Rhode Island's status, May 1790

[trice]

Originally Posted by JohnTaylor

I might add, that I had to modify my views based no reading these documents. I had originally felt that the Federal government was empowered to deal with any issue that transcended a State boundary. Having read the records of the debates in Philadelphia and the several State Conventions, I now realize that the Founders intended the Federal government's powers to be limited to those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution, since the people of the States accepted the proposal based on this assurance.

John, you are talking about your opinion here. Not all of the Founders agreed with you or each other on these issues.

In any case, it is obvious from the history of the country from that day to this that a great many informed people have disagreed with you on the details (if nothing else) of this contention. If you go back to the early days, you will find that some of these were the "Founders".

Regards,
Tim

[trice]

You are talking specifically about May of 1790 here. Rhode Island, after roughly two years of turmoil, was finally holding a convention on the new Constitution. If you want, we can trudge through the details of the Hazzard faction and the rural areas dominance over the urban in Rhode Island at that time, and the threat of Providence to separate from Rhode Island if the Convention was not held, and the attempts to substitute a plebiscite for the Convention, and the boycott of the election by those who thought it was an illegal attempt to avoid the required Convention of the people. We can talk about the debt issues involved and the Quakers who wanted to reject the Constitution because it was, in their opinion, a pro-slaver agreement. But it will have little to do with the Civil War, and it is really pretty dry stuff for most people.

Originally Posted by JohnTaylor

Au contraire, it directly addresses the nature of the Union, and whether the Federal government was specifically empowered to force States to remain in the Union.

I would not think so. What I mentioned in this paragraph is an internal matter to Rhode Island, with the possible exceptions of RI's failure to follow the described procedure for a constitutional convention and her debt to the United States (although I was referring to other debt issues internal to RI for the most part, her 1780s fiscal policy left her in a lot of trouble). None of it pertains to the question of using force. For that, you would have to look elsewhere.

Regards,
Tim

[JohnTaylor]

Originally Posted by trice

John, you are talking about your opinion here. Not all of the Founders agreed with you or each other on these issues.

In any case, it is obvious from the history of the country from that day to this that a great many informed people have disagreed with you on the details (if nothing else) of this contention. If you go back to the early days, you will find that some of these were the "Founders".

Regards,
Tim

But no member of any State Convention that advocated ratification said that he recommended ratification because the Federal government would be able to exercise any powers but those delegated to it.
Opponents of the Constitution frequently said that the Federal government would wield undelegated powers, but, and this is the point, they opposed ratification based on that view.
Sure, there were people, after ratification, who came to the conclusion that there was a boatload of money to be made if they could only exercise a few undelegated powers, which is why they invented, post-ratification, the doctrines of implied Federal powers and constructive powers. But when the matter was being debated, in the most solemn and serious debate a people can engage in (i.e. what form of government they will live under), the advocates of the Constitution uniformly said that the Federal government could not exercise any powers not delegated to it. The people of the States took them at their word, and ratified based on that assurance.
To accept your view is to make the Constitution a deception and a fraud.
Respectfully,
John Taylor

[trice]

Originally Posted by JohnTaylor

But no member of any State Convention that advocated ratification said that he recommended ratification because the Federal government would be able to exercise any powers but those delegated to it.
Opponents of the Constitution frequently said that the Federal government would wield undelegated powers, but, and this is the point, they opposed ratification based on that view.
Sure, there were people, after ratification, who came to the conclusion that there was a boatload of money to be made if they could only exercise a few undelegated powers, which is why they invented, post-ratification, the doctrines of implied Federal powers and constructive powers. But when the matter was being debated, in the most solemn and serious debate a people can engage in (i.e. what form of government they will live under), the advocates of the Constitution uniformly said that the Federal government could not exercise any powers not delegated to it. The people of the States took them at their word, and ratified based on that assurance.
To accept your view is to make the Constitution a deception and a fraud.

No, it merely makes it what it was.

One common tactic in such situations is for people to not rock the boat, to avoid creating problems until the agreement is made. Obviously many people thought there was a lot more that needed to be put in the Constitution than was in it, or we wouldn't have had such a push for all the amendments immediately afterwards, or the actual adoption of the Bill of Rights, or the actual Tenth Amendment that declares specifically what you say everyone assumed.

