The volume opens with four documents that set the stage for the central drama of the Founding, the debates in the Constitutional Convention. The Virginia Declaration of Rights and the Virginia Constitution (1776) express some of the central ideas that justified the Revolution. These ideas appear in one form or another throughout the documents of the Founding period. They appear in Jefferson鈥檚 Draft of the Declaration of Independence (Document 2), written less than a month after Virginia adopted its Bill of Rights and Constitution. Jefferson鈥檚 Draft of the Declaration also raised the issue of slavery, an issue that would prove to be both central and problematic in the debates at the Constitutional Convention (Documents 6, 11, 13, and 14). Document 3 is the Articles of Confederation, the system of government under which the states fought for their independence, but which proved defective in the eyes of many Americans. James Madison summarized these defects in his 1787 memorandum, 鈥淰ices of the Political System of the United States鈥� (Document 4).

Madison鈥檚 memorandum, written in preparation for the convention, best shows how the mood of the Revolutionary generation had shifted from hope to concern in the decade following the writing of the Declaration. For most of those years, the revolutionary struggle itself overshadowed realization of the political challenges that would face the new republic of federated states. After peace was declared, disagreements and discontents relating to unpaid war debts, protectionist trade measures unilaterally imposed by individual states, and other matters threatened the unity of the nation and effectiveness of its central government. Madison suggested a special meeting, to be held outside of the Continental Congress, to resolve the interstate trade issues. The meeting occurred in Annapolis, Maryland in 1786. Only five states sent delegates, however, and the Annapolis meeting ended with a call for a Constitutional Convention. Anticipating this convention, George Washington wrote to Madison expressing his wish that 鈥渢he Convention may adopt no temporizing expedient, but probe the defects of the Constitution to the bottom, and provide radical cures, whether they are agreed to or not.鈥� This was the prompt Madison needed to write his memo. It became, in effect, the first draft of his famous defense of the extended republic in Federalist 10 (Document 20), one of a series of essays that Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay wrote to defend the Constitution and secure its ratification.

Madison, Washington, and Hamilton, among others, had grasped that a fundamental ambiguity lay at the heart of the Articles of Confederation. Article III stated that the union of the states was to be 鈥渁 firm league of friendship,鈥� and Article XIII declared that 鈥渢he union shall be perpetual.鈥� Yet, according to Article II, each state retained every power that was not 鈥渆xpressly delegated鈥� to the Congress. Madison criticized the Articles because they lacked 鈥渢he great vital principles of a Political Constitution,鈥� namely, 鈥渟anction鈥� and 鈥渃oercion.鈥� The 鈥渆vil鈥� that alarmed him the most was that individual rights were being violated by unjust majorities in the state legislatures. Focusing on this problem, Madison redirected the long-standing American conversation about rights. Instead of securing the rights of the people against the unrestrained conduct of monarchs and aristocrats, the new challenge was to secure the rights of minorities against omnipotent majorities in the legislative branch. He challenged 鈥渢he efficacy鈥� of such traditional republican solutions as 鈥渁 prudent regard鈥� for the common good, 鈥渞espect for character,鈥� and the restraints provided by religion. Instead, he argued, 鈥渁 modification of the Sovereignty鈥� was needed. The solution was to create an extended republic in which a multiplicity of opinions, passions, and interests 鈥渃heck each other.鈥�

Before Madison and others could defend the proposed constitution, it had to be drafted. Documents 5 through 15 are excerpted from Madison鈥檚 account of the debate in the Constitutional Convention that met from May 25 to September 17, 1787, in Philadelphia. We are under no illusion that a reader鈥檚 favorite exchanges or speeches at the Constitutional Convention will necessarily be included in this collection. The June 6, 1787 exchange between Madison and Sherman as well as Franklin鈥檚 鈥淢ore Perfect Union鈥� speech on September 17, 1787 come to mind; both illuminate the essential issues at stake at the Convention. (The former is actually anticipated in Madison鈥檚 Vices and most fully articulated in Federalist 10, both of which are included in this collection.) But to supply these absences, we are publishing a separate collection of documents on the Convention. We will also publish a separate collection of documents on the ratification debate, a volume that includes documents from selected state ratifying conventions as well as a greater selection of writings by those who supported and opposed ratification.

Yet we do include in this volume some writings from the debate over ratification (Documents 16 through 23). The most fundamental question these writings discuss is what a republic is, and therefore what kind of republican government is best. All the disputants agreed that, as the Declaration declared, all men are equal and thus must be governed only with their consent. But how must a republic and its government be structured so that self-government does not become tyranny or anarchy?

Document 24 is an exchange of letters between Madison and Thomas Jefferson, who was serving in Paris as America鈥檚 Ambassador to France during the Constitutional Convention and ratification process. Among other things, the two men discussed the need to add a bill of rights to the new Constitution. The lack of such a bill was a principal reason Antifederalists opposed the work of the convention. In their correspondence, Madison explained to Jefferson that the extended republic would secure the civil and religious rights of individuals from the danger of majority faction. Jefferson responded favorably two months later. He was troubled, however, by claims that a bill of rights was unnecessary. He reminded Madison that 鈥渁 bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular; and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.鈥� He listed six essential rights that should be declared: 鈥渇reedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, restriction of monopolies, the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury in all matters.鈥� Upon being informed by Madison that the Constitution had been adopted, he reiterated his list of six rights.

George Washington mentioned the need for a bill of rights in his First Inaugural address (Document 25) and Madison, persuaded by Jefferson, argued forcefully for a guarantee of these rights in a speech to the new House of Representatives on June 8, 1789 (Document 26). These final two documents also show the new experiment in self-government at work, and thus bring to a fitting close the story of the American Founding.

