Our Founding: Founding Fathers

Showing posts with label Founding Fathers. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 22, 2014

Open discussion on the Founding. (2/9/2014)

I am a huge Hockey fan, and one of the discussion boards for my team, at times the conversation goes sideways and needs a more appropriate venue for further discussion, so Hockey can be the main topic where it should be. This post is made to be a more appropriate setting to continue this and other founding discussions.

Thursday, April 19, 2012

The Shot Heard round the World (Concord, MA; April 19, 1775)

237 Years ago, the American Colonist began armed resistance to the British crown, in two small towns west of Boston, Massachusetts, well over a year before the Declaration of Independence was even debated.

By April 1775, tensions between the British and Colonist in New England, Massachusetts in particular had reached the boiling point. On April 14, 1775 British General Thomas Gage received orders to disarm the rebels, and arrest the main Colonial Leaders Samuel Adams and John Hancock. General Gage proceeded with plans to march on Concord, Massachusetts west of Boston where a cache of arms was believed to be stored.

On April 18, 1775 Gage sent about 20 troops into the countryside west of Boston to intercept anybody on Horseback who may be able to pass word of the impending British Forces movement to Concord. Having received word of General Gage’s order, by April 8, 1775 most of the Colonial Leaders had already left Boston, with two prominent exceptions being Paul Revere and Joseph Warren. British troops had been noticed scoping out the roads and country side by Concord, but not a larger cache site in Worcester further South West, and the townspeople of Concord decided to distribute the weapons to other near by towns.

The United States is not a Democracy

3 Wolves 1 Sheep Often we hear about the United States being a “Democracy”, or let “Democracy” decide. We see it in many places; the United States Navy Sailors Creed has the term Democracy

“…to protect freedom and democracy around the world.”

But the United States is not a “True Democracy”, rather we are a democratically elected Republic, and the difference between that and democracy is significant.

Democracy vs a Republic

Democracy

Majority vote prevails. The majority of a vote on a given subject decides the course of law, generally without any predefined limits on what law can be, since the majority of the people decide what law is.

Republic

A system where members are chosen for the purpose of representing a larger body (in the US the People or the States), generally in part or in whole chosen directly by the people. That body or bodies are usually constrained by some sort of contract (Constitution) with the people normally directly voting for at least one part of the body.

More than just a Declaration of Independence

July 4 is a day of celebration in the United States, it is the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, even though the actual vote for Independence took place two days before (July 2, 1776: The United States decides to Declare Independence). It is noted as the day the United States declared it will decide its own course, make its own rules, govern itself and would no longer hold or honor any allegiances to Britain or its crown. This was done with a magnificent piece of work written primarily by Thomas Jefferson with the assistance of Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Robert Livingston and Roger Sherman (June 11, 1776 the Committee of Five), the Declaration of Independence.

Besides declaring, “That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES” dissolving the bonds between the United States and Great Britain, the Declaration states so much more, on the nature or power, the role of government and rights of the people. These declared principles in regards to each, will have a direct influence on the structure and power in the Articles of Confederation and Constitution (Declaration of Independence influence on the Constitution).

Who are the Founding Fathers? George Mason IV

Life: December 11, 1725-October 7, 1792

Wife: Wife: Ann Eilbeck (Wed April 4, 1750, Died March 9, 1773)

Wife: Sarah Brent (Wed April 11, 1780, Died 1805)

Children:

Son: George Mason V (April 30, 1753)
Daughter: Ann Eilbeck Mason (January 13, 1755)
Son: William Mason (April 16, 1756-August 4, 1757)
Son: William Mason (October 22, 1757)
Son: Thomson Mason (March 4, 1759)
Daughter: Sarah Eilbeck Mason (December 11, 1760)
Daughter: Mary Thomson Mason (January 27, 1762)
Son: John T. Mason (April 4, 1766-March 19, 1849)
Daughter: Elizabeth Mason (April 19, 1768)
Son: Thomas Mason (May 1, 1770)
Son: Richard Mason (December 4, 1772- December 5, 1772)
Son: James Mason (December 4, 1772- December 5, 1772)

Home State: Virginia

Place of Birth: Stafford County (now Fairfax County), Virginia

Died: Gunston Hall, VA

The Shot Heard round the World (Concord, MA; April 19, 1775)

236 Years ago, the American Colonist began armed resistance to the British crown, in two small towns west of Boston, Massachusetts, well over a year before the Declaration of Independence was even debated.

Were the Founders Originalist?

