Constitution Thursday

Breaking both the timeline and the 4th Wall, the debate of religion and government in the United States has taken on a new and particularly partisan tone in recent days, as the Nation tries to decide what to do about the Syrian Refugee problem. Oddly enough, the debate has taken on a religious tone, as some say that "as Christians" we must accept the refugees, while others say that we must not. Scripture is quoted to both support and defy the idea of bringing in the refugees.

But as Dave so often says, people do not change. They do the same things for the same reasons usually with the same results, throughout history. Indeed, as we have already seen, they even have the same arguments. 

As the debate over debate the ratification of the Constitution continued, one of the ideas bubbled to the surface - religion, and the lack thereof in the proposed Constitution came to the front and center. But you might be surprised as to who was on which side of things, and why. And how it shows that all these centuries later, we are still debating the same questions as those who debated the ratification of the Constitution.

John DeWitt issues his second letter, in which he begins to get to the details of issues over which he is concerned about the proposed Constitution. Later, Hamilton, writing as Publius, will answer the objection to the lack of the Bill of Rights in Federalist #84.

But both arguments should remind us of one important historical fact: that the Bill of Rights was, in essence, given to us by people who objected to the general functions of the proposed Constitution.

Even today, on a College Campus in Columbia, MO, we see what is, in effect, the exact same argument from all those years ago. Should there be a central basically unrestrained government with the power to command the citizenry, or should that strong central government have limits placed upon it to protect precious rights which are necessary for liberty?

The answer to us today seems clear. We venerate and honor our Bill of Rights. But the argument isn't always so clear cut, and the issue not always... black and white...

As he closes the 2nd Federalist Paper, Publius appeals to the words of the poet to remind Americans that all of our greatness, all that we have achieved and could yet be, will be erased if we reject Union.

The arguments take on a more philosophical tone, between classic republicanism and what each side believes is the best definition of that term, and what is the best way to achieve the singular goal of Union to protect individual rights, liberties, and the survival of the Nation?

In the study of the Constitution, we begin to realize that our long-held beliefs about what the Framers thought best, might not match up with what they themselves told us they believed. It should not change or passion, or even necessarily our positions. But it should remind us that Union is still the only way to achieve what we can be as a Nation.

That we must join, or die.

By the end of October 1787, the two sides in the debate had been clearly delineated. There were those who were opposed to the Constitution, and there were those who favored it.

Those opposed, the Anti-Federalists, as they would become known, had been first to publish their ideas with the first two DeWitt letters. But even as the second hit the papers, the first pro-constitution article appeared. It was addressed to the People of the State of New York and signed by the pen name Publius,  one of four men who overthrew the monarchy and established the Roman Republic in 509 b.c.e.

Over the coming months, many more pro-constitution, or "Federalist Papers" would be written. Their purpose was clear - to convince the people of the State of New York, and by extension, the entire country, to favor ratification of the Constitution.

A writer takes on the old Dutch moniker to make his point about the proposed Constitution

The Convention is over, and the delegates disperse home. George Washington can hardly wait to get out of town and on his way back to Mt. Vernon. He is so anxious to leave, that it almost costs him his life.

The issue is now before the States to decide. Ratification and Union or reject the proposed Constitution and try to go it alone or in small groups.

As the process begins, the Congress of the United States takes up the debate first. Should they approve of the draft Constitution? Or has it gone too far?

Two opposing ideologies will coalesce around the debate. One Conservative and liberty-minded. The other, radical and focused on a much different - and much bigger - goal. Can only one succeed and push the other into the pages of history?

Or is there yet still room for compromise?

Over the course of the convention, Gouvernor Morris has lost every single debate, discussion, argument, and point. It would be hard to find any single man who had a less successful direct influence on the direction of the debates. Everything that he wanted or stood for in the new government had been defeated.

Now, as the work draws to its close, the convention turns to the one man in whom they have the utmost confidence to stitch together the final document.

And that man is Gouvernor Morris.

When all is said and done, it is Ben Franklin who rises to the moment. His words of self-sacrifice and putting the nation ahead of oneself ring in our hearts even today. And most of all, lets us astonish our enemies.

As the convention reaches the end of the first week of September, it seems, at least on the surface of things, that all their work is about to come undone. Luther Martin is convinced that the only way the American people will agree to this Constitution is to be hurried into it by surprise.  Edmund Randolph of Virginia declares that yet another full convention be held - AFTER the states are given the opportunity to make amendments to the draft.

It seems like there is a movement to undo all that has been done.

What is left to hold the Convention together? Two men. Perhaps the only two men in all of American history to whom every citizen will listen...

As August fades into September, General Washington is feeling pretty upbeat about how things are going. At least one delegate believes that they will be done "i9n three weeks time." Others aren't so ready to finish things without getting their say. Every attempt to resolve the matter of the Presidency is met with an objection and a move to delay. 

Soon enough, the Committee on Postponed Parts will have their hands full trying to resolve everything that has been postponed. 

In the meanwhile, the Convention seems to, for the first time, consider why a new form of Government is needed, beyond the Randolph outline of so many weeks ago. The principles that underlie the nation are Life, Liberty, and Property. There is a general realization that a stronger central government is the best guarantee of those. watching what is happening in Rhode Island has convinced them that left to themselves, the States will not provide those protections.

With that in mind, the Delegates take up the Judiciary and the power of the States over commerce, money, and contracts. They believe that the federal government's control of these items, among others, will provide the best guarantee of Life, Liberty, and Property.

Today, we debate and discuss the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which may, depending on how you read it, gives the President the authority to make war, while Congress has not declared a war. Oddly enough, the delegates had exactly the same debate, which is why the Constitution gives Congress the power to DECLARE war and the expected the President to MAKE war... as long as the people approved...

Needing a bit of a break, most of the Delegates headed down to the shore of the Delaware River to take a ride on a steamship. Yes... a steamship. Twenty years before anybody ever heard of Robert Fulton. Is it possible that little adventure helped them to empower Congress to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts?"

Roughly a hundred years after the convention, Otto von Bismark will develop his political maxim of the "realpolitik." He could have learned it from Rutledge, who, in response to Luther Martin's call to accept the immorality of slavery, reminds the Convention that IF there is to be a Union, it WILL be with slavery. And if there is a Union WITH slavery, non-slave States... will make a whole lot of money...