A WEEKLY COMMENTARY
Year Twenty-One ... Number Twenty ... May 17, 1974
THE CONTRIVED EVOLUTION
OF REGIONAL GOVERNMENT
PART THREE
COMPACT VERSUS CONSTITUTION
Land use and land control legislation was a matter of utmost importance to that first generation of citizens of the United States of America. Those Americans who founded our Nation were land oriented men. The very watchword of the Sons of Liberty (Samuel Adams of Boston Tea Party fame was their leader) was "Liberty and Property." In all local elections only property owners could vote. As one historian has pointed out:
"... colonial suffrage legislation ... was designed to confine the vote to desirable elements of the population. It was drafted in the conviction that efficiency, honesty and harmony in government rested, in the last analysis, upon a salutary degree of homogeneity of interests, opinions, and fundamental loyalties -- religious, ethnic and class. Confining the vote in colony elections to those who were free, white, twenty-one, native-born Protestan males who were the owners of property, appeared to be the best guarantee of the stability of the commonwealth. The drafters of colonial suffrage legislation, to whatever extent they attempted to formulate ideas, seem to have thought that undue disparity of interest, opinion and loyalty among electors would weaken and distract government" (Chilton Williamson in American Suffrage from Property to Democracy, 1760-1860, Princeton University Press, 1960. The author favors democracy over property and writes disparagingly of colonial principles; we disagree with his perspective, which is hardly Christian American).
James Madison of Virginia also held the opinion that "the freeholders of the Country would be the safest depositories of Republican liberty." He wrote that "in future times a great majority of the people will not only be without land, but any other sort of property. These will either combine under the influence of their common situtation; in which case the rights of property & the public liberty, will not be secure in their hands; or which is more probable, they will become the tools of opulence & ambition, in which case there will be equal danger on another side." (Quoted from Documents Illustrative of the Formation of the Union of the American States, a Government paper edited by Charles C. Tansill. G.P.O. 1927).
Madison feared that when propertyless men were permitted to vote, they would become the tools of "opulence and ambition," so that a new "aristocracy" would rule, using the masses as its tools and keeping hte favor of the masses by promising propertyless people goodies from the public storehouse. In this, Madison was a true prophet.
Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania was even more emphatic: "Give the votes to people who have no property, and they will sell them to the rich who will be able to buy them... Children do not vote. Why? Because they want produce, because they have no will of their own. The ignorant & the dependent can be as little trusted with the public interest." (Also quoted from above-described paper edited by Charles C. Transill).
However, there was little controversy at the time because nine-tenths of all the free men residing in the thirteen free and independent States were land-owners; and the federal government at that time had no wealth or property in land which it might give away in subsidies, benefits, welfare or relief payments. In short, land belonged to the people or or the States, and the federal government had no "land policy" because, up to that time, it needed no land policy.
But the situation changed -- and the change might have been drastic -- after the signing of the Treaty of Paris on Sept. 3, 1783. That treaty not only brought an official end to the War for Independence; it also gave to the United States clear title to all the lands extending inland to the Mississippi. In the beginning these lands were claimed as extensions of the thirteen original States. But the States ceded the territory to the general government, the Treaty of Paris relinquished all previous claims which the British Crown held to the land. Thus, the United States became holder and caretaker of a vast empire of incredible diversity and fabulous untapped wealth. Some kind of government had to be established for this vast Northwest Territory.
Here was the great temptation: The United States Government could have followed the example of the countries of Europe when the empires and states of that continent were being formed. The federal government might have declared itself the absolute governor of that great area, might have divided it into so many federal districts, or regions (as our federal government is doing today) and there would never have been any States other than the original thirteen; all the rest might have been retained as a Federal Commonwealth, with all political power centered in the National Capital and the districts or regions being administered from regional capitols with no State or local governments to interfere or intercede. All political power would be concentrated at the top and extend downward, rather than being concentrated at the county or the township level, and proceeding upward. In other words, ours could have become but a copy of the English form of government, against which we rebelled. Thankfully, the Compact Theory of government, as opposed to the Continental and International Theories, was still the ideal of a majority of the Founding Fathers; and the Continental Congress rendered its greatest service to posterity when it enacted the Northwest Ordinance on July 13, 1787.
The Northwest Ordinance opened up this vast Northwest Territory to orderly and progressive settlement, encouraged self-government (as opposed to government from the federal capitol) and anticipated the creation of new "free and independent States," with republican forms of government and no slavery. The pattern was simple, and it worked:
Thus did the Continental Congress utilize the Compact Theory for the solution of its "colonial problem," and this pattern was followed generally as the Nation expanded from the original thirteen to the present fifty States.