But we also have in the Constitution the Supremacy Clause and the Interstate Commerce Clause and much other language that has been used to justify Federal exercise of power greater than some would like. That there is room for debate over all this, and considerable difference of opinion on what, exactly, was delegated, retained, or even existed is very obvious from even the most cursory study of US history.

Even a man like Thomas Jefferson acknowledged that a government needed the ability to enforce the law. Speaking in 1784 on the question of whether the US would use coercion against a state, he had said that in the end the other states would always compel a state that was refusing to live up to their obligations to do so. That was, of course, under the Articles instead of the Constitution - but the Articles are regarded as much weaker. Jefferson, of course, also presided over a number of extensions of Federal power while he was President.

There was considerable debate over what all this meant, and I don't believe the Federalists were anxious to detail and discuss exactly what they believed was being delegated. The Anti-Federalists were not overly anxious to be explicit about what was being retained. Undoubtedly neither side wanted to find years later that they had omitted something important by being too narrow in their definitions -- or to cause problems with their support by being too detailed on some points. Both sides seem to have stuck to generalities whenever possible. This is fairly normal in politics, and certainly the adoption of the Constitution was the most political issue there was at the time in the US.

I do wonder, however, how you think you can get away with statements like the above, implying all those people who disagreed with you were corrupted by money-lust, while all those who agree with your position were souls inspired by only the purest of motives. That is simply unsupportable rhetoric you can never justify, designed to be inflamatory. I'd suggest you stop using that tactic.

Regards,
Tim

[JohnTaylor]

Originally Posted by trice

One common tactic in such situations is for people to not rock the boat, to avoid creating problems until the agreement is made.

This sounds like the Federalists were trying to deceive the people into ratifying a constitution, and then expanding Federal powers beyond what the people intended. So you do subscribe to the “bait and switch swindle” school of constitution-making. How nice.

Originally Posted by trice

Obviously many people thought there was a lot more that needed to be put in the Constitution than was in it, or we wouldn't have had such a push for all the amendments immediately afterwards, or the actual adoption of the Bill of Rights, or the actual Tenth Amendment that declares specifically what you say everyone assumed.

You might notice that every article in the Bill of Rights restricts Federal powers. The tenth amendment simply incorporated the principle that advocates of ratification had said all along: that the Federal government would never be able to exercise any powers but those delegated to it. This was so that nobody would later be able to say that the Federal government could exercise some undelegated power.

Originally Posted by trice

But we also have in the Constitution the Supremacy Clause and the Interstate Commerce Clause and much other language that has been used to justify Federal exercise of power greater than some would like. That there is room for debate over all this, and considerable difference of opinion on what, exactly, was delegated, retained, or even existed is very obvious from even the most cursory study of US history.

True. Consolidationists went to work immediate trying to undermine the pledge that advocates of ratification had made. After all, there was money to be made. That doesn’t make it the correct understanding of Federal powers, though.
Your lack of any reference to the historical record in the State Conventions of 1787-1790 makes it look like there is no evidence there to support your position.

Originally Posted by trice

There was considerable debate over what all this meant, and I don't believe the Federalists were anxious to detail and discuss exactly what they believed was being delegated.

Absolutely, demonstrably and categorically false. A look at the record of the State Conventions will show precisely what I said they do. Have you read Elliot’s Debates, or are you speaking out of ignorance here?
I have posted the relevant excerpts from the record before, but a couple will suffice.
In North Carolina, Gov. Johnston said, “The Congress cannot assume any other powers than those expressly given them, without a palpable violation of the Constitution.” (Elliot’s Debates, Vol. IV)
The James Iredell said, “Of what use, therefore, can a bill of rights be in this Constitution, where the people expressly declare how much power they do give, and consequently retain all they do not? It is a declaration of particular powers by the people to their representatives, for particular purposes. It may be considered as a great power of attorney, under which no power can be exercised but what is expressly given.” (Elliot’s Debates, Vol. IV)
Mr. MacLaine said, “The powers of Congress are limited and enumerated. We say we have given them those powers, but we do not say we have given them more. We retain all those rights which we have not given away to the general government. The gentleman is a professional man. If a gentleman had made his last will and testament, and devised or bequeathed to a particular person the sixth part of his property, or any particular specific legacy, could it be said that that person should have the whole estate? If they can assume powers not enumerated, there was no occasion for enumerating any powers.” (Elliot’s Debates, Vol. IV) Each of these men was an advocate of ratification.
In Virginia, Gov. Randolph said, “If I did believe, with the honorable gentleman, that all power not expressly retained was given up by the people, I would detest this government. But I never thought so, nor do I now.”

