JFC2017 – Page 10 – Warren Throckmorton

Was the Constitution's Political Vision Formed by the Bible?

In the July 3 issue of the Philadelphia Inquirer, American University historian Daniel Dreisbach said the Constitution’s political vision was in part formed by the Bible. Dreisbach wrote that “The Constitution gives evidence of a political vision informed, in part, by the Bible, and it includes features that were familiar to a Bible-reading people.” He added that “the founders’ devotion to the separation of powers and checks and balances reflected a biblical understanding of original sin and a reluctance to vest unchecked government power in the hands of fallen human beings.”
If the delegates to the Constitutional Convention had Bible doctrine in mind when they framed the Constitution, they had a strange way of showing it. I am in the middle of a summer long project to read James Madison’s daily notes on the debates during the Convention and I am not finding evidence of the Bible’s influence. The Convention got underway in earnest in late May of 1787 and proceeded six days a week until mid-September. Thus far, the delegates rejected a direct call to prayer made by Benjamin Franklin and rarely referred to religion in their remarks.
When Ben Franklin implored the delegates to seek the assistance of heaven, the delegates adjourned without voting on Franklin’s motion. Franklin later invoked the Scripture in a debate over qualifications for the presidency. In his Inquirer article, Dreisbach said “the delegates occasionally invoked the Bible in surprising and interesting ways.” Based on my reading, I think it would be more accurate to say the delegates rarely invoked the Bible.
Franklin’s reference to the Bible was supplemented by another persuasive appeal. Franklin’s comments were in response to a motion by Charles Pinkney to require “that the President of the U. S. the Judges, and members of the Legislature should be required to swear that they were respectively possessed of a cleared unincumbered Estate to the amount of —– in the case of the President &c &c.” Pinkney wanted to limit these offices to land owners with an undetermined level of wealth. First, Connecticut’s Oliver Ellsworth spoke against the motion followed by Franklin.

Mr. ELSEWORTH [Oliver Ellsworth]. The different circumstances of different parts of the U. S. and the probable difference between the present and future circumstances of the whole, render it improper to have either uniform or fixed qualifications. Make them so high as to be useful in the S. States, and they will be inapplicable to the E. States. Suit them to the latter, and they will serve no purpose in the former. In like manner what may be accomodated to the existing State of things among us, may be very inconvenient in some future state of them. He thought for these reasons that it was better to leave this matter to the Legislative discretion than to attempt a provision for it in the Constitution.
Doctr. FRANKLIN expressed his dislike of every thing that tended to debase the spirit of the common people. If honesty was often the companion of wealth, and if poverty was exposed to peculiar temptation, it was not less true that the possession of property increased the desire of more property. Some of the greatest rogues he was ever acquainted with, were the richest rogues. We should remember the character which the Scripture requires in Rulers, that they should be men hating covetousness. This Constitution will be much read and attended to in Europe, and if it should betray a great partiality to the rich, will not only hurt us in the esteem of the most liberal and enlightened men there, but discourage the common people from removing into this Country.

Franklin’s use of Scripture was one aspect of his argument but he wanted to discourage a perception of partiality to the rich for other reasons. Specifically, Franklin thought Pinkney’s proposal would lower the reputation of the new nation among the enlightened as well as discourage immigration of common folk.
As I read the debates, religious references were used sparingly and as supplements to historical and political arguments. The delegates frequently refer to Greece and Rome, European governments, and Britain. Sometimes they explicitly refer to Montesquieu, whereas they frequently invoke his The Spirit of Laws without mentioning a direct source.
Having addressed Dreisbach’s overreach, I want to add that he is surely correct that the Christianity of the founders was one part of the mix of influences. For instance, Dreisbach is on more solid ground when he writes:

The founding generation drew on and synthesized diverse intellectual traditions in forming their political thought. Among them were British constitutionalism, Enlightenment liberalism, and classical and civic republicanism.
To this list of intellectual influences, one must add the Bible…

