The 1787 Constitutional Convention – Alexander Hamilton Proposes a Strong National Government

June 18, 1787


Much of the session was taken by oration from Alexander Hamilton.

Influences on the Constitution

Hamilton made a passionate appeal for a strong national government. He said his theory is proved by experience. To what experience did he refer? The Bible? Israel? Hamilton did not refer to any biblical model, but rather other governments through history.

Theory is in this case fully confirmed by experience. The Amphictyonic Council had, it would seem, ample powers for general purposes. It had, in particular, the power of fining and using force against, delinquent members. What was the consequence? Their decrees were mere signals of war. The Phocian war is a striking example of it. Philip at length, taking advantage of their disunion, and insinuating himself into their councils, made himself master of their fortunes. The German confederacy affords another lesson. The authority of Charlemagne seemed to be as great as could be necessary. The great feudal chiefs, however, exercising their local sovereignties, soon felt the spirit, and found the means, of encroachments, which reduced the Imperial authority to a nominal sovereignty. The Diet has succeeded, which, though aided by a Prince at its head, of great authority independently of his imperial attributes, is a striking illustration of the weakness of confederated governments. Other examples instruct us in the same truth. The Swiss Cantons have scarce any union at all, and have been more than once at war with one another. How then are all these evils to be avoided? Only by such a complete sovereignty in the General Government as will turn all the strong principles and passions above-mentioned on its side. Does the scheme of New Jersey produce this effect? Does it afford any substantial remedy whatever? On the contrary, it labors under great defects, and the defect of some of its provisions will destroy the efficacy of others.

Hamilton leaned toward the British government as a model.

In his private opinion, he had no scruple in declaring, supported as he was by the opinion of so many of the wise and good, that the British Government was the best in the world: and that he doubted much whether any thing short of it would do in America. He hoped gentlemen of different opinions would bear with him in this, and begged them to recollect the change of opinion on this subject which had taken place, and was still going on. It was once thought, that the power of Congress was amply sufficient to secure the end of their institution. The error was now seen by every one. The members most tenacious of republicanism, he observed, were as loud as any in declaiming against the vices of democracy. This progress of the public mind led him to anticipate the time, when others as well as himself, would join in the praise bestowed by Mr. NECKAR on the British Constitution, namely, that it is the only government in the world “which unites public strength with individual security.” In every community where industry is encouraged, there will be a division of it into the few and the many. Hence, separate interests will arise. There will be debtors and creditors, &c. Give all power to the many, they will oppress the few. Give all power to the few, they will oppress the many. Both, therefore, ought to have the power, that each may defend itself against the other. To the want of this check we owe our paper-money, instalment laws, &c. To the proper adjustment of it the British owe the excellence of their constitution. Their House of Lords is a most noble institution. Having nothing to hope for by a change, and a sufficient interest, by means of their property, in being faithful to the national interest, they form a permanent barrier against every pernicious innovation, whether attempted on the part of the Crown or of the Commons. No temporary Senate will have firmness enough to answer the purpose. The Senate of Maryland which seems to be so much appealed to, has not yet been sufficiently tried.

Hamilton favored life time appointments as a means of insuring stability.

Was not this giving up the merits of the question; for can there be a good government without a good Executive? The English model was the only good one on this subject. The hereditary interest of the King was so interwoven with that of the nation, and his personal emolument so great, that he was placed above the danger of being corrupted from abroad; and at the same time was both sufficiently independent and sufficiently controlled, to answer the purpose of the institution at home. One of the weak sides of republics was their being liable to foreign influence and corruption. Men of little character, acquiring great power, become easily the tools of intermeddling neighbors. Sweden was a striking instance. The French and English had each their parties during the late revolution, which was effected by the predominant influence of the former. What is the inference from all these observations? That we ought to go as far, in order to attain stability and permanency, as republican principles will admit. Let one branch of the Legislature hold their places for life, or at least during good behavior. Let the Executive also, be for life.

Finally, he mentioned Rome and Europe as offering beneficial information.

The election of Roman Emperors was made by the army. In Poland the election is made by great rival princes, with independent power, and ample means of raising commotions. In the German Empire, the appointment is made by the Electors and Princes, who have equal motives and means for exciting cabals and parties. Might not such a mode of election be devised among ourselves, as will defend the community against these effects in any dangerous degree?