Were the Founding Fathers originalist, this is a question I get more often than most others, along with, “Were did Originalism come from?” or “Which Founder was an Originalist?”. The first thing that needs to be discussed is, what Originalism is. Justice Antonin Scalia describes it here in remarks to the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C., on March 14, 2005 (What is Originalism and Original Meaning?). In his remarks Justice Scalia says the following:

Our manner of interpreting the Constitution is to begin with the text, and to give that text the meaning that it bore when it was adopted by the people.

He does not contend to be a “strict constructionist” and goes on to state, that he does not believe anybody should be. An Originalist is one who believes the meaning of the Law is what it was understood to be by those who adopted it, the people who ratified the provision in question. It is this group of people, whether in the Convention of the States in 1787-1789 on the Constitution, or the various bodies who ratified the 27 Amendments to the Constitution, that granted the permission to give power to government. Only the people and these bodies can cede power, it cannot be arbitrarily taken, and because only they can cede the power it must be understood, what power they in fact meant to cede to government, the Original Meaning of the provision in question. To sum up the basic foundation of an Originalist is, I put this way,

For all Originalist the basic beliefs are that the Constitution is the Authority in which the government operates, and is done by the consent of the People, and the people expect it to be followed. It is a binding contract of conduct between the legitimate power [the people] and the acting power [the government], as in all contracts it defines what the limits of it are.

Who are the Founding Fathers? Rufus King

Rufus King was delegate of Massachusetts during the Convention of 1787 and was a signer of the Constitution at the end of the Convention. Rufus King also kept notes from that Convention, though not as well known as James Madison’s Notes, Rufus King’s does provide a different aspect of the convention and his notes also assist in filling gaps left from Madison’s. He would latter represented the State of New York in the US Senate, and be the Ambassador to Great Britain.

Rufus King was born in Scarboro, Massachusetts, on March 24, 1755, the portion of Massachusetts subsequently became Maine in 1820, near present day Portland, Maine. He was the eldest son of a prosperous farmer-merchant, and his father served as a citizen-soldier during the early stages of Britain's contest for North America, and participated in the successful assault on the French fortress at Louisbourg, Canada, in 1745. Shortly after that victory he left the Boston area to settle on the northern frontier of Massachusetts, where he quickly rose to prominence as a wealthy farmer and merchant. His ability to dominate affairs in Scarboro provoked considerable envy, an emotion that grew stronger as the rift between the colony and the mother country widened. Rufus’ father, a strong supporter of King George, defended the unpopular Stamp Act of 1765, a measure Parliament enacted to raise revenues in the colonies to help pay for the cost of the French and Indian War of the 1754-1763. Local Patriots, in retaliation of his support, whom called themselves the Sons of Liberty, ransacked the family's home in 1766. Not intimidated, Rufus’ father retained his Loyalist support, that led another confrontation in 1774. This second confrontation was with the local militia who demanded a public recanting. Rufus’ father was humiliated, and the strain caused by this confrontation led directly to his fathers' death and instilled in Rufus a lifelong passion for law and order ,and for a society controlled by rational men.

Who are the Founding Fathers? Edmund Randolph

Not many may know Edmund Randolph by name, but most know him by what he did on May 29, 1787. Shortly after the Convention began, and on the first full day of debates in the Convention Edmund Randolph proposed a basic plan of Government, called the Virginia Plan.

Edmund Randolph was born at Tazewell Hall in Williamsburg, Virginia on August 10, 1753 to John and Ariana Randolph. His grandfather Sir John Randolph, his father John Randolph, and his uncle Peyton Randolph were king's attorneys for Virginia. He also had two Sisters Susannah and Ariana. He married Elizabeth Nichols in 1776, and they subsequently had five children, son Peyton, daughter Susan, son John Jennings, daughter Edmonia, daughter Lucy.

Edmund Randolph graduated at the College of William and Mary, after which he studied law with his father, feeling bound by his oath to the King and went to England in 1775. From August through October 1775 Edmund was aide-de-camp to General George Washington, but on the sudden death of his uncle Peyton he returned to Williamsburg. He was selected to be a member of the Virginia Convention in 1776, and was included on its committee to draft a new constitution and bill of rights for Virginia. He also served as the Attorney General of Virginia from 1776-1786, and the mayor of Williamsburg from 1776-1777. In 1779 he was selected to serve in the Congress and shortly afterwards resigned his position. He was again selected as a delegate for second time in 1780 and served from 1780-1782 during which the Articles of Confederation came into force in March 1781. In 1782 he resigned his seat, and after his father's death in 1783 succeeded to the property of his uncle Peyton, property that had been burdened with claims against his father. Afterwards he had his own law practice, including much legal business for General Washington.