On the whole, however, I think Dreisbach skews his evidence to create an incomplete and ultimately inaccurate narrative. He says the Bible was the most frequently cited source over Locke and Montesquieu but doesn’t mention that a large number of these citations were in sermons from pastors and not by the founders. He doesn’t balance his presentation by noting that the federalists did not mention the Bible in their defense of the Constitution (the anti-federalists did reference the Bible, but they didn’t prevail). Dreisbach notes that the 1774 Continental Congress opened with prayer and Bible reading but failed to disclose that Ben Franklin’s call for the Constitutional Convention to do the same thing was rejected by a sizable majority of delegates. Then, as explained above, Dreisbach invoked Franklin’s reference to Scripture in isolation without including the context of his other remarks and the rarity of their occurrence. Finally, during the Constitutional Convention, when separation of powers was brought up, the source of influence was more often Montesquieu than theology.
Some may object to my critique of a distinguished American historian. However, I say read the debates of the Constitutional Convention before you dismiss my response. On the whole, I can’t find sufficient evidence that the Constitution’s political vision had much to do with the Bible. I realize that religion was very important at various points in the American experience and many of the founders expressed thanks to God. Some of the founders wanted the new republic to privilege religion and particularly Christianity. To me, the real miracle is that the consensus of the framers was to eliminate religious tests and to include language in the First Amendment enshrining freedom of conscience for all, even those who hold no religion.

The 1787 Constitutional Convention – The Connecticut Compromise Holds

July 17, 1787 (click to read Madison’s notes)

Summary

The delegates had a busy day. The large state delegates caucused to discuss the matter of equal representation in the Senate. These delegates didn’t like the idea and felt equal representation was not consistent with a republican government. However, they decided not to challenge the Connecticut compromise. Madison’s notes regarding this meeting can be read in his posting for 7/16/17.
Regarding the new Congress, the delegates passed a motion allowing the new legislature to rule for the general interests of the United States and where states were “incompetent.” Then the delegates defeated a motion to give Congress power to veto state laws, however followed that by allowing that the laws and treaties of Congress were supreme law in the states. The delegates then turned to the executive branch and agreed again on a single chief executive elected by the legislature. They then debated the term of the president without finality in today’s session.

Influences on the Delegates

In his defense of the legislative veto of state laws, Madison invoked Britain favorably.

A power of negativing the improper laws of the States is at once the most mild and certain means of preserving the harmony of the system. Its utility is sufficiently displayed in the British system. Nothing could maintain the harmony and subordination of the various parts of the Empire, but the prerogative by which the Crown stifles in the birth every act of every part tending to discord or encroachment. It is true the prerogative is sometimes misapplied, through ignorance or partiality to one particular part of the Empire; but we have not the same reason to fear such misapplications in our system. As to the sending all laws up to the National Legislature, that might be rendered unnecessary by some emanation of the power into the States, so far at least as to give a temporary effect to laws of immediate necessity.

Will the President Be Like a Pope?

To promote fear of a legislatively chosen executive, Gouverneur Morris used the negative example of the Pope.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS was pointedly against his being so chosen. He will be the mere creature of the Legislature, if appointed and impeachable by that body. He ought to be elected by the people at large — by the freeholders of the country. That difficulties attend this mode, he admits. But they have been found superable in New York and in Connecticut, and would, he believed, be found so in the case of an Executive for the United States. If the people should elect, they will never fail to prefer some man of distinguished character, or services; some man, if he might so speak, of continental reputation. If the Legislature elect, it will be the work of intrigue, of cabal, and of faction; it will be like the election of a pope by a conclave of cardinals; real merit will rarely be the title to the appointment. He moved to strike out “National Legislature,” and insert “citizens of the United States.”

James Wilson looked to the experience of Poland and Massachusetts to respond to arguments regarding the choice of an executive by the people.

Mr. WILSON. Two arguments have been urged against an election of the Executive magistrate by the people. The first is, the example of Poland, where an election of the supreme magistrate is attended with the most dangerous commotions. The cases, he observed, were totally dissimilar. The Polish nobles have resources and dependants which enable them to appear in force, and to threaten the Republic as well as each other. In the next place, the electors all assemble at one place; which would not be the case with us. The second argument is, that a majority of the people would never concur. It might be answered, that the concurrence of a majority of the people is not a necessary principle of election, nor required as such in any of the States. But allowing the objection all its force, it may be obviated by the expedient used in Massachusetts, where the Legislature, by a majority of voices, decide in case a majority of the people do not concur in favor of one of the candidates. This would restrain the choice to a good nomination at least, and prevent in a great degree intrigue and cabal. A particular objection with him against an absolute election by the Legislature was, that the Executive in that case would be too dependent to stand the mediator between the intrigues and sinister views of the Representatives and the general liberties and interests of the people.

Morris then responded to the Poland example and raised Britain and Holland again:

If the Executive be chosen by the national Legislature, he will not be independent of it; and if not independent, usurpation and tyranny on the part of the Legislature will be the consequence. This was the case in England in the last century. It has been the case in Holland, where their Senates have engrossed all power. It has been the case every where. He was surprised that an election by the people at large should ever have been likened to the Polish election of the first Magistrate. An election by the Legislature will bear a real likeness to the election by the Diet of Poland. The great must be the electors in both cases, and the corruption and cabal which are known to characterize the one would soon find their way into the other. Appointments made by numerous bodies are always worse than those made by single responsible individuals or by the people at large.