Originally Posted by trice

The Anti-Federalists were not overly anxious to be explicit about what was being retained.

No, they were more concerned with what was being delegated, and because they feared that someone might claim that the Federal government would be allowed to exercise powers not delegated to it (who would dare do such a thing?), they opposed this constitution.

Originally Posted by trice

Undoubtedly neither side wanted to find years later that they had omitted something important by being too narrow in their definitions -- or to cause problems with their support by being too detailed on some points. Both sides seem to have stuck to generalities whenever possible.

Interesting observation. There was considerable debate about omissions in enumerating Federal powers, versus the risk of enumerating reserved rights. That is why the advocates of ratification in every State convention assured the cautious fence-sitters that the Federal government could not exercise any powers but those enumerated powers delegated to it. It was much safer to err on the side of omitting a Federal power than it was to omit a reserved right.
In South Carolina, Gen. Charles Cotesworth Pinckney said, “The general government has no powers but what are expressly granted to it; it therefore has no power to take away the liberty of the press. That invaluable blessing, which deserves all the encomiums the gentleman has justly bestowed upon its is secured by all our state constitutions; and to have mentioned it in our general Constitution would perhaps furnish an argument, hereafter, that the general government had a right to exercise powers not expressly delegated to it. For the same reason, we had no bill of rights inserted in our Constitution; for, as we might perhaps have omitted the enumeration of some of our rights, it might hereafter be said we had delegated to the general government a power to take away such of our rights as we had not enumerated: but by delegating express powers, we certainly reserve to ourselves every power and right not mentioned in the Constitution.”
Gov Johnston of North Carolina, again: “A bill of rights may be necessary in a monarchical government, whose powers are undefined. Were we in the situation of a monarchical country? No, sir. Every right could not be enumerated, and the omitted rights would be sacrificed, if security arose from an enumeration. The Congress cannot assume any other powers than those expressly given them, without a palpable violation of the Constitution.”

Originally Posted by trice

This is fairly normal in politics, and certainly the adoption of the Constitution was the most political issue there was at the time in the US.

You are speaking out of ignorance once again. Opponents of ratification frequently said that they were opposed to ratifying this constitution because they felt that the Federal government would be allowed to exercise undelegated powers.

Originally Posted by JT

Sure, there were people, after ratification, who came to the conclusion that there was a boatload of money to be made if they could only exercise a few undelegated powers, which is why they invented, post-ratification, the doctrines of implied Federal powers and constructive powers.

Originally Posted by trice

I do wonder, however, how you think you can get away with statements like the above, …

“How I can get away with” the statement? I realize you are an adherent of the philosophies of Abraham Lincoln, but are you going to have the arrest me for expressing ideas opposed to yours? Do you have a list of pre-approved thoughts to which everyone should stick in order to avoid challenging the consolidationist school?

Originally Posted by trice

…implying all those people who disagreed with you were corrupted by money-lust, while all those who agree with your position were souls inspired by only the purest of motives.

This is a strawman. I would be charitable and say that it is beneath you, but I am not sure it is beneath you.
I never said that everyone who disagreed was corrupted by money-lust. Many people were apathetic, some (foolishly) deferred to the reputations of men like Alexander Hamilton. But some clearly were motivated by a desire to make money from the arrangement. This debate is as old as the Republic. The assumption of State war debts (frequently for pennies on the dollar) and the chartering of the First Bank of the United States (and Jefferson-Hamilton debate on that issue). Do you deny that Hamilton and his supporters made money from these financial dealings? Was Hamilton wealthier at his death than he had been in July 1788? I would wager that he was substantially wealthier. Would you have us believe that this wealth was irrelevant to Hamilton’s motivations? He was truly altruistic, and just invested well?
You would have us believe that Southern slaveholders in 1860 were motivated by the amount of money they had tied up in slaves. On this point I would agree. And yet, you would then have us believe that northern manufacturers were unconcerned about the loss of tariff protection that would result from the letting the South go. And that Hamilton and his money men were unmotivated by the potential to make money from the new Federal arrangement. That is internally inconsistent.