In 1786 follow Virginian James Madison organized a convention in Annapolis, the Annapolis Convention, to address issues that arose from the Mt Vernon compact. This Convention would recommend another Convention in May 1787, which Congress later on did call for. The Constitution Convention of 1787 began on May 14th of that year, but it was not until May 29th that a quorum had been reached, and the rules agreed to. On May 29th Edmund Randolph rose a presented the Virginia Plan (at end of article) to the Convention. Much of this plan was also written with James Madison, but it was Edmund who presented it, and this plan would set the course of debate for much of the Convention. Edmund Randolph addressed 5 defects to the Articles of Confederation, and proposed 15 distinct Resolutions in the Virginia Plan, including a Bicameral Legislature, a Executive Branch, a Judicial Branch, and additional powers to the Congress. Edmund Randolph advocated a strong central government, moved for the prohibition of the importation of slaves, and an Executive Branch consisting of multiple Executives. Randolph suggested that there be three executives from different parts of the country. In the end he refused to sign the Constitution feeling that too power over commerce was granted to a mere majority in Congress, and because no provision was made by the Convention for a second convention if required or desired, after the present instrument had been referred to the States, and taking into consideration the States recommendations and desires.

Following the October 1787 he published an attack on the Constitution citing the issues he had with it during the Convention. However in the Virginia convention he urged its ratification, and argued it was too late to attempt to amend it without endangering the Union, arguing against a strong opponent in Patrick Henry. Edmund Randolph believed that Virginia's assent would be that of the necessary ninth state, to cause the Constitution to go into effect. Randolph succeeded in getting Virginia to ratify the Constitution, but not before New Hampshire became the Ninth State to ratify the Constitution on June 21, 1788 four days before Virginia became the 10th on June 25, 1788, and a day before New York as the Eleventh State. However, Randolph did urge Virginia to propose amendments to the Constitution, which Virginia did with six other States, directly leading to the Bill of Rights.

In 1788 he refused re-election as Governor, and entered the House of Delegates to work on the revision and codification of the state laws published in 1794. In September 1789 he was appointed by President Washington first Attorney General of the United States. He worked for a revision of Ellsworth's judiciary act of 1789, and especially to relieve justices of the supreme court of the duties of circuit judges, and advocated a Federal code. In 1791 he was opposed to Alexander Hamilton’s proposed National Bank as being unconstitutional, joining Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson and other fellow Virginian James Madison. In 1792-1793 in response to a request of the house of representatives he wrote an extended report (1790) on the judiciary system. Among the many important cases arising under the first administration of the constitution was Chisholm vs. Georgia, involving the right of an alien to sue a state. To the dismay of his southern friends, Randolph proved that right to the satisfaction of the court. His speech was widely circulated as a pamphlet, and was reprinted by legislative order in Massachusetts, while the alarm of debtors to England led to the 11th amendment

After Thomas Jefferson resigned as Secretary of State, Edmund Randolph became the Second Secretary of State on January 2, 1794. Early in 1795 Randolph issued, under the name of "Germanicus," an effective pamphlet against the " Democratic societies," which were charged with fomenting the whiskey rebellion at Pittsburgh, and exciting an American Jacobinism. He was the only cabinet member who opposed the ratification of the Jay treaty and before it was ratified the delicate task of keeping up friendly diplomatic relations with France fell to him. Dispatches of the French minister, Joseph Fauchet, were intercepted by a British man-of-war and sent to the British minister to the United States. The dispatches accused Randolph of asking for “several thousand dollars” from France to influence American affairs against Great Britain. After the intercepted letter was shown him. but withheld from the doomed secretary, Washington treated Randolph with exceptional affection, visiting his house, and twice giving him the place of honor at his table. It is maintained by Randolph’s biographer (M. D. Conway) that this conduct, and his failure to send for the other dispatches alluded to, indicate Washington’s entire disbelief of the assertions of Fauchet, whose intrigues he well knew (dispatch to Monroe, 29 July, 1795). Although this charge was demonstrably false, Randolph when confronted with it immediately resigned. It is difficult to see how Washington could have saved his friend, even if ready to share his fate. Randolph, having indignantly resigned his office, pursued Fauchet (now recalled) to Newport, and obtained from him a full retraction and exculpation. Fauchet published A Vindication of Mr. Randolph's Resignation (1795) and Political Truth, or Animadversions on the Past and Present State of Public Affairs (1796). He was held personally responsible for the loss of a large sum of money during his administration of the state department, and after years of litigation was judged by an arbitrator to be indebted to the government for more than $49,000, “moneys placed in his hands to defray the expenses of foreign intercourse.” Under the system of that period the secretary of state personally disbursed the funds provided for all foreign service, and if any money were lost through the accidents of war, or the failure of banks, he was held responsible. He paid the debt at great sacrifice to himself.