Also enduringly important: The Northwest Ordinance contained the first Bill of Rights to be enacted by the federal government of the United States. Furthermore -- and this is one of the facts which Supreme Courts have continually ignored -- the wording of Article III of the Ordinance clearly favored the establishment of Christian schools, in order that Christian civil government might be strengthened. Here is the precise language:
"ARTICLE III. Religion, morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged..."
"Schools were thus assumed to be the channels of religion and morality as well as of knowledge," commented Rousas J. Rushdoony in his invaluable This Independent Republic (The Craig Press, 1964.) "Education was not statist," Dr. Rushdoony emphasized, "it was local and Christian, and it as the foundation of Christian civil society. The importance of the Northwest Ordinance has not been generally recognized.... in that it was not merely the action of the Federation Congress but, after the passing of the First Amendment, the First Federal Congress re-enacted the Northwest Ordinance."
THEN, THE CONSTITUTION
By the Articles of Confederation the States had entered into "a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their Liberties, and their mutual and general welfare." But so few powers were given to the central government that it could not long endure in peace, mainly because there was no way of keeping peace between the States themselves; trade wars began to develop between the Northern States. In January, 1786, the Virginia House of Burgesses proposed a meeting of commissioners from the States "to take into consideration the trade of the United States; to examine the relative situations and trade of the said States; to consider how far a uniform system in their commercial regulations may be necessary to their common interest and their permanent harmony...."
Such a convention was called, met at Annapolis in September, 1786; but only give States sent representatives: New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Virginia. The convention was a complete failure insofar as bettering trade relations was concerned. Before it dissolved, however, at the initiation of James Madison of Virginia and Alexander Hamilton of New York, the Annapolis Convention passed a resolution proposing:
"... the appointment of Commissioners, to meet at Philadelphia on the second Monday in May next, to take into consideration the situation of the United States, to devise such further provisions as shall appear to them necessary to render the constitution of the Federal Government adequate to the exigencies of the Union; and to report such an Act for that purpose to the United States in Congress assembled, as when agreed to, by them, and afterwards confirmed by the Legislatures of every State, will effectually provide for the same."
Copies of this resolution were sent to the States and to the Continental Congress. Congress approved of the plan and in February, 1787, sent its recommendation to the States that they appoint delegates to meet at Philadelphia on the second Monday in May. Congress stated, however, that the Convention was to meet "for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation" and not for the purpose of writing a new Constitution. In short, the Congress wanted an improved Compact, not a new document based on the Continental Theory that was then being championed by Alexander Hamilton, who wanted a strong central government which could interfere with matters within the States and conduct all affairs foreign and domestic, commercial and financial, industrial and agricultural, with full and final authority, superior to the State in all matters great or small.
On the second Monday in May, 1787, not enough delegates for a quorum had arrived in Philadelphia. By the 25th seven States were represented and the Convention was organized. George Washington's name was placed in nomination to preside over the body, and he was unanimously elected President of the Convention.
But that's where the unamity ended. By the time all the delegates had arrived (the State of Rhode Island did not name any delegates) there were four separate plans and seemingly irreconcilable differences in those four sets of plans.
First to be introduced was the Virginia Plan, presented by Edmund Randolph. It called for some fifteen different changes in the Articles of Confederation. In direct opposition was the New Jersey Plan, designed to protect the interests of the small States. Then there was the plan presented by Chas. Pinckney of South Carolina and the ultra-federalist plan of Alexander Hamilton.
With James Madison championing the Compact Theory, Alexander Hamilton proclaiming the superior merits of the Continental Theory, Benjamin Franklin attempting to be a peacemaker, and George Washington trying to maintain order, the first days must have been hectic indeed. But, on July 24, a Committee of Details was appointed to prepare a draft Constitution, which could serve as the basis for further discussion and amendment. This committee used the Virginia Plan as the basic outline for its draft and Alexander Hamilton, finding himself outvoted and outnumbered, submitted and went along with the majority, later was instrumental in getting States to ratify the Constitution through his most valuable contribution to The Federalist Papers.
Once agreement on all essential points had been reached by the Convention, a Committee of Style and Arrangement was appointed to prepare the final draft of the Constitution. These five men: James Madison of Virginia, Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, William Samuel Johnson of Connecticut, Rufus King of Massachusetts and Alexander Hamilton of New York, were responsible for the actual style and wording of the Constitution, which was presented to the Convention on September 12, 1787; was approved and ordered engrossed on Sept. 15; was published on Sept. 17; but did not become binding upon the States until June 21, 1788, when New Hampshire became the ninth State to ratify. The Constitution was ordered by Congress to be put into operation on September 13, 1788.