Madison then provided a rational for separation of powers that invoked Montesquieu rather than the Bible.

Mr. MADISON.² If it be essential to the preservation of liberty that the Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary powers be separate, it is essential to a maintenance of the separation, that they should be independent of each other. The Executive could not be independent of the Legislature, if dependent on the pleasure of that branch for a re-appointment. Why was it determined that the Judges should not hold their places by such a tenure? Because they might be tempted to cultivate the Legislature by an undue complaisance, and thus render the Legislature the virtual expositor, as well as the maker of the laws. In like manner, a dependence of the Executive on the Legislature would render it the executor as well as the maker of laws; and then, according to the observation of Montesquieu, tyrannical laws may be made that they may be executed in a tyrannical manner. There was an analogy between the Executive and Judiciary departments in several respects. The latter executed the laws in certain cases, as the former did in others. The former expounded and applied them for certain purposes, as the latter did for others. The difference between them seemed to consist chiefly in two circumstances, — first, the collective interest and security were much more in the power belonging to the Executive, than to the Judiciary, department; secondly, in the administration of the former, much greater latitude is left to opinion and discretion than in the administration of the latter. But if the second consideration proves that it will be more difficult to establish a rule sufficiently precise for trying the Executive, than the Judges, and forms an objection to the same tenure of office, both considerations prove that it might be more dangerous to suffer a union between the Executive and Legislative powers, than between the judiciary and legislative powers. He conceived it to be absolutely necessary to a well constituted Republic, that the two first should be kept distinct and independent of each other. Whether the plan proposed by the motion was a proper one, was another question; as it depended on the practicability of instituting a tribunal for impeachments as certain and as adequate in the one case as in the other. On the other hand, respect for the mover entitled his proposition to a fair hearing and discussion, until a less objectionable expedient should be applied for guarding against a dangerous union of the Legislative and Executive departments.

1787 Constitutional Convention Series

To read my series examining the proceedings of the Constitution Convention, click here. In this series, I am writing about any obvious influences on the development of the Constitution which were mentioned by the delegates to the Convention. Specifically, I am testing David Barton’s claim that “every clause” of the Constitution is based on biblical principles. Thus far, I have found nothing supporting the claim. However, stay tuned, the series will run until mid-September.
Constitutional Convention Series (click the link)
To follow on social media, click the following links:
Facebook (blog posts and news)
Facebook (Getting Jefferson Right – history news)
Twitter

The 1787 Constitutional Convention – Should Representation of New States Be Limited?

July 14, 1787 (Click the link to read Madison’s notes)

Summary

The delegates decided not to limit representation of new western states and defeated an effort to make Senate membership based on on population.

Influences on the Delegates

Madison appealed to the Dutch government as an example of one means of representation:

In the Dutch Confederacy the votes of the provinces were equal; but Holland, which supplies about half the money, governed the whole Republic. He enumerated the objections against an equality of votes in the second branch, notwithstanding the proportional representation in the first. 1. The minority could negative the will of the majority of the people. 2. They could extort measures, by making them a condition of their assent to other necessary measures. 3. They could obtrude measures on the majority, by virtue of the peculiar powers which would be vested in the Senate. 4. The evil, instead of being cured by time, would increase with every new State that should be admitted, as they must all be admitted on the principle of equality. 5. The perpetuity it would give to the preponderance of the Northern against the Southern scale was a serious consideration. It seemed now to be pretty well understood, that the real difference of interest lay, not between the large and small, but between the Northern and Southern, States. The institution of slavery, and its consequences, formed the line of discrimination. There were five States on the Southern, eight on the Northern side of this line. Should a proportional representation take place, it was true, the Northern would still outnumber the other; but not in the same degree, at this time; and every day would tend towards an equilibrium.

By the end of his speech, Madison came back to the elephant in the room – the debate between the Northern and Southern states, principally over slavery.
Although no one took up his theme in this session, the delegates voted down a proportional system in the Senate.
For a nice summary of the Convention debate over slavery see this article.

