Tag: JFC2017

July 5, 1787

Summary

Elbridge Gerry’s committee reported recommendations for representation. Although the committee wasn’t unanimous, the report recommended that the first branch (House of Representatives) have a member for every 40,000 citizens, with the Senate made up of one member per state. Finally, all finance bills should originate in the House without possibility of amendment in the Senate.

Influences on the Delegates

The disputation continued in this session. Even after Ben Franklin’s call for prayer and the July 4th festivities, the delegates were still not in a compromising mood. Madison appealed again to experience in Great Britain and the states as reason for his concern about aspects of the report.

Mr. MADISON could not regard the privilege of originating money bills as any concession on the side of the small States. Experience proved that it had no effect. If seven States in the upper branch wished a bill to be originated, they might surely find some member from some of the same States in the lower branch, who would originate it. The restriction as to amendments was of as little consequence. Amendments could be handed privately by the Senate to members in the other House. Bills could be negatived, that they might be sent up in the desired shape. If the Senate should yield to the obstinacy of the first branch, the use of that body, as a check, would be lost. If the first branch should yield to that of the Senate, the privilege would be nugatory. Experience had also shown, both in Great Britain, and the States having a similar regulation, that it was a source of frequent and obstinate altercations. These considerations had produced a rejection of a like motion on a former occasion, when judged by its own merits. It could not, therefore, be deemed any concession on the present, and left in force all the objections which had prevailed against allowing each State an equal voice.

Some delegates were worried that “the people” would reject the plan.

Mr. BUTLER said, he could not let down his idea of the people of America so far as to believe they would, from mere respect to the Convention, adopt a plan evidently unjust.

Gouverneur Morris appealed to the whole world and wanted the delegates to craft a good plan without regard to critics.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS thought the form as well as the matter of the Report objectionable. It seemed, in the first place, to render amendment impracticable. In the next place, it seemed to involve a pledge to agree to the second part, if the first should be agreed to. He conceived the whole aspect of it to be wrong. He came here as a Representative of America; he flattered himself he came here in some degree as a Representative of the whole human race; for the whole human race will be affected by the proceedings of this Convention. He wished gentlemen to extend their views beyond the present moment of time; beyond the narrow limits of place from which they derive their political origin. If he were to believe some things which he had heard, he should suppose that we were assembled to truck and bargain for our particular States. He cannot descend to think that any gentlemen are really actuated by these views. We must look forward to the effects of what we do. These alone ought to guide us. Much has been said of the sentiments of the people. They were unknown. They could not be known. All that we can infer is, that, if the plan we recommend be reasonable and right, all who have reasonable minds and sound intentions will embrace it, notwithstanding what had been said by some gentlemen.

Morris also appealed to the negative example of Germany:

This country must be united. If persuasion does not unite it, the sword will. He begged this consideration might have its due weight. The scenes of horror attending civil commotion cannot be described; and the conclusion of them will be worse than the term of their continuance. The stronger party will then make traitors of the weaker; and the gallows and halter will finish the work of the sword. How far foreign powers would be ready to take part in the confusions, he would not say. Threats that they will be invited have, it seems, been thrown out. He drew the melancholy picture of foreign intrusions, as exhibited in the history of Germany, and urged it as a standing lesson to other nations.

Morris then offered a suggestion that property ownership be considered as a part of how representatives were apportioned. He also thought the original states should have a fixed number of representatives with any new states placed at a disadvantage (if the population of the original states dipped to reduce representation). He wanted the original states to have a fixed advantage. Although Morris said a lot, there was a lot that never saw the light of day in the Constitution.
 

July 4, 1787 – Happy Independence Day!
(Since May, I have been reading through the notes taken by James Madison at the 1787 Constitutional Convention. Every day the Convention was in session, I have posted a summary of the day and an account of the influences on the delegates. I am testing claims that the Bible and Christianity inspired the Constitution as well as satisfying my curiosity about what went into making our Constitution. You can catch up on the series via this link.)