Taken as a whole, the documents in this volume express six important themes in the American Founding. 1) How should a Constitution distribute the powers of government between the national government and the states? Should it follow the Articles of Confederation, in enumerating these powers, as the New Jersey Plan does? Or should it leave them largely unspecified, like the Virginia Plan? 2) How should a Constitution allow for representation of the various participants鈥攐r interests鈥攊n the 鈥渟cheme鈥� to be devised? 3) Does a small territorial size, along with the virtue and homogeneity of the citizenry, matter for the well-being of a republic? Or should we move toward an extended commercial republic? 4) How might bicameralism and the separation of powers contribute toward effective government that still honors citizens鈥� freedoms? And how separate do the powers need to be to ensure that one branch of government does not encroach on another? 5) What are the sources of faction, and do we eliminate its cause or control its effects? 6) How important is a bill of rights to preserving federal decentralization and republican liberty?

The framers who met in the Constitutional Convention, the citizens who debated whether the resulting Constitution should be ratified, and the legislators who hammered out the first 10 amendments to it 鈥� the Bill of Rights 鈥� answered these questions. Yet in one form or another they continue to animate American political life.

To enhance the clarity of the documents for today鈥檚 readers, we have sometimes modernized spelling, capitalization or punctuation (although we refrained from doing so in the case of iconic documents such as the Declaration and Constitution, since in those cases a long publication history has preserved the original usage). We have footnoted individuals and events that might not be known to the modern reader. In addition, we have provided several appendices to give further context for the documents. One of these is a thematic table of contents that highlights the stages in the deliberations during the Founding.

A Note on Usage:

In recording the debates at the Convention, Madison uses the terms 鈥渉ouse鈥� and 鈥渂ranch鈥� interchangeably with reference to what would become the House of Representatives and the Senate. To modern ears, 鈥渂ranch鈥� connotes the three divisions of our government (legislative, executive, and judicial). However, to respect the language used by Madison and the delegates, we generally use the term 鈥渓egislative branches鈥澛爓hen speaking of the two houses of Congress.

While a few delegates, following the British way of thinking, used the terms 鈥渦pper鈥� and 鈥渓ower鈥� to distinguish between what we call the House and the Senate, most delegates preferred to speak of the House of Representatives as the 鈥渇irst鈥� branch of the legislature and of the Senate as the 鈥渟econd鈥� branch. The terms 鈥渦pper鈥� and 鈥渓ower鈥� carried an aristocratic connotation. Madison and many other delegates preferred the more democratic terminology of 鈥渇irst鈥� and 鈥渟econd.鈥�

The post American Founding appeared first on 色中色.

This volume, however, is aimed at a different approach, as it aspires to study the presidency above and beyond the men who have been president. More precisely, this volume treats the presidency as an ongoing series of questions, questions about the president鈥檚 duty to defend the Constitution and execute the laws while at the same time leading and representing a changing constitutional democracy. Thus this volume treats the presidency as a dialogue among those who have made it. These persons include presidents, but they also include members of Congress and justices on the Supreme Court, as well as the intellectuals whose writings have shaped important changes to the office.

The volume adopts this approach because the presidency today continues to challenge analysis just as it continues to rise above biography as the best means of analysis. Does the president have the power to reclassify the immigration status of millions of persons? Can the president fire an independent counsel? What does it mean to say the president can decide whether there will be war or not? These questions are ripped from the headlines, but the headlines could be from this decade or any of several others.

This uncertainty over the length and breadth of the president鈥檚 power comes not only because the Constitution does not and cannot settle every political controversy, but also because the Constitution begins its own presentation of the presidency with a kind of puzzle. Article Two states, 鈥淭he executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.鈥� This presumes that there is a power or a set of powers that can be identified as executive even before there is a constitution. That means that either by nature or by custom, the executive power exists and can be identified. This is further suggested by the fact that Article One gives Congress only the legislative powers 鈥渉erein granted,鈥� that is, those specifically listed in the Constitution, presumably in Article One, Section 8. The problem, however, is that Article Two also goes on to list the powers given to the president in Section Two, leading many commentators to argue that Article Two should be read in the same way as Article One. Others argue that the Constitution intended the difference between Articles One and Two, and that this difference suggests that the president has all the executive power, while Congress only has those legislative powers herein granted.

This puzzle is only partially the result of the language of the text, because there is a deeper problem in designing the presidency. As the executive, the president鈥檚 job is to execute the laws. This is the first principle of separation of powers: he who makes laws cannot execute them. In the context of England, separation of powers was first and foremost a check on kingly power. In the context of the United States of the 1780鈥檚, however, separation of powers was accepted as an article of faith, but it was employed to be a check on legislative power. So the Framers of the Constitution made special effort not only to have a separate executive, but also an independent executive, that is, a president with his own electoral constituency and source of authority. But even with this innovation there remained an underlying feature of monarchical discretion. The person who executes the laws will also be the one to determine whether and when to execute the laws. Even if this does not mean the president has the power to make new law, it does reveal that the president as executive is not necessarily simply the enforcement arm of Congress. Rather, as Madison explains in Federalist No. 51, each department is given a 鈥渨ill of its own.鈥� With its own will, and with the unusual wording of the Vesting Clause at the beginning of Article Two, the presidency is an institution that forces serious reflection on what it means to live under the rule of law.