He removed to Richmond in 1803, and during his last years was a leader of the Virginia bar. In 1807 he was one of Aaron Burr's counsel during his trial of his duel with and death of Alexander Hamilton. He died at Carter Hall, Millwood, Clarke county, Virginia, on the 12th of September 1813.

Born: August 10, 1753
Birthplace: Williamsburg, VA
Died: September 12, 1813
Location of death: Millwood, VA
Remains: Buried, Old Chapel Cemetery, Millwood, VA

Race or Ethnicity: White
Political summary:

Mayor of Williamsburg, VA (1776-77)

Virginia Attorney General (1776-1786)

Delegate to the Continental Congress (1779 and 1780-82)

Governor of Virginia (1787-88)

US Attorney General (Sept, 1789 to 1794)

US Secretary of State (Jan. 2, 1794 to 1795)

Society of the Cincinnati

Defects of the Articles of Confederation (as Found in James Madison’s Notes, sic)

First, that the Confederation produced no security against foreign invasion; Congress not being permitted to prevent a war, nor to support it by their own authority. Of this he cited many examples; most of which tended to show that they could not cause infractions of treaties, or of the law of nations, to be punished; that particular states might, by their conduct, provoke war without control; and that, neither militia nor drafts being fit for defence on such occasions, enlistments only could be successful, and these could not be executed without money.

Secondly, that the federal government could not check the quarrel between states, nor a rebellion in any, not having constitutional power, nor means, to interpose according to the exigency.

Thirdly, that there were many advantages which the United States might acquire, which were not attainable under the Confederation; such as a productive impost, counteraction of the commercial regulations of other nations, pushing of commerce ad libitum, &c., &c.

Fourthly, that the federal government could not defend itself against encroachments from the states.

Fifthly, that it was not even paramount to the state constitutions, ratified as it was in many of the states.

The Virginia Plan (As Found in James Madison’s Notes, sic)

“1. Resolved, that the Articles of Confederation ought to be so corrected and enlarged as to accomplish the objects proposed by their institution; namely, ‘common defence, security of liberty, and general welfare.’

“2. Resolved, therefore, that the rights of suffrage in the national legislature ought to be proportioned to the quotas of contribution, or to the number of free inhabitants, as the one or the other rule may seem best in different cases.

“3. Resolved, that the national legislature ought to consist of two branches.

“4. Resolved, that the members of the first branch of the national legislature ought to be elected by the people of the several states every—for the term of—; to be of the age of—years at least; to receive liberal stipends, by which they may be compensated for the devotion of their time to the public service: to be ineligible to any office established by a particular state, or under the authority of the United States, except those peculiarly belonging to the functions of the first branch, during the term of service, and for the space of—after its expiration; to be incapable of reelection for the space of—after the expiration of their term of service, and to be subject to recall.

“5. Resolved, that the members of the second branch of the national legislature ought to be elected, by those of the first, out of a proper number of persons nominated by the individual legislatures; to be of the age of—years at least; to hold their offices for a term sufficient to insure their independency; to receive liberal stipends, by which they may be compensated for the devotion of their time to the public service; and to be ineligible to any office established by a particular state, or under the authority of the United States, except those peculiarly belonging to the functions of the second branch, during the term of service, and for the space of—after the expiration thereof.

“6. Resolved, that each branch ought to possess the right of originating acts; that the national legislature ought to be empowered to enjoy the legislative rights vested in Congress by the Confederation, and moreover to legislate in all cases to which the separate states are incompetent, or in which the harmony of the United States may be interrupted by the exercise of individual legislation; to negative all laws passed by the several states contravening, in the opinion of the national legislature, the Articles of Union, or any treaty subsisting under the authority of the Union; and to call forth the force of the Union against any member of the Union failing to fulfil its duty under the articles thereof.

“7. Resolved, that a national executive be instituted; to be chosen by the national legislature for the term of—; to receive punctually, at stated times, a fixed compensation for the services rendered, in which no increase or diminution shall be made so as to affect the magistracy existing at the time of increase or diminution; and to be ineligible a second time; and that, besides a general authority to execute the national laws, it ought to enjoy the executive rights vested in Congress by the Confederation.

“8. Resolved, that the executive, and a convenient number of the national judiciary, ought to compose a council of revision, with authority to examine every act of the national legislature, before it shall operate, and every act of a particular legislature before a negative thereon shall be final; and that the dissent of the said council shall amount to a rejection, unless the act of the national legislature be again passed, or that of a particular legislature be again negatived by—of the members of each branch.