Summary

The delegates were not in formal session today. A subcommittee of delegates was given the task over the July 3-4 break of discussing the Connecticut compromise with a hope that a consensus might develop. Many delegates did take part in various activities around Philadelphia marking the holiday. One such event was an oration by James Campbell titled:

AN ORATION, IN COMMEMORATION OF THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF NORTH-AMERICA, DELIVERED JULY 4, 1787, At the REFORMED CALVINIST Church in Philadelphia, BY JAMES CAMPBELL, ESQUIRE,
TO WHICH IS PREFIXED, AN INTRODUCTORY PRAYER, DELIVERED ON THE SAME OCCASION, BY THE REV. WILLIAM ROGERS, A. M.
PUBLISHED AT THE REQUEST OF THE PENNSYLVANIA SOCIETY OF THE CINCINNATI.
PHILADELPHIA: Printed and Sold by PRICHARD and HALL, in Market Street, between Front and Second Streets. MDCCLXXXVII,

David Barton’s False Links

David Barton falsely claims that the prayer before the oration by Campbell was in response to Ben Franklin’s unheeded call to prayer on June 28, 1787. Barton said on his Wallbuilders website:

In response to Benjamin Franklin’s call to seek God that was made on June 28, 1787, the Rev. William Rogers prayed before the service that was held at the Reformed Calvinist Church in Philadelphia on July 4th of that year. The below text is taken from The Massachusetts Centinel on August 15, 1787.

In fact, as those who are following my Constitutional Convention series know, Franklin’s call went without a vote because only three or four delegates thought it necessary to pray before the proceedings. Rogers prayed on July 4th as requested by the Society of Cincinnati, the group who sponsored Campbell’s oration.  This event nothing specific to do with any action in Convention. Barton also tries to link the Campbell speech with a motion made in Convention by Edmund Randolph also on June 28, 1787. From the Wallbuilders website:

Those orders were followed a few days later at the Reformed Calvinist Lutheran Church. In response to Franklin’s appeal, Virginia’s Mr. Randolph offered a counter proposal. He recommended that a “sermon be preached at the request of the convention on the 4th of July, the anniversary of Independence, & thence forward prayers be used in ye Convention every morning.” One report has Washington leading most of the Convention delegates to the church, where James Campbell preached a sermon trusting in the wisdom of the delegates to establish a “free and vigorous government.”

Randolph did make that motion after Franklin’s call to prayer. However, Randolph’s motion, like Franklin’s, was not voted on. In his notes, Madison recorded:

Mr. RANDOLPH proposed, in order to give a favorable aspect to the measure, that a sermon be preached at the request of the Convention on the Fourth of July, the anniversary of Independence; and thenceforward prayers, &c. to be read in the Convention every morning. Doctor FRANKLIN seconded this motion. After several unsuccessful attempts for silently postponing this matter by adjourning, the adjournment was at length carried, without any vote on the motion.

Barton calls Campbell’s speech a “sermon.” You can read it here. The only mention of religion that I can find in this “sermon” is as follows:

Another, and a principal advantage of our Independence, results from the material change it has wrought on the opinions, con|duct and government of the European na|tions: It was by contemplating our Indepen|dence that France has become the land of free enquiry and general toleration; Ger|many, from the same cause, has shaken off an immense load of religious prejudice and bigottry; Spain has caught our spirit of en|terprise and innovation; and even Britain herself has been taught, by our successful struggle to relax in her system of general sub|jugation; hence Ireland enjoys what she had long demanded in vain; an exercise of her na|tural rights to commerce, liberty and inde|pendence. Propitious aera! happy event! which has softened the rigours of tyranny, and taught even Kings to revere the great laws of justice and equity. (emphasis added)

Campbell was a lawyer, not a minister. He spoke to the audience about the benefits of American independence for America and the world.
The whole picture includes Rogers animated prayer to God and Campbell’s encomium celebrating the heroes of natural rights from Cicero to Jefferson.