Originally Posted by trice

That is simply unsupportable rhetoric you can never justify, designed to be inflamatory (sic). I'd suggest you stop using that tactic.

Too bad you find the truth inflammatory. Maybe you should take up another hobby.
The glaring lack of even the barest resort to the historical record in you diatribe above might cause a more open-minded man, or one with integrity to question where he gets his ideas. The fact that you provided no source from the record at the time of when the Constitution was up for debate to support your flaccid theory on Federal powers indicates to me that you cannot find anything from that record to support your position. Please, show us all which delegates at the State Conventions said that they supported ratification because the Federal government would be able to exercise powers not delegated to it in the Constitution.
John Taylor

[trice]

Originally Posted by trice

One common tactic in such situations is for people to not rock the boat, to avoid creating problems until the agreement is made. Obviously many people thought there was a lot more that needed to be put in the Constitution than was in it, or we wouldn't have had such a push for all the amendments immediately afterwards, or the actual adoption of the Bill of Rights, or the actual Tenth Amendment that declares specifically what you say everyone assumed.

Originally Posted by JohnTaylor

This sounds like the Federalists were trying to deceive the people into ratifying a constitution, and then expanding Federal powers beyond what the people intended. So you do subscribe to the “bait and switch swindle” school of constitution-making. How nice.

No, John. That is just you misrepresenting what was said.

Both sides were acting this way. It is normal political behavior. The powers and rights were being deliberately left vague whenever they could, to allow for future contingencies. I said nothing about an attempt to deceive anyone -- you have imagined it.

Originally Posted by trice

But we also have in the Constitution the Supremacy Clause and the Interstate Commerce Clause and much other language that has been used to justify Federal exercise of power greater than some would like. That there is room for debate over all this, and considerable difference of opinion on what, exactly, was delegated, retained, or even existed is very obvious from even the most cursory study of US history.

Originally Posted by JohnTaylor

True. Consolidationists went to work immediate trying to undermine the pledge that advocates of ratification had made. After all, there was money to be made. That doesn’t make it the correct understanding of Federal powers, though.
Your lack of any reference to the historical record in the State Conventions of 1787-1790 makes it look like there is no evidence there to support your position.

Come now, John. I said there were many different views; you insist only one is possible. I have in the past shown you evidence of contrary views on many of the issues, and seen others present it to you. You insist the evidence does not exist. Balderdash.

As to "the correct understanding of Federal powers", what is that? One that is congruent with yours?

Originally Posted by trice

Even a man like Thomas Jefferson acknowledged that a government needed the ability to enforce the law. Speaking in 1784 on the question of whether the US would use coercion against a state, he had said that in the end the other states would always compel a state that was refusing to live up to their obligations to do so. That was, of course, under the Articles instead of the Constitution - but the Articles are regarded as much weaker. Jefferson, of course, also presided over a number of extensions of Federal power while he was President.

There was considerable debate over what all this meant, and I don't believe the Federalists were anxious to detail and discuss exactly what they believed was being delegated. The Anti-Federalists were not overly anxious to be explicit about what was being retained. Undoubtedly neither side wanted to find years later that they had omitted something important by being too narrow in their definitions -- or to cause problems with their support by being too detailed on some points. Both sides seem to have stuck to generalities whenever possible. This is fairly normal in politics, and certainly the adoption of the Constitution was the most political issue there was at the time in the US.

Originally Posted by JohnTaylor

Absolutely, demonstrably and categorically false.

That there were differences of opinion among the delegates? Simply a misrepresentation on your part -- but I am sure you already know that. The reason for the use of the word "debates" in "Elliot's Debates" is that there were differences of opinion being debated.

Originally Posted by JohnTaylor

A look at the record of the State Conventions will show precisely what I said they do. Have you read Elliot’s Debates, or are you speaking out of ignorance here?