Each of the selections in this volume can be grouped with others and is meant to start a conversation about the presidency. Does the Constitution give the war power to the president or to Congress? Who elects presidents and whom do presidents represent? Can the president remove any executive branch official for any reason, or can Congress create offices that exist beyond the supervisory role of the Chief Executive? Does the Constitution give the president the power to break the law? These questions are enduring not only because we disagree about their answers but also because we disagree about how we should answer them, or rather about who should answer. This volume, then, is first and foremost an invitation to teachers and students to join the dialogue suggested by the documents. Rather than offering a series of precedents or important historical events, the documents offer opportunities for close study and will reward the instructor who can find the time for extended discussion.

It is important to note that my claim that these questions are enduring has some bearing on an important part of teaching the presidency. I have in mind the modern presidency. Several selections in this volume will invite students to reflect upon the emergence and importance of a modern presidency, but others will invite students to ask whether a deeper continuity is the more important story when it comes to the development of the presidency. That is, teachers and students should not take the modern presidency thesis for granted. Like other textbook accounts of the presidency, it has to be assessed in light of the evidence.

In closing, I am grateful to Allison Brosky, who transcribed these documents. Two anonymous readers for the press helped me decide which texts were important and pointed me to several that I had not considered. Sarah Morgan Smith and David Tucker were generous and clear in their editorial guidance. Finally, I want to thank the professors who taught me the presidency, including Michael Nelson at Rhodes College, Sid Milkis at Brandeis University, and Marc Landy and Bob Scigliano at Boston College. Thanks to these men, I have been thinking about these documents since 1992, and I hope it gives them some pleasure to see my own attempt to pull them into a single volume.

This publication was made possible through the support of a grant by the John 颅Templeton 颅Foundation. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the editors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the John Templeton Foundation.

[1]鈥塛oodrow Wilson, Constitutional Government in the United States (New York: Columbia University Press, 1908), 54.

The post American Presidency appeared first on 色中色.

No one knows who first pulled a trigger, but no one disputes that eight of the nearly eighty Lexington militiamen鈥攙astly outnumbered by several hundred British regulars鈥攍ost their lives that morning. Conflict at Concord a few hours later yielded a different outcome. The king鈥檚 soldiers found few of the military supplies that had been their objective. Forced into retreat at the Old North Bridge, they began a perilous seventeen-mile journey back to Boston. As thousands of Massachusetts militiamen descended on their route, British casualties mounted. At Menotomy, Massachusetts, 80-year-old Samuel Whittemore stood ready to avenge British aggression with a musket, a pair of pistols, and a sword. As Redcoats marched along the road near his home, he took aim. He downed one British soldier and then another. Dropping his musket, he drew his pistols. He had shot a third Redcoat by the time a detachment of the regulars descended upon him, stabbing him thirteen times with their bayonets and shooting him in the face. As he flailed about with his sword they left him for dead. But Whittemore didn鈥檛 die. He lived鈥攆or another 18 years. In 1793, he took his last breath as a 98-year-old citizen of the free and independent United States.

Parker鈥檚 famous words鈥斺�渋f they mean to have a war, let it begin here鈥濃�攈elped mark the start of what eventually came to be known as the War for Independence. But people have long taken pains to distinguish this war, which concluded with the signing of the 1783 Treaty of Paris, from the less well-defined and potentially farther-reaching American Revolution. As John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson in 1815, 鈥淲hat do we mean by the Revolution? The war? That was no part of the Revolution. It was only an effect and consequence of it. The Revolution was in the minds of the people, and this,鈥� Adams insisted, took place 鈥渇rom 1760 to 1775, in the course of fifteen years before a drop of blood was drawn at Lexington.鈥� Although Adams believed that the real revolution had taken place before the war, Philadelphia physician Benjamin Rush, a fellow member of the Continental Congress, insisted that it would continue for years after the fighting had ended. 鈥淭here is nothing more common,鈥� Rush wrote in 1787, 鈥渢han to confound the terms of American Revolution with those of the late American war.鈥� But the war and the Revolution were not the same thing. 鈥淚t remains yet to establish and perfect our new forms of government,鈥� Rush observed, 鈥渁nd to prepare the principles, morals, and manners of our citizens, for those forms of government after they are established and brought to perfection.鈥� This, the real revolution, had only just begun.

This volume features a selection of primary sources spanning 1760 to 1783. Some of these documents give voice to the sometimes competing philosophies of the Revolutionary generation. Others exemplify them. All originate from either the years of the war or the crucial period preceding the conflict, when 鈥渢he minds of the people,鈥� as Adams wrote, took a decisive turn. Whittemore, a veteran of King George鈥檚 War (1744鈥�48) and the French and Indian War (1754鈥�63), before taking aim at Redcoats had risked his life fighting alongside them. Similarly, the vast majority of Americans prior to 1760 felt proud of their British heritage. In the minds of American colonists, what made Britain the richest and most powerful of the world鈥檚 nations was the fact that it was also the freest. This, for them, endured as the source of their British patriotism. As philosopher John Locke had explained when justifying the Glorious Revolution of 1688鈥�89, only a government that protected the people鈥檚 rights to life, liberty, and property could consider itself legitimate. Soon after the French and Indian War, however, Parliament approved a series of measures that jeopardized colonists鈥� rights. Americans who resisted Britain鈥檚 鈥渓ong train of abuses and usurpations,鈥� as Jefferson鈥檚 Declaration of Independence described it, had struggled to hold their government true to its own avowed principles. Only gradually and reluctantly did the belief that Britain had no intention of keeping its promises push Americans to secure these commitments independent of the British government鈥檚 interference. In this sense the American revolutionaries were better Englishmen than their cousins across the Atlantic.

