the parallel of the power to general welfare never once was made in the potential abolition of the Slaves, this concern dealt with the power of the North in General in Congress. On July 14th, James Madison observed, “The perpetuity it would give to the preponderance of the northern against the southern scale was a serious consideration. It seemed now to be pretty well undertood[misspelling is from original text], that the real difference of interest lay, not between the large and small, but between the northern and southern, states. The institution of slavery, and its consequences, formed the line of discrimination. There were five states on the southern, eight on the northern side of this line. Should a proportional representation take place, it was true, the northern would still outnumber the other; but not in the same degree, at this time; and every day would tend towards an equilibrium.”

Through the entire debate from the beginning of the Convention to the end general welfare was never attributed to the issue of Slavery. Their were proposals or suggestions to end the practice with the Constitution, or to enable it to be abolished Slavery with it, but also none of these ideas or suggestions were ever tied to general welfare as well. The issue of allowing slavery in the South for some was of enough importance, that a clause was added to Article I Section 9 prohibiting Congress from prohibiting the importation of Slaves, and in Article VII prohibiting an Amendment that would revoke it, or the apportionment of taxes using the Three-fifths measure. In the end of this issue after the 20 year provision had long passed, it took not an act of Congress to end slavery, but by the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. With the amount of concern that was expressed on the power balance to the North, the fact that general welfare was never tied to this power balance, perhaps leads only to the support of it being a general statement and not invoking power at all.

Slavery is not the only topic which was discussed in length dealing with potential Federal Power and the complete lack of any correlation to potential use of General Welfare to as a potential to expand or enlarge powers. For four straight days in Convention, the Convention debated what would become Article I Section 8 and its 18 clauses, but never once was general welfare debated. This section or several of its clauses were sent back to Committee numerous times for refinement, but no record of debate on general welfare is recorded. The Convention debated Post Offices and had to introduce a provision of specifically Postal Roads to ensure that power was present for Congress. On the debate of emitting Bills on the credit of the United States, Nathaniel Gorham [Massachusetts] was mentioned in regards to the motion to strike this provision, “without inserting any prohibition, If the words stand, they may suggest and lead to the measure [emitting Bills of Credit]”. This was responded to by James Madison [Virginia], “Congress, he thought, would have not have the power, unless it were expressed”. The debate of credit and debt was visited several times, and efforts were made to ensure the proper power was was given to the Congress, but not excessive powers. If General Welfare was meant to allow Congress to do what it felt was in the General Welfare to begin with, why would the delegates then have a debate on its limits or express the specific power at all? Certainly if anything, General Welfare being in a taxing and debt clause should surely include paying of debts and emitting Credit, but no, rather the Delegates sought to specifically mention these powers and described for what purposes they may be used in the enumerated clauses.  This can only be that they did not view general welfare to be a power given to Congress, but rather a reason to why they gave Congress certain powers in the first place.

When all things are considered on the Convention, most every aspect in the Constitution and every aspect pertaining to power given to the Government was debated, and in most cases numerous times, except for the clause of “General Welfare and Common Defense”. Numerous sides to arguments existed in most provisions, some wanting stronger National Powers, others weaker, some looking out for states rights, other for the Individual. With all of these interest being represented to some degree, with almost every aspect of a power given to the Federal Government or power surrendered by the States or People being debated numerous times, to have general welfare inserted late in the Convention, and to never have even one debate on what General Welfare power is, is remarkable, unless it was viewed by all the Delegates in the Convention not as a power, but simply a description of something else, perhaps the following enumerated powers in Article I Section 8, just as general welfare did in the Articles of Confederation.

Part 1 : Part 2 : Part 3: Part 4 : Part 5 : Part 6 : Part 7 : Part 8