“9. Resolved, that a national judiciary be established; to consist of one or more supreme tribunals, and of inferior tribunals; to be chosen by the national legislature; to hold their offices during good behavior, and to receive punctually, at stated times, fixed compensation for their services, in which no increase or diminution shall be made so as to affect the persons actually in office at the time of such increase or diminution. That the jurisdiction of the inferior tribunals shall be to hear and determine, in the first instance, and of the supreme tribunal to hear and determine, in the dernier resort, all piracies and felonies on the high seas; captures from an enemy; cases in which foreigners, or citizens of other states, applying to such jurisdictions, may be interested; or which respect the collection of the national revenue, impeachments of any national officers, and questions which may involve the national peace and harmony.

“10. Resolved, that provision ought to be made for the admission of states lawfully arising within the limits of the United States, whether from a voluntary junction of government and territory, or otherwise, with the consent of a number of voices in the national legislature less than the whole.

“11. Resolved, that a republican government, and the territory of each state, except in the instance of a voluntary junction of government and territory, ought to be guaranteed by the United States to each state.

“12. Resolved, that provision ought to be made for the continuance of Congress, and their authorities and privileges, until a given day after the reform of the Articles of Union shall be adopted, and for the completion of all their engagements.

“13. Resolved, that provision ought to be made for the amendment of the Articles of Union whensoever it shall seem necessary; and that the assent of the national legislature ought not to be required thereto.

“14. Resolved, that the legislative, executive, and judiciary powers, within the several states, ought to be bound by oath to support the Articles of Union.

“15. Resolved, that the amendments which shall be offered to the Confederation by the Convention, ought, at a proper time or times, after the approbation of Congress, to be submitted to an assembly or assemblies of representatives, recommended by the several legislatures, to be expressly chosen by the people, to consider and decide thereon.”

Written partially with the assistance of the following sites

http://www.nndb.com/people/099/000049949/

http://www.famousamericans.net/presidentjamesmadison.com/edmundrandolph.org/

http://www.ushistory.org/germantown/people/randolph.htm http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/delegates/randolph.html

Ping my podcast

Who are the Founding Fathers? Edmund Randolph

Who are the Founding Fathers? Robert Yates

A member of the New York Delegation to the Constitution convention of 1787, Robert Yates left the Convention early, never to return and sign the Constitution. Rather he would become one of the main opponents to the Constitution under the pseudonym Brutus of the Anti-federalists, whom collectively succeeded in having a Bill of Rights ratified. The son of Joseph and Maria Yates, Robert Yates was born in Schenectady, NY, on January 27, 1738. He received a classical education in New York City and later studied law with William Livingston and also became a surveyor. In 1760 Robert yates was admitted to the New York bar, and moved to Albany where in 1765 he married Jannetje Van Ness and eventually having six children.

Early on in the the struggle for American liberties he as a leader of the Albany's Patriots. Even though he did not sign the Albany Sons of Liberty constitution of 1766, he did become prominent in the Albany opposition to the Stamp Act. Between 1771 and 1775 Yates was a member of the Albany board of aldermen. Pre-Revolution he considered himself a Whig, whose vigilance against corruption and emphasis on the protection of liberty appealed to many in the all Thirteen Colonies. By 1774, he had joined the Albany Committee of Correspondence and stood among its first members when the committee's activities became public in 1775. During this time he remained a member of the Albany common council, even though it purpose was being replaced by the extra-legal Committee of Correspondence, Safety, and Protection.

Who are the Founding Fathers? James Wilson (Pennsylvania)

James Wilson is one of only six people who hold claim to signing both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. He served as a member of Continental Congress, Delegate to the Congress Assembled, Delegate to the Convention of 1787, and an Associate Justice of the United States. During the Convention of 1787 was one of the more vocal Delegates, never shy to offer his opinion.

Born in Carskerdo, Scotland on Septemeber 14, 1742. James Wilson attended Universities of St. Andrews, Glasgow, and Edinburgh initially studying to become a Presbyterian minister, but never earned a degree. He emigrated to Continental North America in 1766, and very shortly afterward enrolled into the College of Philadelphia. and, studied Law with John Dickinson. In 1767 he was admitted into to the Pennsylvania Bar, and set up his own successful practice in Reading Pennsylvania.

Who are the Founding Fathers? Charles Pinckney (South Carolina)

Just as James Madison is considered the Father of the Constitution by most, many regard Charles Pinckney as perhaps the Step-Father of the Constitution. From South Carolina he came from a family of political figures. His political career started during the American Revolution which he was taken prisoner in. He served in the South Carolina House. the Governor of South Carolina, member of the Congress Assembled, as a Delegate to the Constitution Convention of 1787, US Representative and Senator from South Carolina, and was a main force in both the Federalist Party and organizing the new Democratic-Republican Party.