The conflict that commenced when Parker and his men stood their ground at Lexington tested the principles valued most by these once-loyal Britons. How to deal with those who remained loyal to the king? How best to bear the monetary costs? How to recruit and retain for the army men willing not only to defend, at a minute鈥檚 notice, their homes and hometowns but also, for multiple years, distant parts of the new United States? Given their love of liberty and the revulsion they felt toward acts of coercion, the War for Independence posed a significant problem. Wars, which necessitate the concentration of force, require the centralization of power. How to defeat (or at least outlast) the world鈥檚 most formidable military without creating an army posing a threat to the freedom it aimed to defend?

George Washington probably never wrote that government, 鈥渓ike fire, is a dangerous servant, and a fearsome master,鈥� but the fact that so many have never questioned this quotation鈥檚 frequent attribution to him helps to explain his selection as commander of the Continental Army. The members of the Continental Congress recognized in him a multitude of qualifications. He had gained experience as a colonel in the French and Indian War. He possessed relative youth as well as social and physical stature. As a Virginian, he seemed well positioned to transform an army of New Englanders into a truly continental force. Maybe most important, since 1758 he had served in the House of Burgesses. Like them, he was a civilian legislator who understood the importance of civilian control of military power, which, if not properly directed, possessed the greatest potential to consume the people鈥檚 liberty. He demonstrated respect for civilian leaders and urged his army鈥檚 restraint when dealing with common citizens. Throughout the war, Washington addressed Congress in the most deferential terms. Near the end, he extinguished his officers鈥� threatened insubordination against this legislative body and the states on whose authority it acted. After the conclusion of peace, Washington鈥檚 decision to relinquish power, resign as commander-in-chief, and return to Mount Vernon as a private citizen reportedly prompted even George III to describe him as 鈥渢he most distinguished of any man living鈥� and 鈥渢he greatest character of the age.鈥�

It was not just Washington鈥檚 willingness to give up power that made the American Revolution a successful struggle for liberty. In addition to exhausting the will of Great Britain to wage war against them, the American revolutionaries transitioned from monarchy and aristocracy to republican government and an emerging spirit of democracy. Embracing representative governments within and among the states, they coalesced around the principles that the people are sovereign and that popular consent is a precondition of political legitimacy. They had also internalized the rich lexicon of individual rights that had formed the basis of both their opposition to British imperial policy and their claim on independence. Yet if the 鈥渟elf-evident鈥� 鈥渢ruths鈥� that 鈥渁ll men are created equal, with certain unalienable rights鈥� bolstered their confidence, at the same time, they troubled their collective conscience. What about women, African Americans, members of religious minorities, and other individuals denied their natural rights to life, liberty, and property? What about people denied civil rights bestowing equality under the law?

It is no coincidence that during the years of the War for Independence, people began to question why rights that were said to belong to all mankind were not recognized as the inheritance of all Americans. But it is also no surprise that the Founders鈥� generation鈥攖he first to notice the conflict between their newly-expanded principles and their practices reflecting deeply-entrenched prejudices鈥攚as not the last to struggle to keep the promises of the Declaration of Independence. Even before the war鈥檚 conclusion, northern states began either to abolish slavery or to enact plans for gradual emancipation. Soon after, Congress halted the expansion of slavery to parts of the West, and Jefferson, as president in 1807, championed and signed a bill outlawing US participation in the international slave trade.

In the decades to follow, the issue of slavery became even more central. So did the rights of women, and the voting rights of men who did not own land. Even today, in the United States and around the world, oppressed groups and individuals invoke the philosophies of the American Revolution. As Benjamin Rush predicted in 1787, 鈥渢he American war is over, but this is far from being the case with the American Revolution. On the contrary, nothing but the first act of the great drama is closed.鈥�

In some ways the Revolution would extend far beyond the conclusion of the War for Independence. A few days prior to the fiftieth anniversary of the adoption of his Declaration, Thomas Jefferson observed that 鈥渁ll eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.鈥� He expressed his faith that the decision of the Continental Congress to separate from Great Britain would continue to inspire people 鈥渢o burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government.鈥� Awakening the world to the proposition that 鈥渢he mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them, legitimately, by the grace of God,鈥� the ideas of the American Revolution could eventually bring liberty to everyone, everywhere, not only in the United States but also around the globe. The freedom for which Americans had stood their ground would come 鈥渢o some parts sooner鈥� and 鈥渢o others later.鈥� But eventually, Jefferson predicted, real liberty would one day be enjoyed by all.

Acknowledgements: A number of friends either suggested documents included in this collection or tracked down information helping me to contextualize them. I am grateful for the assistance of Jeremy Bailey, Veronica Burchard, Benjamin Carp, Mickey Craig, Joe Dooley, Todd Estes, Mary-Jo Kline, Stuart Leibiger, Melanie Miller, Rob Parkinson, Richard Samuelson, and Brian Steele. Sean Sculley performed both these tasks and also reviewed all of the documents鈥� introductions. Sarah Morgan Smith, who served as series editor, lent her considerable expertise to the selection of documents and execution of the finished product. Caleb Cage helped to deepen my appreciation for people who, in the midst of war, share their stories for the benefit of others, present and future. Jefferson McDonald and Grace McDonald helped select illustrations. Christine Coalwell McDonald, a historian in her own right, offered unfailing encouragement and assisted in every way possible.

The post American Revolution appeared first on 色中色.