Further reading on Independence Day

As Predicted by Benjamin Rush, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams Both Died on July 4th
 

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

July 2, 1787 (click to read Madison’s notes)

Summary

The delegates were deadlocked on Oliver Ellsworth’s motion to give each state one vote in the Senate with proportional representation in the House. Before adjourning for the July 4th holiday, the delegates formed a committee to discuss the motion over the break.

Influences on the Delegates

The day began with a tie vote on Ellsworth’s motion for split representation. With the failure, some alarm expressed by South Carolina’s Charles Pinckney. He worried that the chance to amend the government might be lost. Then the other Charles Pinckney from South Carolina proposed a committee to haggle over details and report a compromise.
I want to include a long passage of the speech by Gouverneur Morris. He is sometimes held up by Christian nationalists as figure who supports the Bible in schools. Rather, I think his input on religion was mixed.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS ¹ thought a Committee advisable, as the Convention had been equally divided. He had a stronger reason also. The mode of appointing the second branch tended, he was sure, to defeat the object of it. What is this object? To check the precipitation, changeableness, and excesses, of the first branch. Every man of observation had seen in the democratic branches of the State Legislatures, precipitation — in Congress, changeableness — in every department, excesses against personal liberty, private property, and personal safety. What qualities are necessary to constitute a check in this case? Abilities and virtue are equally necessary in both branches. Something more, then, is now wanted. In the first place, the checking branch must have a personal interest in checking the other branch. One interest must be opposed to another interest. Vices, as they exist, must be turned against each other. In the second place, it must have great personal property; it must have the aristocratic spirit; it must love to lord it through pride. Pride is, indeed, the great principle that actuates both the poor and the rich. It is this principle which in the former resists, in the latter abuses, authority. In the third place, it should be independent. In religion, the creature is apt to forget its Creator. That it is otherwise in political affairs, the late debates here are an unhappy proof. The aristocratic body should be as independent, and as firm, as the democratic. If the members of it are to revert to a dependence on the democratic choice, the democratic scale will preponderate. All the guards contrived by America have not restrained the Senatorial branches of the Legislatures from a servile complaisance to the democratic. If the second branch is to be dependent, we are better without it. To make it independent, it should be for life. It will then do wrong, it will be said. He believed so; he hoped so. The rich will strive to establish their dominion, and enslave the rest. They always did. They always will. The proper security against them is to form them into a separate interest. The two forces will then control each other. Let the rich mix with the poor, and in a commercial country they will establish an oligarchy. Take away commerce, and the democracy will triumph. Thus it has been all the world over. So it will be among us. Reason tells us we are but men; and we are not to expect any particular interference of Heaven in our favor. By thus combining, and setting apart, the aristocratic interest, the popular interest will be combined against it. There will be a mutual check and mutual security.

Morris observed that human nature is animated by pride which certainly conforms to biblical teaching. Here I think we do have some evidence that this particular founder favored checks and entities with opposing interests in government to offset the negative aspects of human nature.
On the other hand, Morris didn’t look for supernatural intervention to move the delegates toward a compromise. His religion went as far as the bounds set by reason.
Having noted that Morris was apparently influenced by his religious views of human nature, I must add that the policy positions based on those views were not included in the Constitution. To his words above, Morris added:

He was also against paying the Senators. They will pay themselves, if they can. If they cannot, they will be rich, and can do without it. Of such the second branch ought to consist; and none but such can compose it, if they are not to be paid. He contended, that the Executive should appoint the Senate, and fill up vacancies. This gets rid of the difficulty in the present question. You may begin with any ratio you please, it will come to the same thing. The members being independent, and for life, may be taken as well from one place as from another. It should be considered, too, how the scheme could be carried through the States. He hoped there was strength of mind enough in this House to look truth in the face. He did not hesitate, therefore, to say that loaves and fishes must bribe the demagogues. They must be made to expect higher offices under the General than the State Governments. A Senate for life will be a noble bait.