Charles Pinckney was born on the 26th of October 1757 at Charleston, South Carolina; he was the son of Charles Pinckney (1731-1784), first president of the first South Carolina Provincial Congress (January to June 1775), and a cousin of Charles Cotesworth Pinckney and Thomas Pinckney.

Who are the Founding Fathers? James Madison

James Madison of Virginia is not the most popular Founding Father, that title rightfully resides with George Washington. But James Madison can be argued to be the most influential Founder in the creation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. He served as Delegate, US Representative from Virginia, Secretary of State under Thomas Jefferson, and 4th President of the United States.

The oldest child in a family of twelve, he grew up on his father's plantation, Montpelier, in Orange County, Virginia. In 1762, James Madison went to his first school, located in King and Queen County, Virginia. At the age of 16, he returned to Montpelier to continue his education with a tutor. In August 1769, James began college at the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University), graduating in the spring of 1771.

Gerrymander against the Democratic System.

If you have ever looked at Congressional or even perhaps State Districts, you may have noticed that some seem to form peculiar shapes. Why would who ever draws these do that and not make them more like, well a box? The answer is simple, it is called a Gerrymander, drawing these political districts in such a manner that gives an advantage of one group of people over another to ensure the highest probability that a candidate of this specific group is elected to that office.

While I watched the results of the 2010 National Elections on TV, one commentator’s statement struck me more than any other one made that night. “Now that they have the power during redistricting”, in other words, to Gerrymander Congressional Districts to their favor.

Gerrymandering can undermine the entire electorate, have results that do not represent the people as a whole, can be used to consolidate power to one group or small number of groups or one party. Perhaps the most troubling aspect of it is, instead of the people voting and choosing who their politician will be, it is politicians choosing who will vote for them or their group or party.

General Welfare (Part 4) Final Drafts and Debates of the Convention

After the Committee of Detail presented its final draft of a Constitution to the Convention on August 6th (as discussed in Part 3), debates began on the various aspects, provisions and clauses. The Constitution presented contained 23 Articles, with Article VII representing what would become Article I Sections 8, the Section that contains “general welfare”. Article VII of the proposed Constitution contains the enumerated powers as well as prohibitive powers similar to what would end up being Article I Section 9, among others.

Article VII Section Clause 1 reads:

The legislature of the United States shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises.

Just as with the following 17 clauses after this clause, general welfare or any similar variant does not appear anywhere within these 18 clauses.

It would not be until the next day a reference to General welfare in some would appear, but it would be tied to Article III of the proposed Constitution. Article III concerned establishing the Legislature to consist of two bodies, each having a negative on the other [not giving assent to the others bills], and when it should meet.

General Welfare (Part 3) Debates in Convention, Committee of Detail

As already discussed [in Part 2]on July 26th, the Convention broke into Committee of Detail [selected July 24th] until August 6th. The Committee consisted of five members Oliver Ellsworth (Connecticut) Nathaniel Gorham (Massachusetts) Edmund Randolph (Virginia) John Rutledge (South Carolina) James Wilson (Pennsylvania). The purpose of this committee was to make a draft constitution for the Convention as agreed to through this point of debating. Max Farrands records on the Convention contain James Wilson’s [Pennsylvania] notes from the committee, the only records of the committee that may in fact be available from the committee. James Madison’s Notes [Virginia] do not contain the committee with July 26th-Aug 6th having no entries, similarly Rufus King [Massachusetts] from July 15-Aug 7th. James McHenry [Maryland] did not return to the Convention until Aug 6th, after departing for personnel reason in Jun. Robert Yates [New York] last entry in from July 5th, before departing the convention, William Pierce [Georgia] does not address the Committee, nor does William Patterson [New York], or Alexander Hamilton [New york], though several do mention the committee did take place during this time, these are among the most common records of the convention itself.

General Welfare (Part 2) Debates in Convention, the First Drafts.

virginia-plan-james-madison-may-29-1787-page-1-large

How did “General Welfare” end up in the Constitution? As noted in Part 1, the term was used in the Articles of Confederation, and a similar term was used in the Constitutions of several states. But how did it end up in the Constitution, and what was it thought of during the debates of Ratification, and not only the term general welfare, but the clause as a whole? What is perhaps the most striking aspect of general welfare during the Constitution Convention of 1787, is how little it was actually discussed, this is even more amplified considering the considerable debate among many of the other enumerated powers found in Article I Section 8.

The term General Welfare came up very early in the Convention, the first day after the rules of the Convention had been agreed upon, we see its first use. On May 29, 1787 Edmund Randolph, he Governor of Virginia rose and presented a proposed outline to a new Constitution, known commonly today as the Virginia Plan. In the very first resolution, Randolph he state the purpose of his proposal.