Thus the larger question of how the British and colonial heritage fits into the American story is covered only briefly (Documents 1鈥�2). Of considerable importance in this brief account is that the rights included in the Massachusetts Body of Liberties (1641) are, numerically, more significant than those found in Magna Carta (1215) and the English Bill of Rights (1689). And so too are the rights enumerated in the Maryland Toleration Acts. We include these two colonial documents to remind the reader that Americans were concerned about rights, especially religious rights, even before the founding era of 1776鈥�1791. Three rights are unanimously represented in all the state constitutions: the right of conscience/free exercise of religion; the right to have one鈥檚 case heard by a local impartial jury; and the due process rights of the common law. The framers of the new state documents decided these last rights were no longer secure under the traditional governmental arrangements. We consider it significant that the new states declared themselves to be republican and that the purpose of a republican government was to secure rights.

Seven states attached a prefatory declaration of rights to the frame of government: Virginia (June 1776), Delaware (September 1776), Pennsylvania (September 1776), Maryland (November 1776), North Carolina (December 1776), Massachusetts (March 1780), and New Hampshire (June 1784). These declarations were, in effect, a preamble stating the purposes for which the people had chosen the particular form of government. There was a remarkable uniformity among the seven states with regard to the kinds of civil and criminal rights they sought to secure.

Four states decided not to preface their republican constitutions with a declaration of rights: New Jersey (July 1776), Georgia (February 1777), New York (April 1777), and South Carolina (March 1778). Nevertheless, each incorporated individual protections in their constitutions.

Virginia entered unfamiliar territory with the disestablishment of the Anglican Church in 1779. Nevertheless, there were two competing models to which legislators could turn. The Massachusetts model endorsed the establishment of the Christian Protestant religion and, to that end, the legislature was constitutionally mandated to tax inhabitants for the support of public religious instruction. The taxpayer, nevertheless, was free to name the specific religion that was to receive the assessment. On the other hand, the Pennsylvania model warned that such taxation threatened the right of an individual to the free exercise of religion. In December 1784, the Virginia Assembly considered an assessment bill, consistent with the Massachusetts model, that would financially support the propagation of Christianity as the state religion. James Madison objected. The author of a protest addressed to the Virginia Assembly (Document 7), Madison urged the legislators to reject the proposed legislation. In the process, Madison pushed the national conversation even further in the direction of individual free exercise of religion and away from community-endorsed religion. The practical manifestation of Madison鈥檚 efforts was the Virginia Assembly鈥檚 adoption in 1785 of Jefferson鈥檚 Statute of Religious Liberty introduced in 1779. The Virginia Senate passed the statute in January 1786. It is also important to note how these rights made their way into the Northwest Ordinance (Document 8).

A year after the passage of the Virginia statute at the Constitutional Convention (May to September 1787), the first of George Mason鈥檚 ten objections to the Constitution began: 鈥淭here is no declaration of rights鈥� (Document 9). In particular, 鈥渢here is no declaration of any kind for preserving liberty of the press, the trial by jury in civil cases, nor against the danger of standing armies in times of peace.鈥� Mason鈥檚 position was that a federal bill of rights was both imperative and valuable. He was concerned that Congress might abuse the supremacy and the necessary and proper clauses of the Constitution (Articles 6 and 1, section 8, respectively). The supremacy clause made federal laws 鈥減aramount to the laws and constitutions of the several states.鈥� Thus, 鈥渢he declaration of rights, in the separate states, are of no security.鈥� The necessary and proper clause enabled Congress to 鈥済rant monopolies in trade and commerce, constitute new crimes, inflict unusual and severe punishments, and extend their power as far as they should think proper.鈥�

Throughout the nine-month ratification campaign, proponents of the Constitution defended the absence of a bill of rights. James Wilson鈥檚 State House Speech (Document 10), delivered in Philadelphia three weeks after the Constitutional Convention adjourned, articulated what came to be known as the Federalist position: a bill of rights is unnecessary and dangerous. Wilson argued that at the state level, a bill of rights was necessary and salutary because 鈥渆verything which is not reserved, is given,鈥� but 鈥渟uperfluous and absurd鈥� at the federal level because 鈥渆verything which is not given, is reserved.鈥� Wilson鈥檚 speech became the foil for the Antifederalist opposition literature in the fall of 1787 (Documents 11鈥�15). Near the end of the ratification campaign, Federalist 84 (Document 19) repeated Wilson鈥檚 insistence that a republican form of government had no need for a bill of rights because such bills 鈥渁re, in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince.鈥�

By early January 1788, the ratifying conventions in Delaware (voting 30鈥�0), Pennsylvania (46鈥�23), New Jersey (38鈥�0), Georgia (26鈥�0), and Connecticut (128颅鈥�40) had ratified the Constitution. The report issued by the twenty-three Pennsylvania opponents had a considerable impact on the subsequent campaign (Document 15). The report proposed two different kinds of amendments. On the one hand, the minority called for amendments that would re-establish the principles of the Articles of Confederation. These were unfriendly to the Constitution. On the other hand, they proposed that a declaration of rights be annexed to the Constitution. These were friendly amendments. What became聽 drafts of the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth amendments to the Constitution were included in their list, although the origin of these amendments can be traced to colonial documents and state constitutions.