1787 Constitutional Convention Series

To read my series examining the proceedings of the Constitution Convention, click here. In this series, I am writing about any obvious influences on the development of the Constitution which were mentioned by the delegates to the Convention. Specifically, I am testing David Barton’s claim that “every clause” of the Constitution is based on biblical principles. Thus far, I have found nothing supporting the claim; there have been very few references to religion or the Bible. However, stay tuned, the series will run until mid-September.
Constitutional Convention Series (click the link)

To follow on social media, click the following links:

Facebook (blog posts and news)
Facebook (Getting Jefferson Right – history news)
Twitter

The 1787 Constitutional Convention – Representation Debate Continued Today

July 13, 1787

Summary

Today, the delegates agreed that the Legislature would regulate the number of representatives in accord with a count of inhabitants and that taxation for the national treasury, until the first census, would be based on the number of representatives sent by a state.

Influences on the Delegates

James Wilson again appealed to Great Britain and specifically to the revolution to say that numerical representation seemed the fairest way forward.

Mr. WILSON. If a general declaration would satisfy any gentleman, he had no indisposition to declare his sentiments. Conceiving that all men, wherever placed, have equal rights, and are equally entitled to confidence, he viewed without apprehension the period when a few States should contain the superior number of people. The majority of people, wherever found, ought in all questions to govern the minority. If the interior country should acquire this majority, it will not only have the right, but will avail itself of it, whether we will or no. This jealousy misled the policy of Great Britain with regard to America. The fatal maxims espoused by her were, that the Colonies were growing too fast, and that their growth must be stinted in time. What were the consequences? First enmity on our part, then actual separation. Like consequences will result on the part of the interior settlements, if like jealousy and policy be pursued on ours. Further, if numbers be not a proper rule, why is not some better rule pointed out? No one has yet ventured to attempt it. Congress have never been able to discover a better. No State, as far as he had heard, had suggested any other. In 1783, after elaborate discussion of a measure of wealth, all were satisfied then, as they now are, that the rule of numbers does not differ much from the combined rule of numbers and wealth. Again, he could not agree that property was the sole or primary object of government and society. The cultivation and improvement of the human mind was the most noble object. With respect to this object, as well as to other personal rights, numbers were surely the natural and precise measure of representation. And with respect to property, they could not vary much from the precise measure. In no point of view, however, could the establishment of numbers, as the rule of representation in the first branch, vary his opinion as to the impropriety of letting a vicious principle into the second branch.

The delegates then voted to strike out wealth as a means of establishing representation.

On the question to strike out wealth, and to make the change as moved by Mr. RANDOLPH, it passed in the affirmative, — Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, aye — 9; Delaware, divided.

Slavery Again

The delegates came back to the hot topic of slavery and representation. An exchange between Pennsylvania’s Morris and South Carolina’s Butler illustrates:

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS opposed the alteration, as leaving still an incoherence. If negroes were to be viewed as inhabitants, and the revision was to proceed on the principle of numbers of inhabitants, they ought to be added in their entire number, and not in the proportion of three-fifths. If as property, the word wealth was right; and striking it out would produce the very inconsistency which it was meant to get rid of. The train of business, and the late turn which it had taken, had led him, he said, into deep meditation on it, and he would candidly state the result. A distinction had been set up, and urged, between the Northern and Southern States. He had hitherto considered this doctrine as heretical. He still thought the distinction groundless. He sees, however, that it is persisted in; and the Southern gentlemen will not be satisfied unless they see the way open to their gaining a majority in the public councils. The consequence of such a transfer of power from the maritime to the interior and landed interest, will, he foresees, be such an oppression to commerce, that he shall be obliged to vote for the vicious principle of equality in the second branch, in order to provide some defence for the Northern States against it. But, to come more to the point, either this distinction is fictitious or real; if fictitious, let it be dismissed, and let us proceed with due confidence. If it be real, instead of attempting to blend incompatible things, let us at once take a friendly leave of each other. There can be no end of demands for security, if every particular interest is to be entitled to it. The Eastern States may claim it for their fishery, and for other objects, as the Southern States claim it for their peculiar objects. In this struggle between the two ends of the Union, what part ought the Middle States, in point of policy, to take? To join their Eastern brethren, according to his ideas. If the Southern States get the power into their hands, and be joined, as they will be, with the interior country, they will inevitably bring on a war with Spain for the Mississippi. This language is already held. The interior country, having no property nor interest exposed on the sea, will be little affected by such a war. He wished to know what security the Northern and Middle States will have against this danger. It has been said that North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia only, will in a little time have a majority of the people of America. They must in that case include the great interior country, and every thing was to be apprehended from their getting the power into their hands.
Mr. BUTLER. The security the Southern States want is, that their negroes may not be taken from them, which some gentlemen within or without doors have a very good mind to do. It was not supposed that North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia would have more people than all the other States, but many more relatively to the other States, than they now have. The people and strength of America are evidently bearing southwardly, and south westwardly.