I am not sure that his biblical reference to loaves and fishes fits his point well but in any case, he used a biblical image to illustrate his point about human nature. However, Senators don’t serve for life, are not appointed by the President, and they are paid. He relied on biblical rhetoric but his understanding of biblical principles didn’t carry the day.
At the end of the day, the delegates created a working committee and then adjourned with this note in Madison’s journal:

That time might be given to the Committee, and to such as choose to attend to the celebrations on the anniversary of Independence the Convention adjourned till Thursday.

Afterthought

Even though the Declaration of Independence was approved on July 2, the celebration was moved to July 4 because the Declaration was printed on that day. Even this short time after the events of 1776, the delegates worked on July 2nd and took off what has become the holiday we celebrate.

June 30, 1787 (Click to read Madison’s notes)

Summary

The Connecticut compromise was debated and Madison proposed that the real division of states was between slave and free, not large and small.

Influences on the Delegates

After dispensing with a motion to make a special request for New Hampshire to send delegates, the Convention got back to the dispute over representation in the legislature. Pennsylvania delegate James Wilson opined that the majority would be overrun by the minority under the Connecticut plan. Connecticut’s Oliver Ellsworth argued that Wilson was wrong, very directly invoking the positive model of Britain.

Mr. ELLSWORTH. The capital objection of Mr. WILSON, “that the minority will rule the majority,” is not true. The power is given to the few to save them from being destroyed by the many. If an equality of votes had been given to them in both branches, the objection might have had weight. Is it a novel thing that the few should have a check on the many? Is it not the case in the British Constitution, the wisdom of which so many gentlemen have united in applauding? Have not the House of Lords, who form so small a proportion of the nation, a negative on the laws, as a necessary defence of their peculiar rights against the encroachments of the Commons? No instance of a confederacy has existed in which an equality of voices has not been exercised by the members of it. We are running from one extreme to another. We are razing the foundations of the building, when we need only repair the roof. No salutary measure has been lost for want of a majority of the States to favor it. If security be all that the great States wish for, the first branch secures them.

The delegates did not search for or appeal to a Bible verse or tenet of theology. Rather over and over again, they either lauded Britain or some former republic or criticized the same on behalf of their viewpoint.
Madison rebutted Ellsworth by appealing to European and ancient governments.

Mr. MADISON did justice to the able and close reasoning of Mr. ELLSWORTH, but must observe that it did not always accord with itself. On another occasion, the large States were described by him as the aristocratic States, ready to oppress the small. Now the small are the House of Lords, requiring a negative to defend them against the more numerous Commons. Mr. ELLSWORTH had also erred in saying that no instance had existed in which confederated states had not retained to themselves a perfect equality of suffrage. Passing over the German system, in which the King of Prussia has nine voices, he reminded Mr. ELLSWORTH of the Lycian confederacy, in which the component members had votes proportioned to their importance, and which Montesquieu recommends as the fittest model for that form of government. Had the fact been as stated by Mr. ELLSWORTH, it would have been of little avail to him, or rather would have strengthened the arguments against him; the history and fate of the several confederacies, modern as well as ancient, demonstrating some radical vice in their structure.

Madison then introduced a prophetic but absurd (in my view) idea.

These two causes concurred in forming the great division of interests in the United States. It did not lie between the large and small States. It lay between the Northern and Southern; and if any defensive power were necessary, it ought to be mutually given to these two interests. He was so strongly impressed with this important truth, that he had been casting about in his mind for some expedient that would answer the purpose. The one which had occurred was, that, instead of proportioning the votes of the States in both branches, to their respective numbers of inhabitants, computing the slaves in the ratio of five to three, they should be represented in one branch according to the number of free inhabitants only; and in the other, according to the whole number, counting the slaves as free. By this arrangement the Southern scale would have the advantage in one House, and the Northern in the other. He had been restrained from proposing this expedient by two considerations; one was his unwillingness to urge any diversity of interests on an occasion where it is but too apt to arise of itself; the other was the inequality of powers that must be vested in the two branches, and which would destroy the equilibrium of interests.