The fate of the Constitution was determined in the Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Virginia, and New York ratifying conventions in the first half of 1788. Antifederalist literature in the fall of 1787 had had an adverse effect on the campaign for ratification. A compromise鈥斺�渞atify now, amend later鈥濃�攚as needed in each of these four states to secure ratification (Documents 17鈥�18). In Massachusetts, ten delegates switched their votes and a 187鈥�168 majority ratified the Constitution. A switch of five votes ensured ratification in both New Hampshire (57鈥�47) and Virginia (89鈥�79). In New York, the Antifederalists outnumbered the Federalists by a margin of 46鈥�19 going into the convention; but in the end, the Constitution was ratified by a vote of 30鈥�27.

The Antifederalist opposition and friends of the Constitution made two different kinds of recommendations. First, some called for an alteration in the very structure and powers of the new federal government. Second, others sought to protect the rights of individuals with respect to the federal government. All nine of Massachusetts鈥檚 recommendations are of the first kind. New Hampshire was the first to add a brief declaration of the rights of citizens to the list of amendments. In Virginia and New York, the two kinds of amendments were explicitly separated.

With the ratification of the Constitution, James Madison (1751鈥�1836), who had done so much to bring it into existence,^[1] supported the adoption of a bill of rights, while objecting to amendments that would radically alter the new government鈥檚 structure and power (Document 22). He did so for both theoretical and prudential reasons. Madison distanced himself from Wilson鈥檚 argument that a bill of rights might be dangerous as well as unnecessary. He overcame the danger of listing rights鈥攖he list might be seen as definitive and thus limit the rights of citizens rather than protect them鈥攂y declaring that the enumeration 鈥渙f certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.鈥� This eventually became the Ninth Amendment and is a wholly Madison contribution. The prudential reasons included conciliating 鈥渉onorable and patriotic鈥� opponents who wanted to 鈥渞evise鈥� the Constitution by including a bill of rights and defeating the call for a second convention that would 鈥渁bolish鈥� the Constitution (Document 21). He saw the First Congress as the 鈥減roper mode鈥� to accomplish the objective of revision. What joined together the theoretical and prudential reasons was that Madison did not want a second convention to take place.

The correspondence between Madison in the United States and Thomas Jefferson in Paris is a critical part of the story of the adoption of the Bill of Rights, from the signing of the Constitution through the ratification campaign and into the First Congress (Documents 16, 20, and 21). In his October 24, 1788 letter, Madison summarized the political and ethical problem that was to be solved by the Constitution: 鈥淭o prevent instability and injustice in the legislation of the states.鈥� What Madison was able to achieve, he explained to Jefferson, was the creation of an extended republic that would secure the civil and religious rights of individuals from the danger of majority faction. Jefferson responded favorably toward the proposed Constitution two months later. He was troubled, however, by Wilson鈥檚 argument that a bill of rights was unnecessary. He reminded Madison that 鈥渁 bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular; and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.鈥� He listed six essential rights that should be declared: 鈥渇reedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, restriction of monopolies, the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury in all matters.鈥� Jefferson reiterated the importance of including his list of six rights upon being informed by Madison that the Constitution had been adopted.

In his first Inaugural Address (April 30, 1789), George Washington addressed only two particular issues: his compensation, which he declined, and Congress鈥� 鈥渆xercise of the occasional power delegated by the fifth article of the Constitution,鈥� the power to amend the Constitution. He asked that 鈥渨hilst you carefully avoid every alteration which might endanger the benefits of an united and effective government, a reverence for the characteristic rights of freemen will sufficiently influence your deliberations on the question, how far the former can be impregnably fortified or the latter be safely and advantageously promoted.鈥� Madison followed Washington鈥檚 recommendation of proposing a bill of rights that, at the same time, did not alter the work of the Constitutional Convention. That became Madison鈥檚 challenge in the First Congress (Document 22).

The House of Representatives debate on Madison鈥檚 propositions is not without irony (Document 23). Roger Sherman, arguably Madison鈥檚 leading and most persuasive opponent during the structural phase of the 1787 Philadelphia Convention, objected to Madison鈥檚 attempt to incorporate the bill of right additions 鈥渘eatly鈥� within the body of the Constitution. If the revisions are added as 鈥渟upplements,鈥� or amendments to the Constitution, argued Madison, 鈥渢hey will create unfavorable comparison鈥� with the original Constitution. Sherman, however, prevailed. The original work of the framers, he argued, should remain intact. Moreover, Sherman urged his colleagues to reject incorporating the Declaration of Independence into the Preamble: 鈥淭he words 鈥榃e the people,鈥� in the original Constitution, are as copious and expressive as possible; any addition will only drag out the sentence without illuminating it.鈥� On the other hand, Sherman proved to be an important ally in defeating the attempts of the South Carolina delegation to introduce amendments that would 鈥渃hange the principles of the government.鈥� The Senate reduced the number of amendment proposals from seventeen to twelve. In doing so, the Senate defeated Madison鈥檚 House-backed proposal to protect freedom of conscience and the press at the state and national levels, restricting the protection to the national level only. The Senate also combined the protection of conscience and the press into one amendment (Document 24). The Senate version was adopted, with slight revision, by the whole Congress and submitted as twelve amendments to the states for approval (Document 25). Ten were ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures (Document 26).

Very important from Madison鈥檚 perspective, Richard Henry Lee and William Grayson鈥攂oth radical Antifederalists and the only Antifederalists in the United States Senate鈥攚ere totally unsuccessful in their effort to move the power and structure of the Constitution back in the direction of the Articles of Confederation. They preferred this to adopting a bill of rights that would reinforce the idea that the Constitution was a limiting as well as an empowering document.

