Wednesday, December 2, 2020



Jennifer N. Fenwick has written an excellent blogpost titled Government of the People, by the People, for the people – What That Truly Means. In the process of deftly describing our heritage, she gives a nice shout-out to Tempest at Dawn

Many of the compromises, though hard for us, some two-hundred years on, to understand, were born from necessity. For a compelling inside look at that Summer in 1787, I encourage you to read Tempest at Dawn, by James D. Best. Based on the diaries of Madison and other delegates, along with correspondence and other written records of the day, Best’s book is like having a front-row seat to the Convention and the writing of our Constitution.

Fenwick is the author of several books including, In the Eye of the Storm: Stories of Survival and Hope from the Florida Panhandle.


Wednesday, November 18, 2020


Michael E. Newton Hamilton Books



The Schuyler Mansion State Historic Site in Albany, New York recently published a piece by Jesse Serfilippi titled “As Odious and Immoral A Thing: Alexander Hamilton’s Hidden History as an Enslaver.”

Was Alexander Hamilton an enslaver?

Two Hamilton historians, Philo Hamilton and Michael E. Newton, dispute the accusation.

A recent essay by Jessie Serfilippi published by the Schuyler claims to reveal, according to the work’s subtitle, “Alexander Hamilton’s Hidden History as an Enslaver.” The errors, omissions, assumptions, speculations, and misrepresentations in that essay called for a more complete and accurate evaluation of Hamilton’s history with slavery.

There is no evidence that Hamilton owned slaves or was an ‘enslaver.’ While there is evidence that he helped his in-laws with slave transactions, it appears that Hamilton in these transactions was acting merely as a banker. Regarding Hamilton himself, there are at least five pieces of evidence—two census records, a contemporary statement by Angelica Schuyler Church, a comment by John C. Hamilton in his biography of his father, and the lists of assets Hamilton drew up just prior to his death indicating that Alexander Hamilton did not own any slaves … Alexander Hamilton was on the right side of the slavery issue. In addition to not owning slaves, he actively sought to abolish the evil institution in his own state. Rather than being an “enslaver,” Hamilton opposed slavery, advocated for manumission and supported enslaved and freed blacks to the extent that his limited means allowed.

 

Tuesday, October 6, 2020

Breaking Down The Constitution: Preamble & Constitutional Convention (Jim Best)|Constitutional Chats

What exactly happened when delegates from all 13 states met to write the Constitution? In Part 7, the final installment of the “Breaking Down the Constitution” series, Janine Turner, Cathy Gillespie, and Student Ambassadors Tova Love Kaplan and Dakare Chatman interview author James D. Best on the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention, how the Preamble serves as the “elevator pitch” for the Constitution, and more!


Monday, September 14, 2020

The Preamble to the Constitution of the Unites States of America

 


Thursday, September 17 is Constitution Day. 

Constituting America has run a series of Constitutional Chats leading up to this signing anniversary of the longest lasting constitution in world history. On Tuesday, September 15, I will be a guest on the final chat leading up to a full-day celebration on Constitution Day. You can register for both events here.

The subject of Tuesday’s chat will be the preamble and the Constitutional Convention.


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The preamble to the Constitution is a declarative statement that grants no powers to the national government. Basically, it states the overarching goals of this new Constitution, meant to replace the Articles of Confederation. The declarative nature of the preamble was confirmed by the Supreme Court in Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905).

The United States does not derive any of its substantive powers from the Preamble of the Constitution. It cannot exert any power to secure the declared objects of the Constitution unless, apart from the Preamble, such power be found in, or can properly be implied from, some express delegation in the instrument.

The preamble was basically the elevator pitch for an entirely new government system.

 

We the people of the United States

The draft document listed all thirteen states, but Gouverneur Morris changed it to the famous seven words. Morris probably made the change for three reasons. First, no one knew which states would eventually ratify and it took only nine; second, Morris wanted to emphasize a single nation; and third, listing the states was ineloquent. The conventional interpretation is that he changed the enacting entity from the states to collective people. There is no doubt the convention meant to take ratification away from the states as represented by their legislatures. Ratification was to be by state conventions of “the people.” Madison had preached ad nauseum that only the people had the authority to bestow power to a governing agency.

a more perfect Union

No one would argue that the nation under the Articles of Confederation was anywhere near perfect, but many of its authors were delegates to the convention and denigrating their work was not an effective way to garner support.

