General Welfare (Part 8) The States Debates during Ratification (States 1-6)

Following the Convention of 1787, the new Constitution was presented to the Congress Assembled, and than forwarded to each of the States for Ratification pursuant to Article VII of the Constitution. It would take Nine States to Ratify the Constitution for it to take effect and this was anything but a sure thing in 1787. At the same time the Federalist (Part 7) and Anti-Federalist (Part 6) were writing articles on the pros and cons on ratification, while State Legislatures were calling and convening Conventions to review and either adopt or reject the proposed Constitution. The debates in these Conventions would be just as contentious as the debate in the press about ratification and general welfare was no stranger to these discussions either.

DELAWARE

Delaware was the first State to sit a Convention for Ratification that began on December 3, 1787, and as such also became the first State to ratify the Constitution on December 7, 1787. Debate in the Convention for Delaware was rather short when compared to a few of the other States, since Delaware did get its most limiting factor in the Convention, that being equal State Representation with the Senate fulfilling that requirement. Delaware’s Convention was rather quick convening on Monday, and unanimously ratifying that Friday. Delaware to records did not hold any debate over the General Welfare Clause.

PENNSYLVANIA

Even though Delaware was the first to ratify, they were not the first to seat a Convention. Pennsylvania seated their Convention on November 20, 1787, but as Delaware quickly ratified the Constitution Pennsylvania tirelessly debated it, and general welfare was not immune to the debates, and the opening volley was not small on November 28, 1787.

Mr. President, and it is reasoned upon as a fact, that the Congress will enjoy over the thirteen states, an uncontrolled power of legislation in all cases whatsoever; and it is repeated, again and again, in one common phrase, that the future governors may do what they please with the purses of the people, for there is neither restriction nor reservation in the Constitution which they will be appointed to administer. Sir, there is not a power given in the Article before us that is not in its expression, clear, plain, and accurate, and in its nature proper and absolutely necessary to the great objects of the Union. To support this assertion, permit me to recapitulate the contents of the Article immediately before First, then, it is declared that "the Congress shall have power to lay, and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States." Thus, sir, as it is not the object of this government merely to make laws for correcting wicked and unruly men, but to protect the citizens of an extensive empire from exterior force and injury, it was necessary that powers should be given adequate to the discharge of so important a duty. But the gentlemen exclaim that here lies the source of excessive taxation, and that the people will be plundered and oppressed.

Immediately the concern was of unrestrained power given to Congress, but the concern here was mainly limited to the power of taxation alone. The Congress in the general welfare clause was given the ability to tax to the point of oppression. The counter argument was, who would be a more qualified body to be the judge of common defense and general welfare, and the fact the a similar power already existed in the Articles of Confederation also without such checks on the power.

To whose judgment, indeed, could be so properly referred the determination of what is necessary to accomplish those important objects, as the judgment of a Congress elected, either directly or indirectly, by all the citizens of the United States? For if the people discharge their duty to themselves, the persons that compose that body will be the wisest and best men amongst us; the wisest to discover the means of common defense and general welfare , and the best to carry those means into execution without guile, injustice, or oppression. But is it not remarkable, Mr. President, that the power of raising money which is thought dangerous in the proposed system is, in fact, possessed by the present Congress, though a single house without checks and without responsibility.

What should be noted here is two points. One the point that the Convention believes the best and wisest people will be the ones elected to the Congress, but also of its direct correlation presented to the Articles of Confederation (current Congress at the time was still under the articles). As previously discussed (Part 1) the Articles of Confederation also used the same term in the same manner, but it did not convey lofty power, in fact none at all. The relation is implying that the term is to carry the same weight and meaning as it does under the Articles of Confederation. Still to this point in the debates only this power is only been regarded in relation to taxation.

It will be said, perhaps, that the treasure, thus accumulated, is raised and appropriated for the general welfare and the common defense of the states; but may not this pretext be easily perverted to other purposes since those very men who raise and appropriate the taxes are the only judges of what shall be deemed the general welfare and common defense of the national government? If then, Mr. President, they have unlimited power to drain the wealth of the people in every channel
(December 4th),Certainly Congress should possess the power of raising revenue from their constituents,for the purpose mentioned in the eighth section of the first Article, that is "to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States."

But also addressed was the lack of power the Articles of Confederation gave the Congress, and that the new Constitution did need to give the government internal powers as well, specifically in regards to taxation.(December 11, 1787)

I know that Congress, under the present Articles of Confederation, possess no internal power, and we see the consequences; they can recommend; they can go further, they can make requisitions, but there they must stop,….. But certainly it would have been very unwise in the late Convention to have omitted the addition of the other powers; and I think it would be very unwise in this Convention, to refuse to adopt this Constitution, because it grants Congress power to lay and collect taxes for the purpose of providing for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

Throughout the Pennsylvania convention, in regards to general welfare, concern was addressed about the power it did convey, but this power was only addressed in regards to taxation, and not the ability to make other laws. The Pennsylvania Convention was concerned that it gave too much power and it may be used to plunder the States, prevent the States ability to raise revenue and be oppressive in its ability to tax. But in the end the understood need to also allow Congress to have internal powers which were lacking under the articles of Confederation, and its relation of what it implied in the Articles, but now with power to execute them in limited fashion (Direct Taxes were prohibited and well as exports among others0, combined with the whole document was enough for the Convention to ratify it. on December 12, 1787 by a vote of 46-23, becoming the 2nd state to ratify.

