Glossary of Terms and Phrases

Note: This is will be updated over time, and is not all inclusive or complete

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.htmhttp://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/delegates/randolph.html

 

Ping my podcast

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.

The Convention of 1787: The Convention is called, February 21, 1787

On February 21, 1787 the Congress Assembled passed the following resolution,

Whereas there is provision in the Articles of Confederation & perpetual Union for making alterations therein by the Assent of a Congress of the United States and of the legislatures of the several States; And whereas experience hath evinced that there are defects in the present Confederation, as a mean to remedy which several of the States and particularly the State of New York by express instructions to their delegates in Congress have suggested a convention for the purposes expressed in the following resolution and such Convention appearing to be the most probable mean of establishing in these states a firm national government

Resolved that in the opinion of Congress it is expedient that on the second Monday in May next a Convention of delegates who shall have been appointed by the several states be held at Philadelphia for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall when agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the states render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of Government & the preservation of the Union

Nullification or Justified Defiance? (Quick Thoughts)

Being an Originalist I am flatly opposed to the traditional concept of Nullification, that being a State ignoring or dismissing a Federal Law, Statute or other act or power, because that state does not like that law, act or power. The most significant issue with nullification is, the Constitution and Federal Law of the United States is superior to that of the States. The Supreme Court has ruled that the States cannot nullify Federal Law, since it is given supremacy over State law by the Constitution.

Article VI of the Constitution States;

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land”

Idaho is preparing to pass a law which will prohibit the enforcement of the Health Care Reform act of 2010¹. What makes this interesting compared to traditional nullification is it is not because the State does not like the law (though it probably does not like it), but because the State of Idaho contends the Law in illegal or Unconstitutional. The State is contending it cannot be made to enforce an illegal law, which brings up the question, is this nullification or justified defiance and checking an abuse of power?

This will certainly quickly head to the court system, but what any decision by the courts will hinge on is this part of Article VI, “which shall be made in Pursuance thereof (of the Constitution)”. If a law is not made in pursuance to the Constitution, it cannot be enforced so it cannot be supreme. This will also a explore the order of power, since it was the States who granted the power the Federal Government has, are they also not ones to be judges an abuse of the power given? The States can challenge in federal Court, but that is both expensive for each issue, and can take years to resolve making it prohibitive for many things. Could this be an appropriate method to check federal power when laws are passed without regard to its constitutionality and just passes what it wants relying only a court to say, “your out of the box”. This concept of Idaho from first take does not prohibit a challenge and ruling against the State either, nor does it permit a State to disregard a valid law.

This is a topic that can be explored in great depth in many other aspects, but this is just a quick first impression of the most significant constitutional and power structure parts of it.

1: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/20/AR2011012005860.html