Category: Warren Throckmorton

May 30, 1787
The delegates debated the need for three branches of government and postponed a decision on representation. Delaware’s delegates had been instructed not to change the current arrangement which gave small states the same representation as large states. Many delegates wanted to change representation to be based on population but did not want to lose Delaware so early in the Convention. This matter was postponed.
The delegates did agree that the new government needed executive, judicial and legislative branches. At this point, no rationale was offered.
Read all of the posts in this Constitutional Convention series here.

May 29, 1787
The Convention wasted little time considering substantial changes to the Articles of Confederation. After seating John Dickinson (DE) and Elbridge Gerry (MA) and passing some additional rules, plans of government were introduced for consideration by Edmund Randolph and Charles Pinckney.
Randolph’s plan began with a set of goals:

The character of such a government ought to secure, first, against foreign invasion ; secondly, against dissensions between members of the Union, or seditions in particular States; thirdly, to procure to the several States various blessings of which an isolated situation was incapable; fourthly, it should be able to defend itself against encroachment; and fifthly, to be paramount to the State Constitutions. (p. 59).

Randolph first listed the problems in the Articles of Confederation:

2. In speaking of the defects of the Confederation, he professed a high respect for its authors, and considered them as having done all that patriots could do, in the then infancy of the science of constitutions, and of confederacies; when the inefficiency of requisitions was unknown— no commercial discord had arisen among any States —no rebellion bad appeared, as in Massachusetts — foreign debts had not become urgent— the havoc of paper-money had not been foreseen — treaties had not been violated— and perhaps nothing better could be obtained, from the jealousy of the States with regard to their sovereignty.
He then proceeded to enumerate the defects:—-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 shew, 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 the States, nor a rebellion in any, not having constitutional power nor means to impose 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.
3. He next reviewed the danger of our situation and appealed to the sense of the best friends of the United States— to the prospect of anarchy from the laxity of government every where — and to other considerations.

In presenting the case for a new governing document, Randolph referred to practical problems without resorting to religious justification or the Declaration of Independence. Christian nation advocates often view the Attestation clause of the Constitution as incorporating the religious language of the Declaration into the Constitution. The starting point for these delegates was the Articles and the problems with the current government.

The Pinckney Plan

After Randolph’s plan was presented, Charles Pinckney moved to introduce his plan. Madison records:

Mr. Charles Pinckney laid before the House the draft of a federal government which he had prepared, to be agreed upon between the free and independent States of America.
Ordered, that the said draft be referred to the Committee of the Whole appointed to consider the state of the American Union.

Pinckney’s plan was referred to committee and not referred to until later. However, it apparently had influence because much of it made it into the finished product. The story of what was in Pinckney’s original plan is beyond the scope of this post. For more on the contents and debates by historians about what was in the original plan consult the most ambitious record of the Convention, that of Yale historian Max Ferrand.
Ferrand brought together notes made by other delegates in addition to Madison. This record may be examined online in several formats (e.g., also here). In that record, a speech planned by Pinckney but probably not delivered, is included. Pinckney later had it published as a part of his support for the Constitution’s ratification. In this speech found in Appendix A of Ferrand’s Records, Pinckney lays out his rationale for the plan he presented to the delegates on May 29. He gives very little information about the sources for his work but below are some hints:

Upon this principle, however abused, the parliament of Great Britain is formed, and it has been universally adopted by the States in the formation of their Legislatures. It would be impolitic in us, to deem that unjust, which is a certain and beneficial truth. The abuse of this equality, has been censured as one of the most dangerous corruptions of the English Constitution; and I hope we shall not incautiously contract a disease that has been consuming them. (p. 109)
Montesquieu, who had very maturely considered the nature of a confederated Government, gives the preference to the Lycian, which was formed upon this model. The assigning to each State its due importance in the federal Councils, at once removes three of the most glaring defects and inconveniences of the present Confederation. (p. 109)
No possibility of precipitately adopting improper measures ought to be admitted, and such checks should be imposed, as we find, from experience, have been useful in other governments. In the Parliament of Great Britain, as well as in most, and the best instituted legislatures in the States, we find, not only two Branches, but in some, a Council of Revision, consisting of their executive, and principal officers of government. This, I consider as an improvement in legislation, and have therefore incorporated it as a part of the system. (p. 110)
Under the British Government, notwithstanding we early and warmly resisted their other attacks, no objection was ever made to the negative of the King. (p. 113)
It is the anarchy, if we may use the term, or rather worse than anarchy of a pure democracy, which I fear. Where the laws lose their respect, and the Magistrates their authority; where no permanent security is given to the property and privileges of the Citizens; and no measures pursued, but such as suit the temporary interest and convenience of the prevailing parties, I cannot figure to myself a Government more truly degrading; and yet such has been the fate of all the antient, and probably will be, of all the modern Republics. The progress has been regular, from order to licentiousness; from licentiousness to anarchy, and from thence to despotism. If we review the ancient Confederacies of Greece, we shall find that each of them in their turn, became a prey to the turbulence of their members; who, refusing to obey the Federal Head, and upon all occasions insulting, and opposing its authority, afforded an opportunity to foreign powers, to interfere and subvert them. There is not an example in history, of a Confederacy’s being enslaved or ruined by the invasions of the supreme authority, nor is it scarcely possible, for depending for support and maintenance upon the members, it will always be in their power to check and prevent injuring them. The Helvetic and Belgic Confederacies, which, if we except the Gryson league, are the only Governments that can be called Republics in Europe, have the same vices with the ancients. The too great and dangerous influence of the parts — an influence, that will sooner or later subject them to the same fate. In short, from their example, and from our own experience, there can be no truth more evident than this, that, unless our Government is consolidated, as far as is practicable, by retrenching the State authorities, and concentering as much force and vigor in the Union, as are adequate to its exigencies, we shall soon be a divided, and consequently an unhappy people. (p. 115)
I trust no Government will ever again be adopted in this Country, whose Alteration cannot be effected but by the assent of all its Members. The hazardous situation the United Netherlands are frequently placed in on this account, as well as our own mortifying experience, are sufficient to warn us from a danger which has already nearly proved fatal. (p. 121)
The next Article l provides for the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus — the Trial by Jury in all cases, Criminal as well as Civil — the Freedom of the Press, and the prevention of Religious Tests, as qualifications to Offices of Trust or Emolument: The three first essential in Free Governments; the last, a provision the world will expect from you, in the establishment of a System founded on Republican Principles, and in an age so liberal and enlightened as the present. (p. 122)