Madison’s thoughts did not catch on. The delegates went back to debating the matter of representation without another mention of slavery.
Britain came up again as a positive model, this time raised by Deleware’s Gunning Bedford.

Can it be expected that the small States will act from pure disinterestedness. Look at Great Britain. Is the representation there less unequal? But we shall be told again, that that is the rotten part of the Constitution. Have not the boroughs, however, held fast their constitutional rights? And are we to act with greater purity than the rest of mankind? An exact proportion in the representation is not preserved in any one of the States.

Bedford also invokes the example of Athenian politician Solon:

We must, like Solon, make such a government as the people will approve. Will the smaller States ever agree to the proposed degradation of them? It is not true that the people will not agree to enlarge the powers of the present Congress. The language of the people has been, that Congress ought to have the power of collecting an impost, and of coercing the States where it may be necessary.

Angus King of Massachusetts used Britain and Scotland as an example of how states might interact in a union.

As the fundamental rights of individuals are secured by express provisions in the State Constitutions, why may not a like security be provided for the rights of States in the National Constitution? The Articles of Union between England and Scotland furnish an example of such a provision, in favor of sundry rights of Scotland. When that union was in agitation, the same language of apprehension which has been heard from the smaller States, was in the mouths of the Scotch patriots. The articles, however, have not been violated, and the Scotch have found an increase of prosperity and happiness.

On the key division of the day — representation in the legislature — the delegates did not look for guidance from Christian theology or the Bible. Even after Ben Franklin appealed to the delegates to get Heaven involved, the delegates continued to rely on their reason and powers of persuasion. They used Britain, Rome, Athens, and Europe as models, both positive and negative. Contrary to the claims of David Barton and other Christian nationalists, the delegates did not seek a Constitution founded on biblical principles. They sought a plan which was reasonable and fair and would address the flaws in former governments without losing the benefits of republican government.
 

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

June 29, 1787 (click to read Madison’s notes)

Summary

On this day in Convention, the delegates decided on proportional representation in the House of Representatives and postponed a vote on representation in the Senate. Connecticut delegate Oliver Ellsworth introduced the Connecticut Compromise for consideration.

Influences on the Delegates

The delegates picked up on June 29 as if Franklin had never made his call to prayer.  They resumed the debate over representation in the legislature straightaway. The first words of Madison’s notes reflect the divisions over the power of states and how they should be represented in the national legislature.

In Convention. —  Doctor JOHNSON. The controversy must be endless whilst gentlemen differ in the grounds of their arguments; those on one side considering the States as districts of people composing one political society: those on the other, considering them as so many political societies. The fact is, that the States do exist as political societies, and a government is to be formed for them in their political capacity, as well as for the individuals composing them.

However Connecticut’s William Johnson laid some groundwork for a compromise.

On the whole he [Johnson] thought, that, as in some respects the States are to be considered in their political capacity, and in others as districts of individual citizens, the two ideas embraced on different sides, instead of being opposed to each other, ought to be combined; that in one branch the people ought to be represented, in the other the States.

Madison used Britain as a point of comparison. The new government would be better for the states than the British arrangement.

According to the views of every member, the General Government will have powers far beyond those exercised by the British Parliament when the States were part of the British Empire. It will, in particular, have the power, without the consent of the State Legislatures, to levy money directly from the people themselves; and therefore, not to divest such unequal portions of the people as composed the several States of an equal voice, would subject the system to the reproaches and evils which have resulted from the vicious representation in Great Britain.

Madison then pointed the delegates to the European experience.