Looking at the illustrations of past governments, Hamilton concluded that a strong national government was the solution to the problems of the Confederation.

photo-1467912407355-245f30185020_opt1787 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)

The 1787 Constitutional Convention – The New Jersey Plan Debated

June 16, 1787


Today, the delegates debated the New Jersey proposal.

Influences on the Constitution

As in past sessions, there was no mention of the Bible or religion as a factor in support or opposition to either plan before the Convention.
An influence I haven’t mentioned in past posts shows up today: the people. While I have noticed in my reading an occasion reference to citizen acceptance, that factor jumped at at me today from the opening comments by New York delegate John Lansing:

In Committee of the Whole, on the Resolutions proposed by Mr. PATTERSON and Mr. RANDOLPH, — Mr. LANSING called for the reading of the first Resolution of each plan, which he considered as involving principles directly in contrast. That of Mr. PATTERSON, says he, sustains the sovereignty of the respective States, that of Mr. RANDOLPH destroys it. The latter requires a negative on all the laws of the particular States, the former only certain general power for the general good. The plan of Mr. RANDOLPH in short absorbs all power, except what may be exercised in the little local matters of the States which are not objects worthy of the supreme cognizance. He grounded his preference of Mr. PATTERSON’S plan, chiefly, on two objections to that of Mr. RANDOLPH, — first, want of power in the Convention to discuss and propose it; secondly, the improbability of its being adopted.
1. He was decidedly of opinion that the power of the Convention was restrained to amendments of a Federal nature, and having for their basis the Confederacy in being. The acts of Congress, the tenor of the acts of the States, the commissions produced by the several Deputations, all proved this. And this limitation of the power to an amendment of the Confederacy marked the opinion of the States, that it was unnecessary and improper to go farther. He was sure that this was the case with his State. New York would never have concurred in sending Deputies to the Convention, if she had supposed the deliberations were to turn on a consolidation of the States, and a National Government.
2. Was it probable that the States would adopt and ratify a scheme which they had never authorized us to propose, and which so far exceeded what they regarded as sufficient? We see by their several acts, particularly in relation to the plan of revenue proposed by Congress in 1783, not authorized by the Articles of Confederation, what were the ideas they then entertained. Can so great a change be supposed to have already taken place? To rely on any change which is hereafter to take place in the sentiments of the people, would be trusting to too great an uncertainty. We know only what their present sentiments are. And it is in vain to propose what will not accord with these. The States will never feel a sufficient confidence in a General Government, to give it a negative on their laws. The scheme is itself totally novel. There is no parallel to it to be found. The authority of Congress is familiar to the people, and an augmentation of the powers of Congress will be readily approved by them.

Lansing worried that the Randolph plan delegates were going beyond their mandate and that the people in the states would never accept a strong national government. The perception of what citizens would accept must be considered a powerful influence on the principles of the Constitution.
PA’s James Wilson countered that the will of the people isn’t easily known.

With regard to the sentiments of the people, he conceived it difficult to know precisely what they are. Those of the particular circle in which one moved were commonly mistaken for the general voice. He could not persuade himself that the State Governments and sovereignties were so much the idols of the people, nor a National Governernment so obnoxious to them, as some supposed. Why should a National Government be unpopular? Has it less dignity? Will each citizen enjoy under it less liberty or protection? Will a citizen of Delaware be degraded by becoming a citizen of the United States? Where do the people look at present for relief from the evils of which they complain? Is it from an internal reform of their governments? No, sir. It is from the national councils that relief is expected. For these reasons, he did not fear that the people would not follow us into a National Government; and it will be a further recommendation of Mr. RANDOLPH’S plan, that it is to be submitted to them, and not to the Legislatures, for ratification.

Wilson continued, later referring again to the illustration of Britain.

But it is a lesson we ought not to disregard, that the smallest bodies in Great Britain are notoriously the most corrupt. Every other source of influence must also be stronger in small than in large bodies of men. When Lord Chesterfield had told us that one of the Dutch provinces had been seduced into the views of France, he need not have added, that it was not Holland, but one of the smallest of them. There are facts among ourselves which are known to all. Passing over others, we will only remark that the Impost, so anxiously wished for by the public, was defeated not by any of the larger States in the Union.