I am very tempted to just respond with "asked and answered" here. I think the first time you asked me this question was back in May, and I answered it then. I will assume that your attitude here is merely arrogance or an attempt at an ad hominem attack. Other opinions exist besides your own, John. They existed among the people of the 1780s as well.

Originally Posted by JohnTaylor

I have posted the relevant excerpts from the record before, but a couple will suffice.
In North Carolina, Gov. Johnston said, ...
The James Iredell said, ...
Mr. MacLaine said, ...
In Virginia, Gov. Randolph said,
In South Carolina, Gen. Charles Cotesworth Pinckney said, ...
Gov Johnston of North Carolina, again: ...

Yes, John, all those quotes are in there and thousands more. For example, Charles Cotesworth Pickney (more a general by courtesy than anything else, although he was Colonel of the 1st South Carolina Continentals in the Revolution and an officer on Washington's staff for a while) did not believe that the states ever were individually independent and sovereign, only collectively so. His opinion on what was being retained and delegated would accordingly be different than yours or a number of other people. Feeling that way, he would have a hard time with the "right of secession" concept, but obviously supported the "natural right of revolution".

Originally Posted by trice

This is fairly normal in politics, and certainly the adoption of the Constitution was the most political issue there was at the time in the US

Originally Posted by JohnTaylor

You are speaking out of ignorance once again. Opponents of ratification frequently said that they were opposed to ratifying this constitution because they felt that the Federal government would be allowed to exercise undelegated powers.

Yes, certainly, some did. I have frequently acknowledged as much. What is your problem here? Why do you wish to be so insulting over a fairly hum-drum statement that the adoption of the Constitution was a political event?

Regards,
Tim

[trice]

Originally Posted by JohnTaylor

“How I can get away with” the statement?

Yes, how?

You said: "Sure, there were people, after ratification, who came to the conclusion that there was a boatload of money to be made if they could only exercise a few undelegated powers, which is why they invented, post-ratification, the doctrines of implied Federal powers and constructive powers."

So your point is everyone agreed with you until a few people decided they could make money, so they invented a concept you claim never existed before. You ascribe to all of them the motivation of money-lust when you said this.

Originally Posted by JohnTaylor

I realize you are an adherent of the philosophies of Abraham Lincoln, but are you going to have the arrest me for expressing ideas opposed to yours? Do you have a list of pre-approved thoughts to which everyone should stick in order to avoid challenging the consolidationist school?This is a strawman. I would be charitable and say that it is beneath you, but I am not sure it is beneath you.

More ad hominem attacks, totally uncalled for.

However, why is it that when I say there were many different opinions you insist I said there is only one?

Originally Posted by JohnTaylor

I never said that everyone who disagreed was corrupted by money-lust.

Hmm. You have said it twice in this thread. In your most recent message, speaking on this very issue, you say it again: "After all, there was money to be made." So, yep, you did.

Originally Posted by JohnTaylor

Many people were apathetic, some (foolishly) deferred to the reputations of men like Alexander Hamilton. But some clearly were motivated by a desire to make money from the arrangement. This debate is as old as the Republic. The assumption of State war debts (frequently for pennies on the dollar) and the chartering of the First Bank of the United States (and Jefferson-Hamilton debate on that issue). Do you deny that Hamilton and his supporters made money from these financial dealings? Was Hamilton wealthier at his death than he had been in July 1788? I would wager that he was substantially wealthier. Would you have us believe that this wealth was irrelevant to Hamilton’s motivations? He was truly altruistic, and just invested well?

I don't think I have ever said much about Hamilton on this Forum, if anything. This appears to be a red herring you are introducing to try to confuse the issue.

I find it interesting, though, that the assumption of state debts by the Federal government was a major factor in Rhode Island's ratification of the Constitution. The state had not been managed well in the 1780s, had financial woes other than the Revolutionary War debt, and many there saw this as a way out.

If you look at most such political issues, you will find that some of the parties involved benefit from them. It doesn't matter much what state they come from, or which party. For example, the US Navy never wanted a navy yard in Memphis, TN, many hundreds of miles up a river that ocean-going ships could not navigate. Yet Congress had one built there in the 1840s to benefit the local economy. Hemp producers in TN and KY benefitted, but the base was useless and was eventually abandoned.