1. Resolved that the Articles of Confederation ought to be so corrected & enlarged as to accomplish the objects proposed by their institution; namely, "common defence, security of liberty and general welfare” ¹

In the Virginia plan, this use of General Welfare is in direct reference to its use in the Articles of Confederation, which [as described in Part 1] was a term to describe the general purpose of the Articles, and carried no direct power to the Congress Assembled. Randolph in his first resolution also uses it for this purpose, to describe the general intention or purpose of the Virginia plan, as it relates to the general purpose of the Articles of Confederation, to correct and amend the articles to secure the common defense, security of liberty and general welfare, not as a resolution of power.

On May 30th, the Convention broke to committee to consider Randolph’s resolutions, with his first resolution postponed indefinitely, in order to consider the following.

That a union of the states merely federal will not accomplish the objects proposed by the Articles of Confederation—namely, common defence, security of liberty, and general welfare. ¹

This resolution was in addition to two others agreed to regarding the general concepts of forbidding the States from making treaties, and making a government consisting of three branches, Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary. The use of the term here has no differing meaning than what Randolph had proposed the prior day in the Virginia Plan.

June 13th is the next time we encounter either general welfare itself, a draft of what would be the final version of Article I Section 8 Clause 1 or comparable scope of power, on a report from committee concerning a the basic structure of a new government [prelude to the New Jersey Plan].

6. Resolved, That the national legislature ought to be empowered to enjoy the legislative rights vested in Congress by the Confederation; and moreover, to legislate in all cases to which the separate states are incompetent, or in which the harmony of the United States may be interrupted by the exercise of individual legislation; to negative all laws passed by the several states contravening, in the opinion of the national legislature, the Articles of Union or any treaties subsisting under the authority of the Union. ¹

On June 15th the new Jersey Plan was submitted by William Patterson [New Jersey], with the 3rd Resolution addressing the ability to tax, in proportion to the population of all free persons, and indentured servants [excluding Indians not taxed]. But no mention of the purpose of the power to tax is described as we would come to see it in the Constitution.

The debates of the New Jersey plan carry into June 16th, when James Wilson [Pennsylvania] brought up 13 points in regards to the New Jersey Plan. His 6th point was:

6. The national legislature is to make laws in all cases to which the separate states are incompetent, &c.; in place of this, Congress are to have additional power in a few cases only. ¹

James Wilson later on, while discussing the necessity to divide the Legislature into two house, made the following point in regards to Congress in a single Legislature:

If the Legislative Authority be not restrained there can be neither liberty nor stability. ¹

Even though James Wilson [who did sign the Constitution] was discussing the need of having two house in the Legislature vice one as proposed in the New Jersey Plan, the sentiment carries is what is significant, is the desire for restraint on the Legislature, this was essential to ensure Liberty and to maintain a stable political system.

Though this resolution does directly reflect either general welfare or its clause, it does go toward showing the desire of the convention to base the power structure off of the Articles of Confederation, and expand them as needed.

It was not until July 17th that General Welfare was again discussed [in the records of the notes whom attended and the Federal Journal].

Mr. [Roger] SHERMAN observed, that it would be difficult to draw the line between the powers of the general legislature and those to be left with the states; that he did not like the definition contained in the resolution; and proposed, in its place, to the words “individual legislation,” inclusive, to insert “to make laws binding on the people of the United States in all cases which may concern the common interests of the Union; but not to interfere with the government of the individual states in any matters of internal police which respect the government of such states only, and wherein the general welfare of the United States is not concerned.” ¹

Roger Sherman [Connecticut] was discussing the following clause from the day before.

“And moreover to legislate in all cases to which the separate states are incompetent, or in which the harmony of the United States may be interrupted by the exercise of individual legislation,” ¹

At this point in the Convention the Delegates were debating the division of power from the National [Federal] and State Governments. Fresh on the minds of all was the inability of a state to quell a rebellion [Shay’s rebellion] in addition to the inability of the Congress Assembled to stop it because it lacked the power, in addition to numerous other short comings associated with the Articles of Confederation. This clause immediately drew the ire of several Delegates including Pierce Butler [South Carolina] and Nathaniel Gorham [Massachusetts]. They both contended on an explanation of particularly “incompetent”, and, “The vagueness of the terms rendered it impossible for any precise judgment to be formed”. John Rutledge [South Carolina] was also opposed, and moved for it be struck, with the votes being even, this motion failed.

Back to Roger Sherman’s motion, after being opposed by Gouverneur Morris [Pennsylvania] that some items the States did need policing, such as paper money, Roger Sherman defended the proposal by.