Wilson concludes his remarks with a negative model of the executive branch from Greece and Rome:

On another great point, the contrast was equally favorable to the plan reported by the Committee of the Whole. It vested the Executive powers in a single magistrate. The plan of New Jersey, vested them in a plurality. In order to control the Legislative authority, you must divide it. In order to control the Executive you must unite it. One man will be more responsible than three. Three will contend among themselves, till one becomes the master of his colleagues. In the triumvirates of Rome, first, Cæsar, then Augustus, are witnesses of this truth. The kings of Sparta, and the Consuls of Rome, prove also the factious consequences of dividing the Executive magistracy. Having already taken up so much time, he would not, he said, proceed to any of the other points. Those on which he had dwelt are sufficient of themselves; and on the decision of them the fate of the others will depend.

The session adjourned without a vote on either plan.

photo-1474663898126-6f6f19a48b1d_opt1787 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)

The 1787 Constitution Convention – The New Jersey Plan Raises Anxiety

June 15, 1787


New Jersey delegate William Patterson submitted another plan of government.

Influences on the Constitution

Debate was postponed until the next session:

Mr. PATTERSON laid before the Convention the plan which he said several of the Deputations wished to be substituted in place of that proposed by Mr. RANDOLPH. After some little discussion of the most proper mode of giving it a fair deliberation, it was agreed, that it should be referred to a Committee of the Whole; and that, in order to place the two plans in due comparison, the other should be recommitted. At the earnest request of Mr. LANSING and some other gentleman, it was also agreed that the Convention should not go into Committee of the Whole on the subject till to-morrow; by which delay the friends of the plan proposed by Mr. PATTERSON would be better prepared to explain and support it, and all would have an opportunity of taking copies.1

The plan was laid out in Madison’s notes. Madison’s commentary probably best sums up the offer of a new plan.

This plan had been concerted among the Deputations, or members thereof, from Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and perhaps Mr. Martin, from Maryland, who made with them a common cause, though on different principles. Connecticut and New York were against a departure from the principle of the Confederation, wishing rather to add a few new powers to Congress than to substitute a National Government. The States of New Jersey and Delaware were opposed to a National Government, because its patrons considered a proportional representation of the States as the basis of it. The eagerness displayed by the members opposed to a National Government, from these different motives, began now to produce serious anxiety for the result of the Convention. Mr. Dickinson said to Mr. Madison, “You see the consequence of pushing things too far. Some of the members from the small States wish for two branches in the General Legislature, and are friends to a good National Government; but we would sooner submit to foreign power, than submit to be deprived, in both branches of the legislature, of an equality of suffrage, and thereby be thrown under the domination of the larger States.”

Delegates from the smaller states were quite worried that they would be dominated by the larger states. This nervousness led them to champion the Confederation of states over a strong national government. However, the dispute between the states led to worries that the convention might end without an agreement. From Madison’s note:

The eagerness displayed by the members opposed to a National Government, from these different motives, began now to produce serious anxiety for the result of the Convention.


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)

What's Going on at Harvest Bible Fellowship? James MacDonald Resigns as President of HBF

UPDATE (6/15/17): I have informed by multiple sources that the pastor of Harvest Bible Chapel, James MacDonalds, wrote Harvest Bible Fellowship member pastors yesterday to step away from leadership of HBF.  According to the communication I have seen, MacDonald said, “As of this notice, the Harvest Bible Chapel that I lead is resigning all responsibility to lead our fellowship of churches and administer the funds that you send to our Elgin campus in support of church planting. I, too, am resigning my role as President and, as of this notice, retain no role of influence over the work of HBF.”
He added that the work of HBF is now in the hands of interim Executive Director Brian White and “governance leaders, Ron Zappia, Bill Borinstein, and Robbie Symons.” MacDonald asked the HBF pastors to give the new leaders support and called them “good men.”
MacDonald said he and Harvest Bible Chapel will “continue to plant Harvest Bible Chapels and Vertical Churches retaining ownership of those marks and brands which we gladly share without reservation or new condition with all of you.” He added that those church planting efforts will continue under the oversight of HBC’s elder board.
Although the email indicates that the Vertical Church Conferences may be “suspended,” the current splash page for Harvest Bible Fellowship says the August conference is on.
HBF splash clip
Stay tuned…
The original post starts below:
On June 10 of this year, Harvest Bible Fellowship’s website actively promoted James MacDonald’s church network and Vertical Church Conferences. HBF is (or was) the church planting arm of Harvest Bible Chapel, a megachurch in the Chicago area.
Now amid rumors of a shake up at HBF (and the flagship Vertical Church Conference), the HBF website went from active to being “under construction” to being parked at Go Daddy.
On June 10:
Harvest BF WB
Under construction early this afternoon:
harvest BF cap
Now the domain is being parked at
Harvest Go