In addition to these specific influences, Pinckney appealed generally to the problems encountered while trying to make the Article of Confederation work. The founders learned from experience that something else was needed.
Near the end of Pinckney’s explanations, he mentions religion. He advises the elimination of religious tests for holding office (many states had these), as a provision expected by the world in a liberal and enlightened age. If Charles Pinckney wished to establish a Constitution with biblical principles in every clause, he certainly didn’t do a very good job.

David  Barton’s Deuteronomy Citizenship Claim

David Barton frequently claims that the citizenship requirement of Article II of the Constitution came from Deuteronomy’s requirement that a Jewish king be a Jew. Pinckney opines in favor of a citizenship requirement but doesn’t mention the Bible as a basis.

The Federal Government should also possess the exclusive right of declaring on what terms the privileges of citizenship and naturalization should be extended to foreigners. At present the citizens of one State, are entitled to the privileges of citizens in every State. Hence it follows, that a foreigner, as soon as he is admitted to the rights of citizenship in one, becomes entitled to them in all. The States differed widely in their regulations on this subject. I have known it already productive of inconveniences, and think they must increase. The younger States will hold out every temptation to foreigners, by making the admission to office less difficult in their Governments, than the older. — I believe in some States, the residence which will enable a foreigner to hold any office, will not in others intitle him to a vote. To render this power generally useful it must be placed in the Union, where alone it can be equally exercised. (p. 120)

With two plans before the Convention, the delegates then adjourned.
 
Madison’s notes with a version of Pinckney’s plan added by the editor.

On May 28, 1787 the delegates heard and approved the rules which governed the Convention.  These sound very much like Robert’s Rules of Order, which were published in the mid-1800s.
I like this one:

A member may be called to order by any other member, as well as by the President; and may be allowed to explain his conduct, or expressions supposed to be reprehensible. And all questions of order shall be decided by the President, without appeal or debate. (p. 57)

George Washington had the final say to decide if a member was unruly.
I note that the Convention did not open in prayer nor did they appeal to any religious basis for their tasks.
Source for notes on the entire Convention; notes for May 28.
 

I was reminded by Thomas Kidd in his excellent article about Benjamin Franklin in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal that the Constitutional Convention kicked off activities this month on May 14, 1787 and then really got down to business on May 25. In light of recent claims by David Barton that “every clause of the Constitution has an overarching Biblical theme to it. Because they understood the nature of man, the nature of God, the nature of government, and that all comes from a study of the Bible in the study of history,” I thought it would be good to read through the notes taken by James Madison on a daily basis. For my reading, I am using the 1893 version edited by E.H. Scott and published by Albert, Scott & Company. Another reading option from the Avalon project provides a link to each day’s entry (see also this one from Ashland University). I hope you will read along with me.

I plan to look for the Bible in the notes of the Convention. Surely, if the Bible influenced much of the Constitution, I will find frequent references to it in my reading. I will report every one I find.

I hope readers will also read along in order to keep me honest and help discern the influences which animated the delegates to create the form of government we now enjoy.

Madison’s first dated entry was May 14:

Monday, May 14th, 1787,
Was the day fixed for the meeting of the Deputies in Convention, for revising the federal system of government. On that day a small number only had assembled. Seven States were not convened till,

Friday, May 25th.
When the following members appeared: (p. 53)

Madison then listed the delegates in the first meeting.

The first order of business on May 25, 1787 was to elect a president. George Washington was unanimously chosen:

Mr. Robert Morris informed the members assembled, that, by the instruction and in behalf of the deputation of Pennsylvania, he proposed George Washington, Esquire, late Commander-in-Chief, for President of the Convention.* Mr. John Rutledge seconded the motion, expressing his confidence that the choice would be unanimous; and observing, that the presence of General Washington forbade any observations on the occasion which might otherwise be proper.

