JFC2017 – Page 3 – Warren Throckmorton

The 1787 Constitutional Convention – Executive Election Debated Again

September 5, 1787 (Click to read Madison’s notes on the day)

Summary

The delegates continued to consider proposals from the Brearly committee. A lengthy discussion concerned the election of the president.

Influences on the Delegates

Edmund Randolph worried that proposals for the president to come from the legislature would create a monarchy or an aristocracy.

Mr. RANDOLPH. We have, in some revolutions of this plan, made a bold stroke for monarchy. We are now doing the same for an aristocracy. He dwelt on the tendency of such an influence in the Senate over the election of the President, in addition to its other powers, to convert that body into a real and dangerous aristocracy.

Another Virginia delegate, George Mason, was even stronger in his criticism of the plan as it was being discussed by the delegates.

Col. MASON. As the mode of appointment is now regulated, he could not forbear expressing his opinion that it is utterly inadmissible. He would prefer the Government of Prussia to one which will put all power into the hands of seven or eight men, and fix an aristocracy worse than absolute monarchy.

The Virginia delegation worried that governmental power would be in the hands of too few people. Over the next couple of days, the election of the executive dominated discussion. It is obvious that many delegates feared the creation of a ruling class.

1787 Constitutional Convention Series

To read my series examining the proceedings of the Constitution Convention, click here. In this series, I am writing about any obvious influences on the development of the Constitution which were mentioned by the delegates to the Convention. Specifically, I am testing David Barton’s claim that “every clause” of the Constitution is based on biblical principles. Thus far, I have found nothing supporting the claim. However, stay tuned, the series will run until mid-September.
Constitutional Convention Series (click the link)
To follow on social media, click the following links:
Facebook (blog posts and news)
Facebook (Getting Jefferson Right – history news)
Twitter

The 1787 Constitutional Convention – Brearly Committee

September 4, 1787 (Click to read Madison’s notes on the day)

Summary

The delegates discussed four of the nine proposals submitted by the Brearly Committee. This committee was set up to consider other suggestions for the Constitution beyond those provided by the Committee of Detail.

Influences on the Delegates

Although indirect, South Carolina’s Butler thought the plan for electing the president and vice-president had advantages over a legislative choice.

Mr. BUTLER thought the mode not free from objections; but much more so than an election by the legislature, where, as in elective monarchies, cabal, faction, and violence would be sure to prevail.

David Barton has suggested that the stipulation for the president being a natural born citizen grows out of the Old Testament. I will continue to read with this in mind but there is nothing here which gives any indication that the delegates considered Hebrew principles at all on this point.

1787 Constitutional Convention Series

The 1787 Constitutional Conventions – Full Faith and Credit Clause

September 3, 1787 (Click to read Madison’s notes on the day)

Summary

Delegates approved the full faith and credit clause, bankruptcy provisions, and rules concerning ineligibility to hold office while in the legislature.

Influences on the Delegates

In the session, one delegate referred to England and another to a Rome.

The clause in the Report, “To establish uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies,” being taken up, —
Mr. SHERMAN observed, that bankruptcies were in some cases punishable with death, by the laws of England; and he did not choose to grant a power by which that might be done here.
Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS said, this was an extensive and delicate subject. He would agree to it, because he saw no danger of abuse of the power by the Legislature of the United States.
On the question to agree to the clause, Connecticut alone was in the negative.
Mr. PINCKNEY moved to postpone the Report of the Committee of eleven (see the first of September) in order to take up the following:
“The members of each House shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States for which they, or any other for their benefit, receive any salary, fees, or emoluments of any kind; and the acceptance of such office shall vacate their seats respectively.”
He was strenuously opposed to an ineligibility of members to office, and therefore wished to restrain the proposition to a mere incompatibility. He considered the eligibility of members of the Legislature to the honorable offices of Government, as resembling the policy of the Romans, in making the temple of Virtue the road to the temple of Fame.

1787 Constitutional Convention Series

The 1787 Constitutional Convention – Committee Reports

September 1, 1787 (Click here to read Madison’s notes)
Today’s session was so brief, I am reproducing Madison’s entire entry:

In Convention, — Mr. BREARLY, from the Committee of eleven to which were referred yesterday the postponed part of the Constitution, and parts of Reports not acted upon, made the following partial report:

“That in lieu of Article 6, Sect. 9, the words following be inserted, viz: ‘The members of each House shall be ineligible to any civil office under the authority of the United States, during the time for which they shall respectively be elected; and no person holding an office under the United States shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office.’”

Mr. RUTLEDGE, from the Committee to whom were referred sundry propositions, (see twenty-ninth of August) together with Article 16, reported that the following additions be made to the Report, viz:

“After the word ‘States,’ in the last line on the margin of the third page, (see the printed Report,) add ‘to establish uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies.’

“And insert the following as Article 16, viz: ‘Full faith and credit ought to be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State; and the Legislature shall, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect which judgments obtained in one State, shall have in another.’”

After receiving these Reports, the House

Adjourned.

1787 Constitutional Convention Series

The 1787 Constitutional Convention – Delegates Expressed Doubts

August 31, 1787 (Click to read Madison’s notes on the day)

Summary

Delegates decided to require nine states to ratify the Constitution. The debate on the Committee of Detail ended today with a new committee formed to report on all other proposals.

Influences on the Delegates

The discussion and debate on the report of the Committee of Detail ended today. All remaining proposals were referred to the Brearly Committee which consisted of one representative from each state.
Even as the delegates closed in on the last articles for debate, some key delegates were expressing doubt about their work.

Mr. GERRY moved to postpone Article 22.
Colonel MASON seconded the motion, declaring that he would sooner chop off his right hand, than put it to the Constitution as it now stands. He wished to see some points, not yet decided, brought to a decision, before being compelled to give a final opinion on this Article. Should these points be improperly settled, his wish would then be to bring the whole subject before another General Convention.
Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS was ready for a postponement. He had long wished for another Convention, that will have the firmness to provide a vigorous government, which we are afraid to do.
Mr. RANDOLPH stated his idea to be, in case the final form of the Constitution should not permit him to accede to it, that the State Conventions should be at liberty to propose amendments, to be submitted to another General Convention, which may reject or incorporate them as may be judged proper.

It is remarkable that at that late date, some delegates wanted to scrap the whole thing and start over. To the point of the so-called “biblical Constitution,” Christian delegate didn’t feel the work had achieved a “vigorous government.” Morris believed the delegates were “afraid” to do so. How do these statements compare to the picture often painted by Christian nationalists of Christian delegates self-consciously creating a Christian republic? Not well, in my view.