“in explanation of his idea, read an enumeration of powers, including the power of levying taxes on trade, but not the power of direct taxation.”. [italics noted in Madison’s Notes on the convention] ¹

In the end Roger Sherman’s proposal failed by a substantial 8-2 vote. But what is to note here is, nowhere in the discussion was General Welfare moved to be a power of General Power, but was rather simply used as a passive term of description of the purpose of his proposal. The debate centered around how to effectively divide National from State powers, and the overall premise was the National government could not interfere with the actions of a State, unless it was against the interest of the “general welfare”, of the United states as a whole. as he later explained was limited to the enumerated powers and levying of taxes on trade. In the whole context, the idea was not to enable the National government to do things it felt were in the National welfare, but to prevent only those that were actions by states that were against the whole National welfare. As it was implied in this instance, it was not making reference to it is a general enabling power to a governing body.

The fact that the “incompetent’ drew a significant amount of attention from several delegates due to its potential of allowing the government to expand its powers to those it was not intended, while the term “general welfare” was drew no objections at all, goes to only supports the previous notion, that this term is used as a general meaning phrase to describe purpose and not a power enabling general clause. The whole debate around this single use is substantial in that it also was in reference of taxing power, the power that would eventual be described in the very same clause general welfare ended up in.

On July 26th resolutions were agreed to on the basic structure of the new Constitution, included in these is Resolution 6:

6. Resolved, That the national legislature ought to possess the legislative rights vested in Congress by the Confederation; and, moreover, to legislate in all cases for the general interests of the Union, and also in those to which the states are separately incompetent, or in which the harmony of the United States may be interrupted by the exercise of individual legislation.

After the whole proposal of 23 resolutions were submitted, they were referred to committee along with Charles Pinckney’s [South Carolina] Constitution proposal from May 29th, and William Patterson’s New Jersey plan from June 15th. As already mentioned William Patterson’s New Jersey plan did not contain a general welfare or power clause, though did contain the contended “incompetence'” portion, that is still reflected in the 6th resolution on July 26th. Charles Pinckney’s draft Constitution from May 29th, also did not contain a general welfare or power clause, but did contain the context of the rest of what is Article I Section Clause 1, in Article VI of his proposal.

Art VI – The Legislature of the United states shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, imposts, and excises. ²

Similar to the Articles of Confederation, and the same as we see in the final Constitution, Charles Pinckney [who also did sign the Constitution] follows these up with enumerated powers clauses, 20 to be exact, as well as another set of prohibitive clauses, all very near what we see in the present Constitution, including direct taxes proportioned to the number of free inhabitants, before being allowed to be done in a manner as Congress directs [lest Capitation taxes which are to remain proportional]. But nowhere in Pinckney’s proposal is any sort of general welfare or general power to Congress mentioned or implied.
Through July 26th, General Welfare or any form of it, has been used very sparingly and sporadically, and thus far used mainly in reference to the use of it in the Articles of Confederation. But debates have already taken place about other aspects of Congressional power and is it being restrained enough, but not one of these was on the term general welfare. Up to this point in the Convention it does not seem to appear that general welfare is anything more than the term that was used in the Articles of Confederation which carried no weight of power at all as discussed in part 1, because why would they debate ‘incompetence’ as being too much power to Congress and draw the ire of at least half the delegates based on the split vote for its removal, but not even mention once an opposition “general welfare” also as being a power that may give Congress too much power?

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

¹ James Madison Notes on the Convention of 1787
² Charles Pinckney Draft Constitution, presented on May 29th 1787. No record from the Convention of 1787 itself outlines Pinckney’s proposed Constitution, though Journals do reflect the fact he submitted one for consideration. The Draft used as his proposal was submitted by Pinckney himself in 1818 years after the Convention, when an attempt was being made to collect and preserve all information from the Convention itself by future President John Quincy Adams. The fact that limited records from the Convention details his proposals does call into question the accuracy of the Draft he submitted as to being the one actually proposed on May 29, 1787, though notes from James Wilson discovered in the early 1900’s tend to show much a what he submitted to be accurate.

Subscribe to: Posts ( Atom )

Pages

Wednesday, January 22, 2014

Thursday, April 19, 2012

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Monday, July 11, 2011

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Monday, March 7, 2011

James Madison, do you know him?

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Friday, February 18, 2011

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Saturday, January 15, 2011

Monday, December 27, 2010

Sunday, December 19, 2010

Saturday, December 18, 2010

Saturday, November 13, 2010

Thursday, November 4, 2010

Saturday, October 23, 2010

Monday, October 18, 2010

PlanetUSA

Total Pageviews

Site Visits Since February 20, 2011

Search 2.0