His [Madison’s] great fear was, that their Governments would then have too much energy; that this might not only be formidable in the large to the small States, but fatal to the internal liberty of all. The same causes which have rendered the old world the theatre of incessant wars, and have banished liberty from the face of it, would soon produce the same effects here. The weakness and jealousy of the small States would quickly introduce some regular military force, against sudden danger from their powerful neighbours. The example would be followed by others, and would soon become universal. In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive magistrate. Constant apprehension of war has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive, will not long be safe companions to liberty.

And then, adding to what had become a familiar formula, Madison referred to the results of flaws in the system of Rome.

The means of defence against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim, to excite a war whenever a revolt was apprehended.

He closed by suggesting there was something for the delegates to learn from Britain and Europe.

Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved, the people. It is, perhaps, questionable, whether the best-concerted system of absolute power in Europe, could maintain itself, in a situation where no alarms of external danger could tame the people to the domestic yoke. The insular situation of Great Britain was the principal cause of her being an exception to the general fate of Europe. It has rendered less defence necessary, and admitted a kind of defence which could not be used for the purpose of oppression. These consequences, he conceived, ought to be apprehended, whether the States should run into a total separation from each other, or should enter into partial confederacies. Either event would be truly deplorable; and those who might be accessary to either, could never be forgiven by their country, nor by themselves.

Although vague, Hamilton’s reference to miracles bears notice.

We should run every risk in trusting to future amendments. As yet we retain the habits of union. We are weak, and sensible of our weakness. Henceforward, the motives will become feebler, and the difficulties greater. It is a miracle that we are now here, exercising our tranquil and free deliberations on the subject. It would be madness to trust to future miracles. A thousand causes must obstruct a re-production of them.

If he had made this statement at another time, I might not mention Hamilton’s skepticism. However, it seems noteworthy because his statement about “madness to trust to future miracles” came the day after Ben Franklin urged the delegates to seek heaven’s assistance. Willing to acknowledge that the Convention was an improbable event, he didn’t believe the delegates should expect any more such miracles.
Near the end of the session, Ellsworth of Connecticut offered a compromise. In this oration, he mentioned the example of Holland to support his point. I include the whole speech because it formed the basis for our present system.

 Mr. ELLSWORTH moved, “that the rule of suffrage in the second branch be the same with that established by the Articles of Confederation.” He was not sorry, on the whole, he said, that the vote just passed had determined against this rule in the first branch. He hoped it would become a ground of compromise with regard to the second branch. We were partly national, partly federal. The proportional representation in the first branch was conformable to the national principle, and would secure the large States against the small. An equality of voices was conformable to the federal principle, and was necessary to secure the small States against the large. He trusted that on this middle ground a compromise would take place. He did not see that it could on any other, and if no compromise should take place, our meeting would not only be in vain, but worse than in vain. To the eastward, he was sure Massachusetts was the only State that would listen to a proposition for excluding the States, as equal political societies, from an equal voice in both branches. The others would risk every consequence rather than part with so dear a right. An attempt to deprive them of it was at once cutting the body of America in two, and, as he supposed would be the case, somewhere about this part of it. The large States he conceived would, notwithstanding the equality of votes, have an influence that would maintain their superiority. Holland, as had been admitted (by Mr. MADISON), had, notwithstanding a like equality in the Dutch confederacy, a prevailing influence in the public measures. The power of self-defence was essential to the small States. Nature had given it to the smallest insect of the creation. He could never admit that there was no danger of combinations among the large States. They will like individuals find out and avail themselves of the advantage to be gained by it. It was true the danger would be greater if they were contiguous, and had a more immediate and common interest. A defensive combination of the small States was rendered more difficult by their greater number. He would mention another consideration of great weight. The existing Confederation was founded on the equality of the States in the article of suffrage, — was it meant to pay no regard to this antecedent plighted faith. Let a strong Executive, a Judiciary, and Legislative power, be created, but let not too much be attempted, by which all may be lost. He was not in general a half-way man, yet he preferred doing half the good we could, rather than do nothing at all. The other half may be added when the necessity shall be more fully experienced.

 

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