establish Justice

The consensus was that states were violating individual rights. The country was on the brink of total collapse. The military has been reduced to near extinction, economic turmoil saps hope, and anarchy threatened. Establishing justice had strong appeal.

insure domestic Tranquility

The elephant in the State House chamber was Shay’s Rebellion and other uprising throughout the states. The Articles of Confederation did not bestow sufficient authority to quell these rebellions.

provide for the common defence

With the nation in chaos, foreign powers hovered like vultures, ready to annex the states to their empires.

promote the general Welfare

At the time of the convention, general welfare was generally assumed to mean well being or happiness. This phrase thus echoes the Declaration of Independence. Since the preamble does not bestow powers, this clause does not give the national government unlimited power to do “good.”

secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

The Federal Convention proposed this Constitution for their own benefit and for the benefit of “millions yet unborn.”

The Federal Convention

The Federal Convention debated for four months, but the final form of the Constitution was primarily crafted by three committees: The Committee of Detail, the Committee of Postponed Matters, and the Committee of Style. The work of these committees was approved by votes of the full convention. Gouverneur Morris, called the Penman of the Constitution, was a member of the five-person Committee of Style. Morris took home the draft from the prior committees and crafted an eloquent document that was approved by the other four members: William Johnson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and Rufus King, and then by the full assembly, and finally ratified by conventions of the people in each state.

I use this paragraph before, but I believe a reminder is worthwhile on Constitution Day.

We often hear laments that elected officials no longer honor their pledge to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. This is backward. The Constitution wasn’t written for politicians. Our political leaders have no motivation to abide by a two hundred and thirty year old restraining order. The first words of the Constitution read We the People. It’s our document. It was always meant to be ours, not theirs. It’s our obligation to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.


 

Sunday, August 30, 2020

Guest Appearance on Constitutional Chat



Constituting America has organized a series of Zoom chats on the Constitution. The chats are hosted by actress Janine Turner (Northern Exposure, Friday Night Lights, Cliffhanger) and Cathy Gillespie, co-founders of Constituting America. On the panel will also be "We The Future" Contest winners Dakare Chatman and Tova Love Kaplan.

I've been invited as a guest presenter for September 15, 2020. The subject will be The Preamble & The Constitutional Convention. You can sign up for the remaining sessions at this link (scroll down).

Tuesday September 1:     Countdown to Constitution Day Series, Articles IV & V

Tuesday September 8:     Countdown to Constitution Day Series, Article VI & VII

Tuesday September 15:   Countdown to Constitution Day Series, Preamble & Constitutional Convention

Thursday September 17: LIVE VIRTUAL CONSTITUTION DAY PROGRAM




Friday, July 24, 2020

Human frailties are no reason to discard the Framers




George Washington was the president of the Constitutional Convention, then called the Federal Convention. He led the contentious gathering brilliantly and gently guided it toward a magnificent conclusion. Yes, he owned slaves, but is that reason enough to discard his work and vilify his reputation? Human frailties are no reason to throw away the Framers’ brilliance. Rapacious politicians are reason enough to heed their counsel. 

After a couple years, the absence of a statue will hardly be noticed, so these acts have little consequence.  The wanton destruction may seem mindless, but there’s a bigger goal in mind.  The Left always intended to progress beyond heroes on horseback to our revolutionary Founders and Constitutional Framers. To what purpose?  Their end game is the obliteration of our Constitution.

Progressives have always disdained the Constitution.  Our system of government hinders ruling in a manner they deem appropriate.  They’ve whittled the edges for over a hundred years, but the Framers were so clever that even a stripped-down version remains a forceful restraint against them exercising their full ambitions.  To a committed progressive, the Constitution must be brushed aside so real progress can be made.

Here’s their problem.  The Constitution has become so entrenched in American culture that it’s more than words on parchment. Our Constitution is as American as baseball and apple pie.  To rid the nation of something that ingrained, the first task is to discredit the authors.

The Founders feared centralized power and designed an instrument to thwart the ambitions of despots and crackpots.  For perspective, let’s look at the intent of the Framers and some of the erosion of their vision.

Most Americans are familiar with the term checks and balances.  It is often spoken as if it were a single word, but in the eighteenth century, the phrase represented distinctly different concepts.  John Adams may have been the first to put the words together in his 1787 publication, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States, but balances and checks is the phrase used in The Federalist, and that is the sequence James Madison would have thought appropriate.  First balance powers between the branches of government, then place checks on those powers so they may not be abused.