However on December 18, 1787 the minority from the Pennsylvania publishes its “Dissent of the Minority from the Pennsylvania Convention”, detailing their objections to the Constitution (as seen in Part 6)

NEW JERSEY

On December 11, 1787 the Ratification Convention convened in New Jersey. Convention records do not indicate any significant debate concerning general welfare in New Jersey. n December 18, 1787 New Jersey became the 3rd State to ratify the Constitution by a unanimous vote.

GEORGIA

December 25, 1787 Christmas Day, the Georgia Convention seats. As with Delaware and New Jersey before her, nor significant debate about general welfare is found in the records. On January 2, 1788 Georgia became the 4th State to Ratify the Constitution.

CONNECTICUT

The Connecticut Convention seated on January 3, 1788 by this time Four States had already ratified the Constitution. Oliver Ellsworth [Delegate to the Convention, did not sign the final draft] rose and presented the first argument about general welfare to the Connecticut Convention.

This is a most important clause in the Constitution; and the gentlemen do well to offer all the objections which they have against it. Through the whole of this debate, I have attended to the objections which have been made against this clause; and I think them all to be unfounded. The clause is general; it gives the general legislature "power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States."

Ellsworth went on the list three specific objection.

It was too extensive
It was partial
Congress ought not possess the power to tax at all

In his first objection he described that it gave the congress the power to place a tax on anything. But his arguments were only limited to the topic of taxation, and not to a general power. As with other arguments about excessive taxation and corruption and oppression, he also argued that the taxes of Connecticut should not go to the citizens of New York. He also insisted that Congress should not be able to tax since since it also had the power to declare war, or to keep the purse and the sword in the same house, this is the making of a despot government.

But of note once again, Oliver Ellsworth’s discussion on general welfare also circled around only the idea of it being used for taxation, not the power to make general laws, though he did bring up the subject of Congress having both the power to declare and fund war, an unsettling proposition in the country at the time.

Despite Oliver Ellsworth’s objections, Connecticut became the 5th State to ratify the Constitution on January 8, 1788 by a 128-40 vote.

MASSACHUSETTS

Massachusetts convened its Convention on January 9, 1788 the day after Connecticut became the 5th State to ratify the Constitution. Massachusetts would become the first State to also propose Amendments or other changes to the Constitution in part with its ratification.

January 17th was the first time Article I Section 8 Clause 1 would be addressed, but it was in reference that taxes would be collected would be apportioned according to the population of the States. The concern was that this was a flawed measure, since early census’ counts were far from perfect.

On January 21, Mr. Dawes made this observation about the clause

The reason of giving this power is to render the sword unnecessary for without this power Congress cannot compel a State to pay without an army—perhaps Congress may never have the necessity as they now have imposts and excises. But Congress will not raise direct taxes but for necessity.

He understood the need of the National Government to not only be able to raise money, but that the power had to be specifically provided, since it was not in the Articles of Confederation, and the Congress Assembled had no power to compel States to pay what was needed. This clause gave the Congress the power to tax, to not need an Army to raise funds, and that it was also noted direct taxes where prohibited, and the power was restricted to only duties and impost taxes. But as seen in most other debates about the power since the Convention of 1787 broke, the concern of restricting State power was not lost on Mr. Bodman.

Objects to direct taxation. Congress should have some powers, but,it is difficult to draw the line, but it ought to be drawn between the sovereignty general government and of each State. Now the sovereignty of this State is given up, as the general government may prevent our collecting any taxes. Now if the power had been conditional, if a State refused, he should have no objection. Now Congress may prevent each State from supporting its own government.

Mr. Singletary followed this with:

The power is unlimited in Congress—he objects against it—a new case—as much power as was ever given to a despotic prince—will destroy all power in this of raising taxes, and we have nothing left—the only security is, we may have an honest man, but we may not have—we may have an atheist, pagan, Mahommedan— must take care of posterity—few nations enjoy the liberty of Englishmen. Is for giving up some power but not every thing—no bill of rights—civil and sacred privileges will all go.

This would be a prelude to Massachusetts proposing a variety of Amendments to the Constitution.

On January 22nd as debated moved forward, this concept of to much power granted to the Federal Government and a need in restricting powers was expressed

These words, sir, I confess are an ornament to the page. And very musical words—But they are too general to be understood as any kind of limitations of the power of Congress, and not very easy to be understood at all. When Congress have the purse, they are not confined to rigid ceconomy, and the word debts here is not confined to debts already contracted, or indeed, if it were, the term "general welfare" might be applied to any expenditure whatever.

Here is one of the first references seen of it being potentially used as a expenditure power, not solely a taxing power. This point was argued by both sides after this, with some taking the position it granted Congress too much power, while others it was checked by the enumerated powers. The damage was done though, Massachusetts would be proposing Amendments to limit the potential abuse of not only this power, but others of concern as well.

Debate on general welfare transpired for other parts of the Convention in the same manner as seen in other states. On January 31, 1788 the Convention agreed to the Constitution, but with the request of Amendments. After some revising Massachusetts finally became the 6th State to ratify the Constitution, with the following provision.

And as it is the opinion of this Convention that certain amendments & alterations in the said Constitution would remove the fears & quiet the apprehensions of many of the good people of this Commonwealth & more effectually guard against an undue administration of the Federal Government, The Convention do therefore recommend that the following alterations & provisions be introduced into the said Constitution.

The very first amendment proposed was this to help quell the apprehension of many over an excess of power to the Congress, which included General Welfare.

First, That it be explicitly declared that all Powers not expressly delegated by the aforesaid Constitution are reserved to the several States to be by them exercised.

Part 1 : Part 2 : Part 3: Part 4 : Part 5 : Part 6 : Part 7 : Part 8 : Part 9