General Washington was accordingly unanimously elected by ballot, and conducted to the Chair by Mr. R. Morris and Mr. Rutledge ; from which, in a very emphatic manner, he thanked the Convention for the honor they had conferred on him; reminded them of the novelty of the scene of business in which he was to act, lamented his want of better qualifications, and claimed the indulgence of the House towards the involuntary errors which his inexperience might occasion.

Following the selection of a secretary and rules committee, the Convention adjourned until May 28.

Lately, Glenn Beck and David Barton have been pushing their summer internship program. In a brief spot Monday, Beck and Barton claimed education was great until progressives took over in the 1920s. From the article:

Prior to the 1920s, students completed school through eighth grade and each year had to pass a written exam that involved understanding the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, George Washington’s Farewell Address and their state constitution, Barton explained. The older system of education was called “spiraling” because students would revisit the same topics while expanding on them each year.
Today, students learn history in discrete chunks with the “tri-division” method, studying Christopher Columbus in one grade, the Civil War in the next, and so on, Barton asserted. Because students are learning their history piece by piece, they never go back to the same period again and don’t retain the information in a real way.

In response, historian John Fea provided a citation from 1917 which contradicts Barton’s claim.

Surely a grade of 33 in 100 on the simplest and most obvious facts of American history is not a record in which any high school can take pride.

This quote comes from a 1917 article in the Journal of Educational Psychology by J. Carleton Bell and D.F. McCollum. Bell and McCollum surveyed Texas schools and learned that history education wasn’t doing well. The 33% figure is an average of history knowledge scores at a sampling of high schools in Texas. Please note that I said high schools. Contrary to Barton’s claims, students went to high school before progressives took over, whenever that happened.*
The context for the quote is telling. According to Bell and McCollum, some Texas school districts didn’t start teaching history until later in elementary school if at all. Barton’s golden age wasn’t as golden as he described it. Bell and McCollum write:

The final average per cents, of the five high schools are Austin 30, Brenham 33, Houston 33, Huntsville 24, and San Marcos 31. With the exception of Huntsville the schools present about the same general picture—wide variations in the responses to particular questions, but these variations balancing each other. In the elementary schools the final average per cents, are Austin 10, Brenham 18, Houston 12, Huntsville 17, and San Marcos 23. It must be noted that for San Marcos we have only the sixth and seventh grades. Comparison of the results grade by grade shows that Austin and Houston are in the same class and that the other three schools are distinctly in advance, making at least fifty per cent, better showing. Column one, however, shows the reason. In the Austin and Houston schools no work in history is given before the seventh grade, while in the other schools the pupils begin history in the fourth or fifth grade. In view of the fact that pupils who have begun history later make as good a showing in the high school as those who began it earlier (compare Houston with Brenham or San Marcos) it might be argued that the study of history by elementary school pupils is a waste of time. The case, however, is by no means so simple. The high schools of Houston and Austin have the reputation of being very well administered and of having an exceptionally high grade of teachers. If the other cities had as well organized and equipped high schools perhaps their pupils would have made a better showing. Surely a grade of 33 in 100 on the simplest and most obvious facts of American history is not a record in which any high school can take great pride. (pp. 267-269)

Reading the Bell and McCollum article provoked my interest in education before 1920 and so I looked up several reports on education during that time period. None of what I have read so far provides support for Barton simplistic analysis. For instance, Barton makes it seem like education was done one way – students all learned history the same way and all went to college after eighth grade. However, the reports from that era make it clear that there was little uniformity of teaching methodology. For instance, a report on history education dated 1898 says:

In all of our work we have endeavored not only to discover any agreement or common understanding that may exist among American teachers, but to keep in mind the fact that local conditions and environments vary exceedingly; that what may be expected of a large and well-equipped school need not be expected of a small one, and that large preparatory schools and academies, some of them intentionally fitting boys for one or two universities, are in a situation quite unlike that in which the great majority of high schools are compelled to work. We have sought chiefly to discuss, in an argumentative way, the general subject submitted for consideration, to offer suggestions as to methods of historical teaching and as to the place of history on the school programme, being fully aware that, when all is said and done, only so much will be adopted as appeals to the sense and judgment of the secondary teachers and superintendents, and that any rigid list of requirements, or any body of peremptory demands, however judiciously framed, not only would, but should, be disregarded in schools whose local conditions make it unwise to accept them.

A report (The Committee of Ten) dated 1894 says:

The traditional age for beginning Latin is about fifteen and the average for entering college is nineteen.

Nineteen would be old for an eighth grader. The 1892 Committee of Ten (convened by the National Education Association) recommended that all school districts provide instruction through the 12th grade.
Graduating high school students wanting knowledge of history could consult this list of books or attend a college with a good history program (write and ask, I can name several).
 
*Early in American education, many students only went through 8th grade in anticipation of entering the work force. Barton’s contention that students went to school through 8th grade has some truth to it. However, college was not the end result for most of them (on Beck’s audio, Barton claimed students just went on to college after the 8th grade).