The 1787 Constitutional Convention – Vote on Virginia Plan Delayed to Consider New Jersey Plan

June 14, 1787
There is only one entry in Madison’s journal for today:

Mr. PATTERSON observed to the Convention, that it was the wish of several Deputations, particularly that of New Jersey, that further time might be allowed them to contemplate the plan reported from the Committee of the Whole, and to digest one purely federal, and contradistinguished from the reported plan. He said, they hoped to have such an one ready by to-morrow to be laid before the Convention: and the Convention adjourned that leisure might be given for the purpose.

The plot thickened from here.

Journal Federal Cons Logo1787 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)

The 1787 Constitutional Convention – Time to Vote on the Virginia Plan

June 13, 1787


After some debate on the Judiciary and Senate, the delegates agreed to vote on the Virginia plan the next day. As we will see, any hopes for a quick plan were dashed the next day.


Again, Britain and the experience of the states formed the influences on decisions made in this session.

Mr. BUTLER saw no reason for such a discrimination. We were always following the British Constitution, when the reason of it did not apply. There was no analogy between the House of Lords and the body proposed to be established. If the Senate should be degraded by any such discriminations, the best men would be apt to decline serving in it, in favor of the other branch. And it will lead the latter into the practice of tacking other clauses to money bills.

Mr. MADISON observed, that the commentators on the British Constitution had not yet agreed on the reason of the restriction on the House of Lords, in money bills. Certain it was, there could be no similar reason in the case before us. The Senate would be the representatives of the people, as well as the first branch. If they should have any dangerous influence over it, they would easily prevail on some member of the latter to originate the bill they wished to be passed. As the Senate would be generally a more capable set of men, it would be wrong to disable them from any preparation of the business, especially of that which was most important, and, in our republics, worse prepared than any other. The gentleman, in pursuance of his principle, ought to carry the restraint to the amendment, as well as the originating of money bills; since an addition of a given sum would be equivalent to a distinct proposition of it.

Mr. SHERMAN. As both branches must concur, there can be no danger, whichever way the Senate may be formed. We establish two branches in order to get more wisdom, which is particularly needed in the finance business. The Senate bear their share of the taxes, and are also the representatives of the people. ‘What a man does by another, he does by himself,’ is a maxim. In Connecticut both branches can originate, in all cases, and it has been found safe and convenient. Whatever might have been the reason of the rule as to the House of Lords, it is clear that no good arises from it now even there.

General PINCKNEY. This distinction prevails in South Carolina, and has been a source of pernicious disputes between the two branches. The Constitution is now evaded by informal schedules of amendments, handed from the Senate to the other House.

About three weeks had passed and no prayers were offered, nor did the delegates debate biblical principles.

The 1787 Constitutional Convention – Will the Senate Keep the House in Line?

June 12, 1787
Summary: The delegates discussed various aspects of the legislature and judiciary. They decided to refer the Constitution to the people of the states for ratification. The terms of what became the House of Representatives was set at 3 years with “liberal compensation” supplied to the members. On this day, the term of a Senator was set at seven years with a required age of 30.


Naturally, the delegates looked to Britain for models of the legislature. Virginia’s William Pierce said in opposition to a seven year term for Senators:

Mr. PIERCE proposed three years. Seven years would raise an alarm. Great mischiefs have arisen in England from their Septennial Act, which was reprobated by most of their patriotic statesmen.

Mr. Randolph argued in response that the democratically elected body needed a stable influence and used Maryland as a negative example.

Mr. RANDOLPH was for the term of seven years. The democratic licentiousness of the State Legislatures proved the necessity of a firm Senate. The object of this second branch is, to control the democratic branch of the National Legislature. If it be not a firm body, the other branch, being more numerous, and coming immediately from the people, will overwhelm it. The Senate of Maryland, constituted on like principles, had been scarcely able to stem the popular torrent. No mischief can be apprehended, as the concurrence of the other branch, and in some measure of the Executive, will in all cases be necessary. A firmness and independence may be the more necessary, also, in this branch, as it ought to guard the Constitution against encroachments of the Executive, who will be apt to form combinations with the demagogues of the popular branch.