The following, for its historical interest in an age when history is being overwritten to suit the planned future, a la Orwell's 1984, is quoted from By These Words, by Paul M. Angle:
"Two days later a clerk read the engrossed copy. When he had finished, the venerable Franklin took the floor and asked his colleague from Pennsylvania, James Wilson, to read a few remarks that he had reduced to writing. The Constitution, Franklin admitted, was far from perfect, but on the whole it was the best frame of government that could be devised under the circumstances. 'I cannot help expressing a wish,' he concluded, 'that every member of the Convention, who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion, doubt a little of his own infallibility, and, to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument.'
"There was argument over the form in which the members should subscribe thier names, and in the end only thirty-nine of the fifty-five delegates who had attended the convention signed. Of the other sixteen, some were absent, and several ranged themselves in opposition...
"The Constitution would go into effect, so Article VII read, when it should be ratified by nine of the thirteen states. A spirited campaign began immediately. Strong opposition developed. Many resented the undoubted fact that the delegates had exceeded their authority; others believed that the new government went too far in the direction of centralized power. Nevertheless the dangers confronting the country were real and pressing, and there might not be time for perfecting an ideal system. Reasoning thus, the state conventions began to pass ordinances of ratification -- Delaware, the first, on December 7, 1787, Pennsylvania five days later, New Jersey on December 18, New Hampshire, the ninth state to ratify, acted on June 21, 1788.
"Technically, the Constitution would now go into effect, yet everybody knew that without New York and Virginia, the new government would fail. In the Old Dominion James Madison pleaded for ratification, George Washington came to his support (but Patrick Henry opposed and George Mason insisted that a Bill of Rights had to be added before he would approve the Constitution -Ed.). In New York, Alexander Hamilton, through his contributions to the series of newspaper articles that we know as The Federalist, and by the force of his arguments to the state convention, produced the margin of victory, and the state fell into line with Virginia. A few weeks later the old Congress chose New York City as the seat of the new government, and specified that the first Congress to be elected under the Constitution would convene on March 4, 1789."
One of the first acts of that First Congress was the framing and passage of a Bill of Rights, an action that had been promised to reluctant State delegations if they would ratify the Constitution. The Bill of Rights was adopted, and ratified, as the first Ten Amendments to the Constitution; and it was Patrick Henry of Virginia, who already had earned the sobriquet "father of the Constitution" who also introduced and shepherded the Bill of Rights through Congress. In introducing the amendments, he spoke words that may seem prophetically timely in 1974, with a "President's council" having caused so much havoc in the Nation, with the legislative branch taking upon itself judicial powers as impeachment proceedings are contemplated, and with a general fear of too much power having been concentrated in the Federal Government, to the hurt of the States and the citizens thereof. Patrick Henry told the First Congress, in part:
"There have been objections of various kinds made against the Constitution. Some were levelled against its structure because the President was without a council; because the Senate, which is a legislative body, had judicial powers in trials on impeachments; and because the powers of that body were compounded in other respects, in a manner that did not correspond with a particular theory; because it grants more power than is supposed to be necessary for every good purpose, and controls the ordinary powers of the State Governments. I know some respectable characters who opposed this Government on these grounds; but I believe that the great mass of the people who opposed it, disliked it because it did not contain effectual provisions against the encroachments on particular rights, and those safeguards which they have been long accustomed to have interposed between them and the magistrate who exercises the sovereign power; nor ought we to consider them safe, while a great number of our fellow-citizens think these securities necessary."
It was the addition of these ten amendments which insured that the Constitution was in the tradition of the Compact Theory of government which had began with the Mayflower Compact. In fact, in ratifying the Constitution, the States of Massachusetts, Virginia and New Hampshire declared they were "entering a Compact." John Jay, first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, in the case of Chrisholm vs. Georgia (1793) referred to the Constitution as "a Compact between the States."
It has been violations to the Bill of Rights and disregard of the Compact Theory, with its careful division and separation of powers which has brought our Nation to the brink of destruction. It is our belief that the importance of the fundamental principles upon which our frame of government was based, must be rediscovered and understood. That is why this series of letters is being published.
(to be continued)
DON BELL REPORTS & CLOSER-UP are privately circulated Newsletters accenting the Christian American point of view. Complete service: $24 per year. Extra copies: 10 cents each. Please address all orders to: DON BELL REPORTS, P.O. Box 2223, Palm Beach, Florida 33480