For his part, Madison was less than completely successful with his bill of rights proposals. Few members shared Madison鈥檚 urgent feeling that friendly alterations must be sent to the states by the end of the first session. The rights did not end up located in the Constitution where he wanted them to be. The number of rights was reduced from Madison鈥檚 original list (Document 22) and several clauses, the religion clauses in particular, underwent close scrutiny and major alteration. Madison鈥檚 attempt to have the states as well as the nation restrained in the area of conscience, press, and jury was defeated in the Senate. The Bill of Rights, as adopted, applied only to the federal government. So the appellation 鈥淔ather of the Bill of Rights鈥� ought to be cautiously used. Yet it is certainly true that Madison鈥檚 persistence was critical to twelve amendments being sent to the states for adoption by the end of the first session and, not coincidentally, for the subsequent adoption of the original Constitution by North Carolina and Rhode Island.

The adoption of the Bill of Rights was a mixture principle and politics.^[2] It did not just fall from the sky in one whole and intelligible form. True, the Bill of Rights incorporated much of the English common law and the colonial due process tradition, but it also shed much of this tradition鈥檚 feudal and monarchical features. Also, Americans between 1776 and 1791 appealed beyond their traditions to support freedom of conscience, free speech, and enhanced rights of due process of law.

Madison, known as 鈥渢he Father of the Constitution,鈥� is at the heart of our documentary account of the origin and politics of the Bill of Rights, from Virginia in 1776 to the First Congress in 1789. During this time, Madison鈥檚 position on the Bill of Rights changed, at least in part because of his relationship with Jefferson. To see the importance of this relationship, we must place it in the context of Virginia politics, which provide the bookends to the story of the Bill of Rights. George Mason wrote the Virginia Declaration of Rights in June 1776 (with Madison鈥檚 suggested alteration to the right of conscience clause). The Declaration of Rights was one influence on Jefferson as he wrote the Declaration of Independence. Mason also proposed to the Constitutional Convention that a bill of rights be adopted. Madison opposed Mason in the Convention on the issue. A few years later, in December 1791, Virginia finally adopted the Bill of Rights, with Madison as the leader of those favoring adoption and Mason in opposition. Why did Virginia start the process, take the lead in the debates, and then delay so long to ratify the Bill of Rights? The answer is an irreconcilable divide among Antifederalists. There were those who wanted to change fundamentally the new American system and those who were friendly to the Constitution. The latter wanted to restrain the new government with a bill of rights. Between 1787 and 1791, Mason became one of those who wanted fundamental change, while Madison, always a friend to the Constitution, became one of those willing to amend it by adding a bill of rights. He made this change with the help of Jefferson (Documents 16, 20鈥�22).

[1] See the companion volumes The American Founding: Core Documents (Ashland, Ohio: Ashbrook Press, 2017) and The Constitutional Convention: Core Documents (Ashland, Ohio: Ashbrook Press, 2018), both edited by Gordon Lloyd.

[2] . This letter, organized around seven themes, is a model of principled leadership at its best; it joins that which is necessary with that which is proper.

The post Bill of Rights appeared first on 色中色.

The documents selected for inclusion in this volume range from a little-known 1819 Congressional speech by James Tallmadge Jr. on the future status of slavery in the territories (Document 1) to Abraham Lincoln鈥檚 widely read First Inaugural Address in 1861 (Document 26), in which he tried to prevent civil war as Southern states seceded. In between, the reader will discover the central political, constitutional, moral, social, and economic themes that shaped the nation鈥檚 history during its most critical period, as told by those who lived through it.

The documents trace these themes, from both the Northern and Southern points of view. In their famous debate in 1830, Senators Daniel Webster (Massachusetts) and Robert Y. Hayne (South Carolina) argued over two radically different understandings of the origin and nature of the American Union and the legality of secession (Document 4). William Lloyd Garrison (Document 5), John C. Calhoun (Document 6), and Abraham Lincoln (Document 24) discussed the proper relationship between the Constitution and the Union, and its effect on understanding secession and the dissolution of the government. George Fitzhugh (Document 13) and James Henry Hammond (Document 16) argued that the slave system of the South was superior to the free labor system of the North, while William H. Seward (Document 19) and Abraham Lincoln (Document 20) defended free labor. Speeches and resolutions before Congress (Documents 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 16); interpretations of executive power by Abraham Lincoln (Document 26); and arguments in the Dred Scott Supreme Court case (Documents 14 and 15) addressed the use and abuse of the legitimate powers under the Constitution of the three branches of government. Finally, and most important, Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas argued over the limits of popular sovereignty, and thus over the connection between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (Documents 15, 18, and 24).

Despite these different perspectives, however, all of the documents in this collection revolve around one central idea that is at the heart of any attempt to understand the coming of the Civil War: slavery, or, perhaps more rightly, the extension of slavery into the territories. From out of the territories new states came into the Union, and with them the power either to protect or to destroy slavery forever by Constitutional amendment, depending on whether proslavery or antislavery forces dominated in the Congress and in the state legislatures. It was in the territories, therefore, that everyone at the time understood that the future of slavery, and with it, the future of the nation, would be decided.

No one can read these documents today without sensing the overwhelming significance the debate over slavery had in the minds of the people of that era, as it was the only serious issue that threatened to divide them and destroy their political existence. South Carolina鈥檚 Declaration of the Causes of Secession (Document 23), like similar reports issued by every state that eventually left the Union, identified the protection of slavery as the primary justification for secession. From all points of view and all walks of life, the core argument always came back to slavery in one way or another, as these documents illustrate.