Madison followed in the debate by agreeing that the Maryland Senate had not caused problems by longer terms.
Another day in Convention and another day without appeals to religion or the Bible.

Professional? Wealthy? You Are Gateway Church's Bullseye!

If you are wealthy professional, Gateway Church in Southlake, TX wants you.
According to Associate Senior Pastor Bobby Bogard, Gateway has been given a “grace lane” by God to consider rich professionals as the bullseye for their recruitment efforts. Bogard told this to a group of pastors in January 2017 at the Linked International Network of Churches Equip Conference. Watch:

Gateway Church will be 17 years old this Easter.  We’re a spirit filled Charismatic church without the weird or the goofy.  I’ve seen the weird and the goofy, believe me.  In  my charismania days.  Um, we have over 30 thousand in attendance on a weekly basis.  That’s six campuses., with 26 services. I say all that to say this, big is not always better.  Big is not better. But what we are at Gateway Church is we’re healthy and I wanna talk to you about healthy church.  We’re healthy in so many different ways.  And health is probably one of the main ingredients of our success.  In all of the growth that we’ve taken place we’ve remained a healthy organization and a healthy church.  A healthy ministry.  A healthy people.  A healthy staff.  Healthy pace.  And so, part of our secret sauce is that we’re healthy.  Our goal is to become healthy, not to fill buildings with people.  Because here’s the deal.  If we can become healthy, we will see people filled with God, and then the principle of ‘healthy things grow’ right?  So that’s a value that we hold.  Healthy things grow.  And so church growth is really a byproduct of a healthy church.
Number two is people.  We’re all about people.  That’s our slogan, it’s been our slogan from the very  beginning.  I’m gonna drill down to some of this in just a minute.  I wanna fly by on a 30,000 foot view, okay?   But, we’r e all about people.  And the reason we’re all about people is because  God’s all about people. Am I right?  And so if we’re all about people because God’s all about people, it’s because we know God loves people, and if God loves people  we need to love people.  But how many of you know, sometimes, in our journey we love Jesus with all of our heart.   Right?  It’s just some of the people He hangs out with that we have a  problem.  C’mon somebody?  And so, God loves people.  I love what Johnny shared, man.  I love the fact that John Maxwell is passionate about a million souls, because souls are people.  People have problems.  People have  issues. People have transition.  But God loves them in every season of their life.  He never turns himself away from people.  And so, if you help people, God will send you more people, because God loves people.    I’ll say that again.  If you love people and you help people, God will send you more people.  Why?  Because God loves people.
And so as we, as we, look at health, and as we look at people, there are some considerations that we go after in preparing ourselves to be healthy and to love people.  And that’s number one is:
We’re always asking ourself, who is are target?  Who’s our bullseye?  Do you know who your bullseye is?  Your bullseye, not that you’re not gonna reach all people, because we’re gonna reach all people.  We’re gonna be all things to all people, to reach all people.  But there’s something that God has gifted you with.  There’s a Grace Lane that you have.  And that Grace Lane is directed to a bullseye.  And who is your bullseye?  Who are the people God’s called you to reach?
And so, as we look at our bullseye, God has called us, to reach professional people.  That’s our bullseye.  We’re still gonna help the down and out.  We do it every week.  We’re still gonna help single moms.  We do it every week.  We-we’re still going to uh, look and help marriages and blended families.  We’re gonna work through their issues.  But our bullseye is the business professionals.  Matter fact, in one of our depart- we have a whole department that’s built towards reaching business people.  I’m talking about people with influence and large capacities of wealth.  That’s our bullseye because we feel like that’s something God’s graced us to do.  And if we can reach our bullseye, it will create a ripple, if you will, so that we can reach the others more effectively.