The Framers first line of defense was enumerated powers, later reaffirmed by the states and Congress with the 10th amendment.  Unfortunately, few in Washington consider the enumerated powers a present-day constraint.  Many find it amusing that someone might claim there are limits on national power.

Another bulwark erected by the Framers against concentrated power was a limited national taxing authority.  Squeeze the purse, throttle the power.  However, progressives under Woodrow Wilson passed the 16th Amendment, which allows the government to “collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived.”  That pretty much took care of any money restraint.

The delegates to the Constitutional Convention intended the states to provide a potent check on the national government.  They included five provisions for this purpose: enumerated national powers, equal state representation in the Senate, senators elected by state legislatures, limited national taxing authority, and the Electoral College.  The 17th Amendment, also passed under Wilson, provided for the popular election of senators, so three of the five provisions have been negated while the other two are under assault.
A mere demarcation on parchment of the constitutional limits of the several departments, is not a sufficient guard against those encroachments which lead to a tyrannical concentration of all the powers of government in the same hands. James Madison

Despite these and other erosions the Constitution remains a potent restraining order against overly ambitious politicians.  Healthy tension exists between the three branches and most of their respective powers remain intact.  Something must be done.  The rebellion has already progressed from flags and statues to condemnation of the Founders and Framers.  In recent years, learned articles have periodically appeared that impugn our Constitution as too restrictive, woefully out of date, and written by white males who owned slaves.  (The first is a feature, not a flaw; the second untrue; and the third partially true but irrelevant.)  In the coming months, expect to see many more think-pieces along these lines.  On cue, criticism will expand to the popular culture.  The topic will have crested when late-night talk show hosts tell disparaging jokes about the Framers and our Constitution.

We cannot allow this to happen.  Fifty-five highly educated and talented men debated daily for four months to define a government that would work for the people while shielding them from the power crazed.  Their work was ratified by conventions of the people who argued at home, at church, in taverns, and in print until every facet had been examined and reexamined.  New states, wars, depressions, state succession, GDP growth, longevity, and the constant striving to live up to our founding principles proves that the Framers’ foresight remains invaluable.

Human frailties are no reason to throw away the Framers’ brilliance.  Rapacious politicians are reason enough to heed their counsel. 

The Founders ultimate check on the national government is the people.  John Adams wrote, “There is a simple sense in which at every election the electorate hold their representatives to account and replace those who have failed to give satisfaction.”

On November 3, the people will have another opportunity to “hold their representatives to account.” To protect our Constitution, vote against all who want to toss it aside like worthless flotsam.

Tuesday, June 2, 2020

Abraham Lincoln's Address at Cooper Union -- Constitutional Chats

Constituting America

Watch a video of Constitutional Chat with yours truly as guest.

What was so great about his speech at the Cooper Union? It was earth-moving because it was highly unusual. It was a call for his party to stand on principle—God’s principles, the Founders’ principles, and the founding principle of the Republican Party—the abolition of slavery.

 

Thursday, April 30, 2020

February 27, 1860: Abraham Lincoln Delivers His Cooper Union Address





On the evening of February 27, 1860, New Yorkers paid an exorbitant twenty-five cents to listen to a commonplace politician from some prairie state. The man had a reputation as a storyteller extraordinaire. Everyone expected to be entertained; few took the speaker seriously as a presidential candidate. Abraham Lincoln had earned a modicum of fame due to his debates with Senator Stephen Douglas two years previously, but he had lost that race and most believed the fledgling Republican Party would never nominate a loser. In fact, many wondered how this roughhewn storyteller wangled an invitation to a lecture series meant to expose serious candidates to the New York elite? Homespun yarns might draw crowds in the bucolic West, but New York City demanded a more elevated style of speechmaking.

Monday, April 13, 2020

Guest appearance on Constitution Chat




Constitutional Chats hosted by Janine Turner & Cathy Gillespie

Actress Janine Turner, Cathy Gillespie and Constituting America’s Student Ambassadors chat with experts on hot-topic issues. I'll be interviewed on Saturday, April 18, at 9:00 PM ET. The subject will be my forthcoming essay on Lincoln's Cooper Union Address.
On the evening of February 27, 1860, New Yorkers paid an exorbitant twenty-five cents to listen to a commonplace politician from some prairie state. The man had a reputation as a storyteller extraordinaire. Everyone expected to be entertained; few took the speaker seriously as a presidential candidate.