The three-fifths compromise eventually won the day but the non-slave states really didn’t get much in return, except an assurance of schism later.

1787 Constitutional Convention Series

The 1787 Constitutional Convention – David Barton, What Biblical Principle Is This?

July 12, 1787 (Click to read Madison’s notes on the day)

Summary

The delegates argued again over representation of slaves. The delegates approved a motion to have a census within 6 years of the First Congress with the process repeated every 10 years thereafter. The final motion passed was:

On the question on the whole proposition, as proportioning representation to direct taxation, and both to the white and three-fifths of the black inhabitants, and requiring a census within six years, and within every ten years afterwards, — Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, aye — 6; New Jersey, Delaware, no — 2; Massachusetts, South Carolina, divided.

Influences on the Delegates

The delegates focused their arguments on how to fairly represent states by wealth and population. For many delegates, slaves were wealth and a measure of their value was some percentage of their numbers. About the dilemma, Virginia’s Edmund Randolph said:

He urged strenuously that express security ought to be provided for including slaves in the ratio of representation. He lamented that such a species of property existed. But as it did exist, the holders of it would require this security. It was perceived that the design was entertained by some of excluding slaves altogether; the Legislature therefore ought not to be left at liberty.

The discussion seemed mostly about fairly linking taxation and representation. Delegates from slave holding states believed their “species of property” added to wealth which under the proposed system would not help increase their representation since their numbers of white inhabitants were relatively small.
David Barton has claimed that every clause of the Constitution has a biblical principle as a foundation. Mr. Barton, I want to know what biblical principles guided the discussion in the July 12, 1787 debate? What Bible verse can we go to which supported unequal representation of African slaves? How about the matter of representation being based on wealth?

Delegates Argue over How to Represent Africans

The delegates took strong positions over slave representation. General Pinckney of South Carolina linked the value of the labor of slaves to representation in Congress. Since wealth was being discussed as a means of assigning representation and taxation, he protested that South Carolina would be taxed on the wealth but represented by the number of white inhabitants. He said that wasn’t fair.

He [General Pinckney] was alarmed at what was said¹ yesterday, concerning the negroes. He was now again alarmed at what had been thrown out concerning the taxing of exports. South Carolina has in one year exported to the amount of £600,000 sterling, all which was the fruit of the labor of her blacks. Will she be represented in proportion to this amount? She will not. Neither ought she then to be subject to a tax on it. He hoped a clause would be inserted in the system, restraining the Legislature from taxing exports.

The delegate from North Carolina drew a line in the sand over 3/5 representation of blacks.

Mr. DAVIE said it was high time now to speak out. He saw that it was meant by some gentlemen to deprive the Southern States of any share of representation for their blacks. He was sure that North Carolina would never confederate on any terms that did not rate them at least as three-fifths. If the Eastern States meant, therefore, to exclude them altogether, the business was at an end.

William Johnson from Connecticut responded that he believed blacks should be represented equally with whites.

Doctor JOHNSON thought that wealth and population were the true, equitable rules of representation; but he conceived that these two principles resolved themselves into one, population being the best measure of wealth. He concluded, therefore, that the number of people ought to be established as the rule, and that all descriptions, including blacks equally with the whites, ought to fall within the computation. As various opinions had been expressed on the subject, he would move that a committee might be appointed to take them into consideration, and report them.

Morris said everybody was going to have to compromise.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS. It had been said that it is high time to speak out. As one member, he would candidly do so. He came here to form a compact for the good of America. He was ready to do so with all the States. He hoped and believed that all would enter into such a compact. If they would not, he was ready to join with any States that would. But as the compact was to be voluntary, it is in vain for the Eastern States to insist on what the Southern States will never agree to. It is equally vain for the latter to require what the other States can never admit; and he verily believed the people of Pennsylvania will never agree to a representation of negroes. What can be desired by these States more than has been already proposed — that the Legislature shall from time to time regulate representation according to population and wealth?

In the end, the delegates votes to apportion representation based on the number of whites and 3/5ths of the black population.

Representation According to Wealth: A Biblical Principle?

Morris moved and most of the delegates agreed that representation should be according to wealth.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS moved to add to the clause empowering the Legislature to vary the representation according to the principles of wealth and numbers of inhabitants, a proviso, “that taxation shall be in proportion to representation.”

If you’re reading, Mr. Barton, what biblical principle is this? Where in the Bible do we find that? While I recognize that population is how we do it, where did these Christian founders come up with that idea?