Church Growth via Targeting Rich People

Bogard said these things in January 2017, the same month the church co-sponsored one of President Trump’s inaugural galas. January 2017 is also the same month that I reported that Gateway church started charging youth group kids $2 for pizza and water. In January, a Gateway youth leader went on Facebook to beg for donations from members to help pay for pizza for kids who couldn’t afford it.
Last month, Gateway began laying off staff (as many as 20-30%) and stopped paying some worship and tech staff. Bogard told the pastors’ conference Gateway was healthy but didn’t mention the layoffs and program reductions. However, Bogard did disclose that Gateway has a whole department geared toward reaching “people with influence and large capacities of wealth.” I wonder if anyone in that department got laid off.
See also:
Gateway Church Courts Business Leaders Via Exclusive Program

The 1787 Constitutional Convention – The Three-Fifths Clause

Journal Federal Cons LogoJune 11, 1787
Summary: Today, the delegates voted on the 3/5 clause. They passed it with minimal discussion but revisited it on July 12 when discussion of taxation took place.
Again Britain was a model for Roger Sherman from CT.

Mr. SHERMAN proposed, that the proportion of suffrage in the first branch should be according to the respective numbers of free inhabitants; and that in the second branch, or Senate, each State should have one vote and no more. He said, as the States would remain possessed of certain individual rights, each State ought to be able to protect itself; otherwise, a few large States will rule the rest. The House of Lords in England, he observed, had certain particular rights under the Constitution, and hence they have an equal vote with the House of Commons, that they may be able to defend their rights.

Franklin also illustrated his thoughts with the example of Britain:

I recollect that, in the beginning of this century, when the union was proposed of the two kingdoms, England and Scotland, the Scotch patriots were full of fears, that unless they had an equal number of representatives in Parliament, they should be ruined by the superiority of the English. They finally agreed, however, that the different proportions of importance in the union of the two nations should be attended to, whereby they were to have only forty members in the House of Commons, and only sixteen in the House of Lords. A very great inferiority of numbers! And yet to this day I do not recollect that any thing has been done in the Parliament of Great Britain to the prejudice of Scotland; and whoever looks over the lists of public officers, civil and military, of that nation, will find, I believe, that the North Britons enjoy at least their full proportion of emolument.

Franklin later returned to this model:

“This mode is not new. It was formerly practised with success by the British government with respect to Ireland and the Colonies. We sometimes gave even more than they expected, or thought just to accept; and in the last war carried on while we were united, they gave us back in five years a million sterling. We should probably have continued such voluntary contributions, whenever the occasions appeared to require them for the common good of the Empire. It was not till they chose to force us, and to deprive us of the merit and pleasure of voluntary contributions, that we refused and resisted. These contributions, however, were to be disposed of at the pleasure of a government in which we had no representative. I am, therefore, persuaded, that they will not be refused to one in which the representation shall be equal.

The 3/5ths clause was then considered with very little commentary:

It was then moved by Mr. RUTLEDGE, seconded by Mr. BUTLER, to add to the words, “equitable ratio of representation,” at the end of the motion just agreed to, the words “according to the quotas of contribution.” On motion of Mr. WILSON, seconded by Mr. PINCKNEY, this was postponed; in order to add, after the words, “equitable ratio of representation,” the words following: “in proportion to the whole number of white and other free citizens and inhabitants of every age, sex and condition, including those bound to servitude for a term of years, and three-fifths of all other persons not comprehended in the foregoing description, except Indians not paying taxes, in each State” — this being the rule in the act of Congress, agreed to by eleven States, for apportioning quotas of revenue on the States, and requiring a census only every five, seven, or ten years.

Mr. GERRY thought property not the rule of representation. Why, then, should the blacks, who were property in the South, be in the rule of representation more than the cattle and horses of the North?

On the question, — Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, aye — 9; New Jersey, Delaware, no — 2.


Gateway Church Internally Addresses Changes in Staffing

_MG_2556From multiple sources inside Gateway Church, I have learned that one of the topics of the monthly staff chapel several days ago was the recent layoffs at Gateway. In the meeting, a leader said the layoffs were a healthy “pruning.” Although I am aware that some of the support staff have experienced reductions in compensation (some went from being paid to volunteers), the staff were told that no pay cuts were planned.
Regarding news concerning the church, the leader told the staff that they should not be participate in blogs (specifically mine). For those who followed the Mars Hill Church and Gospel for Asia stories, that should sound familiar.
I welcome Gateway supporters and former members alike to express their views. I also call on Gateway to be more transparent about compensation, and where else the money goes.
I am hearing that some laid off staff are reluctant to speak because they signed non-disclosure agreements with a non-disparagement clause. This is another sound-alike from the Mars Hill days.