Tuesday, March 17, 2020

December 15, 1791: Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution Are Ratified


Bill of Rights




Despite a modern perception that the first ten amendments bestow rights, it’s clear that the Bill of Rights is really a list of government prohibitions. The Founders did not believe in government benevolence and would never have accepted government as the arbiter of rights. 

Read all about it at Constituting America


Tuesday, March 10, 2020

Guest essayist at Constituting America: U.S. Constitution Sent to the States for Ratification


Constituting America





The Founding of this great nation was unique. Until 1776, with a few brief exceptions, world history was about rulers and empires. The American experiment shook the world. Not only did we break away from the biggest and most powerful empire in history, we took the musings of the brightest thinkers of the Enlightenment and implemented them. Our Founding was simultaneously an armed rebellion against tyranny, and a revolution of ideas—ideas that changed the world.
That is why we still care about America’s founding and the Framers of our Constitution.

Monday, February 17, 2020

Constituting America: 2020 90-Day Study Launches





I'll be participating again this year. I'll let you know when my essays are published, but in the meantime, take a gander at this.













"Many Americans, including perhaps a majority of young people, believe that the present is so different from the past that the past no longer has anything to teach us. This could not be more wrong." Dr. Wifred McClay, from the Introduction.

Sunday, February 9, 2020

Nice Endorsement for Tempest at Dawn



Who is Larry Schweikart? He’s not only a history guru, he’s a tenured college professor, who once lectured in the halls at the University of Dayton. There, he taught history for 20 years and literally “wrote the book” on the subject. A Patriot’s History. Actually 25 books and counting. Many, New York Times #1 best sellers.

Larry Schweikart books on Amazon

Thanks for the kind words, professor.

Sunday, January 12, 2020

A Republic, if You Can Keep It . . .

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

At the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787,  Franklin was queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation. In the notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland’s delegates to the Convention,  a lady asked Dr. Franklin “Well Doctor what have we got, a republic or a monarchy.”  Franklin replied, “A republic . . . if you can keep it.”

Our Constitution created a limited representative republic.  A republic is different from a democracy.  In a democracy, the majority can directly make laws, while in a republic, elected representatives make laws.  Basically, in a pure democracy, the majority has unlimited power, whereas in a republic, a written constitution limits the majority and provides safeguards for the individual and minorities.
In the United States, we actually have both systems.  There is no way for Americans to directly enact legislation at the national level, but half of the states allow ballot initiatives which, if passed by a majority of the voters, have the force of law.
The Founders’ intent at the national level was a representative republic.  The word democracy is not mentioned in the Constitution.   Most of the Founders distrusted pure democracy.  Some had been frightened by Shays Revolt and equated democracy with mob rule. Others were convinced by Madison that different factions would come together until they formed a majority, and then take advantage of those who were not members of their coalition. In fact, Madison showed that throughout history, this phenomenon had destroyed every experiment in democracy.
John Adams wrote that “There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide,” and James Madison wrote in Federalist 10 that “Democracies have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” The reason pure democracies fail is that majorities learn that they can legally take property and/or liberties away from others. Those subjected to abuse can be anyone outside the majority coalition, and their minority status can be based on race, religion, wealth, political affiliation, or even which city or state they reside in. Demagogic leaders become adept at appealing to the emotions of jealousy, avarice, and entitlement. They also denigrate opponents in order to justify prejudicial actions taken by the majority.  Soon, oppression of minority classes causes enough conflicts to collapse the democratic process.
A major difference between a republic and a democracy is immediacy. The Founders wanted laws made by representatives in order to put a buffer between popular passions and legislation. In a democracy, decisions are made in the heat of the moment, while periodic elections in a republic provide a cooling off period. To a great extent, democracies are ruled by feelings, while in a republic, the rule of law governs. In a republic, politicians can take principled actions that go against the will of many of their constituents with the knowledge that they will be judged by all the actions they take during their entire term in office. Political leaders are also given time to explain the reasons for their actions.

Of course, if an elected official does something grievously offensive, then the voters can follow the advice of Alexander Hamilton, who in Federalist 21 wrote, “The natural cure for an ill-administration, in a popular or representative constitution, is a change of men.” 
When the people’s will is thwarted, regular elections give them the opportunity to dismiss their representatives and appoint new ones.