From these documents, the reader can come to understand and appreciate not only the history of the United States during the Civil War era, but also something about the challenges we have faced and the progress we have made as 鈥渙ne people.鈥� If we are to remain one and dedicated to our defining proposition鈥攖hat all are created equal鈥攅very generation of Americans must understand the time and the reasons why we almost ceased to be.

The post Causes of the Civil War appeared first on 色中色.

First, it draws attention to the American colonial experience. Why study the colonial past? Beginning with the French Revolution (1789鈥�99), which ended in a dictatorship, revolutions have tended to ignore the past as a source of authority for the present and as a guide to the future. Americans, while acknowledging the importance of 1776 as the start of something new, showed a decent respect for the opinions and actions of their forefathers from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. In particular, they showed a concern for the forms of government under which they had lived. To secure these forms, charters were created and then signed by their creators. Two colonial charters (Documents 1 and 2) highlight the connection between the colonial experience of developing forms of government and the Constitution written in 1787, which continues to structure our government and laws today.

Second, this collection draws attention to the problems Americans confronted during the 1780s. Between 1776 and 1780 (Documents 3 and 6), Americans created a new kind of republicanism at the state level after due deliberation by elected representatives. Each of these republican forms had its own peculiarity, but all shared the premise that there should be a separation of powers, with the legislative branch being dominant, the executive branch dependent on the legislative, and the judicial branch practically nonexistent. (Massachusetts was a notable exception: its executive was elected by the people and the judiciary could issue advisory opinions.) These republican governments existed alongside a federal government of limited powers, established in 1781 (Document 6), whose legislative sessions were irregularly attended by state delegates. The documents thus highlight the problem of active and powerful state governments operating within a league with limited ability to direct the mutual affairs of its members. Document 7 is James Madison鈥檚 account in 1787 of the vices of this political system.

Third, the collection addresses how the delegates to the Constitutional Convention responded to the problems in the American political system. What should be done to correct them? Should the powers of the Confederation be increased and the structure kept the same? Was there an intrinsic problem 鈥� a systemic deficiency 鈥� or a problem that could be settled with a few improvements here and there? And who should authorize changes and by what authority should these alterations be adopted? Thus the collection introduces the reader to the several alternative plans discussed over 88 days at the Convention by up to 55 delegates (for example, Documents 10, 13, 15).

Fourth, the collection allows the reader to grasp the personal dynamics at work during the Convention. Some delegates were eloquent and thoughtful; others petulant and shortsighted. Some stayed until the end, revising their views as the debates continued; others stuck to their original positions, leaving early in frustration. Still others rode out the entire convention, announcing only at the last minute the scruples that prevented them from signing the agreed-upon plan. Put differently, for the first time in the history of the world, a genuine democratic conversation took place over an attempt to secure a regime dedicated to liberty and justice. All previous regimes had been founded by one or a few persons and eventually collapsed because of the violence of faction. And none of these previous regimes had sought liberty as a defining principle. To reveal the personal dynamics and what was at stake, the collection covers the debates during several crucial days in the life of the Convention as well as the difficulty involved over the creation of the presidency and the meaning of the necessary and proper clause. Is the case for executive independence the same as the case for judicial independence? Is the necessary and proper clause an enabling or a restraining clause?

Fifth, the collection addresses the clauses of the Constitution that refer to slavery, which provoked controversy at the Convention and have continued to do so ever since. The collection traces the origin and development of the three slavery clauses of the Constitution: the Three-Fifths Clause; the Slave Trade Clause; and the Fugitive Slave Clause. When and why did these three clauses appear during the constitutional debates? How does the language used when the clauses were introduced change before their insertion in the Constitution? How do these changes affect the interpretation of the slavery clauses?

Thirty-nine delegates signed their names to the Constitution on the 鈥淪eventeenth Day of September in the Year of Our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth.鈥� The conscious attempt to join together the old and the new represents an example of the American mind at work. We wonder whether the colonists of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries would have recognized and applauded the work of the Founding Fathers? To be sure, even though several of the Framers of the Constitution had different ideas about what should be done to secure the blessings of liberty 鈥� see the variety of plans 鈥� 39 reached sufficient agreement through a mixture of principle and compromise to sign the document. Aristotle might well call that prudent statesmanship. Others might well criticize their compromising as unacceptable and embarrassing.

But we need to remember that, unlike previous foundings in history that were the work of powerful individuals who could enforce their will, the American founding occurred through the civil deliberations of citizens from a variety of backgrounds, representing a variety of regional interests and philosophical positions. Never before had such a task been accomplished.

A Note on Usage

We have modernized spelling and some punctuation but not capitalization. On occasion we have divided longer speeches into paragraphs.

In recording the debates at the Convention, Madison uses the terms 鈥渉ouse鈥� and 鈥渂ranch鈥� interchangeably with reference to what would become the House of Representatives and the Senate. To modern ears, 鈥渂ranch鈥� connotes the three divisions of our government (legislative, executive, and judicial). However, to respect the language used by Madison and the delegates, in this volume we generally use the term 鈥渓egislative branches鈥� when speaking of the two houses of Congress.

While a few delegates, following the British way of thinking, used the terms 鈥渦pper鈥� and 鈥渓ower鈥� to distinguish between what we call the House and the Senate, most delegates preferred to speak of the House of Representatives as the 鈥渇irst鈥� branch of the legislature and of the Senate as the 鈥渟econd鈥� branch. The terms 鈥渦pper鈥� and 鈥渓ower鈥� carried an aristocratic connotation. Madison and many other delegates preferred the more democratic terminology of 鈥渇irst鈥� and 鈥渟econd.鈥�

The post Constitutional Convention appeared first on 色中色.