However, you ascribe this money motivation only to those who disagree with you. If you investigate, you will quite likely find that some of the ones on your side also saw profits as a result of policies they espoused. What is it you want to make of all this?

One thing you might do is to start by acknowledging that people had varying reasons and interpretations of all this difficult matter. They did not all agree with each other, or with you.

Originally Posted by JohnTaylor

You would have us believe that Southern slaveholders in 1860 were motivated by the amount of money they had tied up in slaves. On this point I would agree.

So? They agreed as well, and said so frequently throughout the days leading up to secession.

Originally Posted by JohnTaylor

And yet, you would then have us believe that northern manufacturers were unconcerned about the loss of tariff protection that would result from the letting the South go.

I think that is a blatant misrepresentation of anything I have said.

Originally Posted by JohnTaylor

And that Hamilton and his money men were unmotivated by the potential to make money from the new Federal arrangement.

Since I never said anything like this about Hamilton I recall in my entire life, I would have to say you are once again indulging yourself in ad hominem attacks based on something you have imagined.

Originally Posted by JohnTaylor

That is internally inconsistent.

Yes, your statements appear to be based on something not evident to me.

Originally Posted by trice

That is simply unsupportable rhetoric you can never justify, designed to be inflamatory. I'd suggest you stop using that tactic.

Originally Posted by JohnTaylor

Too bad you find the truth inflammatory. Maybe you should take up another hobby.

Well, "the truth" here seems to be your own personal opinion that everyone who ever disagreed with your opinion on the Constitution and Federal powers (men like Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Marshall, Hamilton, etc.) was motivated by the money they could make by creating and promoting a false doctrine. I'd say that was inflamatory -- and baseless.

Originally Posted by JohnTaylor

The glaring lack of even the barest resort to the historical record in you diatribe above might cause a more open-minded man, or one with integrity to question where he gets his ideas. The fact that you provided no source from the record at the time of when the Constitution was up for debate to support your flaccid theory on Federal powers indicates to me that you cannot find anything from that record to support your position. Please, show us all which delegates at the State Conventions said that they supported ratification because the Federal government would be able to exercise powers not delegated to it in the Constitution.

This appears to be yet another case of you demanding proof for something I never said. Indeed, it appears to be a complete and deliberate distortion of what I did say, as anyone who reads through this thread will plainly see. You should not use this tactic.

Regards,
Tim

[Hanny]

To the President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives of the eleven United States of America in Congress assembled:
The critical situation in which the people of this State are placed engages us to make these assurances, on their behalf, of their attachment and friendship to their sister States, and of their disposition to cultivate mutual harmony and friendly intercourse. They know themselves to be a handful, comparatively viewed, and, although they now stand as it were alone, they have not separated themselves or departed from the principles of that Confederation, which was formed by the sister States in their struggle for freedom and in the hour of danger....
Our not having acceded to or adopted the new system of government formed and adopted by most of our sister States, we doubt not, has given uneasiness to them. That we have not seen our way clear to it, consistently with our idea of the principles upon which we all embarked together, has also given pain to us. We have not doubted that we might thereby avoid present difficulties, but we have apprehended future mischief....
Can it be thought strange that, with these impressions, they should wait to see the proposed system organized and in operation? — to see what further checks and securities would be agreed to and established by way of amendments, before they could adopt it as a constitution of government for themselves and their posterity?...
We are induced to hope that we shall not be altogether considered as foreigners having no particular affinity or connection with the United States; but that trade and commerce, upon which the prosperity of this State much depends, will be preserved as free and open between this State and the United States, as our different situations at present can possibly admit....
We feel ourselves attached by the strongest ties of friendship, kindred, and interest, to our sister States; and we can not, without the greatest reluctance, look to any other quarter for those advantages of commercial intercourse which we conceive to be more natural and reciprocal between them and us.
I am, at the request and in behalf of the General Assembly, your most obedient, humble servant.
John Collins, Governor
Rhode Island Governor John Collins, letter to The President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives of the eleven United States of America in Congress assembled; in ibid., page 10


Madison addresses this question in the Federlist papers.