Taft: going back to the Saxon (and earlier) basic ten family political unit (the Tun)
There have been thousands of books written extolling the virtues and imaginary benefits of the US Constitution over the past couple hundred years. There are endless articles written today about how all society's problems can be ended by merely abiding by the Constitution's original intentions. BUT, unless one understands the original intentions of the Founding Scoundrels who met in secret conclave in 1787 to conspire against the freedoms of the American people, one KNOWS NOTHING about the Constitution and is unqualified to write one line about the damnable document.
I realize that the Constitution is considered as sacred as the Bible by those who know little of the origins of either and I realize that nothing is ever going to be done to correct all the widely agreed-upon stupidities of our age which will in short order bring civilization once again to its knees. But once in a while I turn off the idiot box and dig out a book of substance and feel like climbing back up on the soap box. I just hate to see America go down by default.
I just re-read John Lansing's notes on the 1787 convention and it has revived my animosity towards all the political silliness that we hear about us.
I'm sure you have heard of the practice of withholding critically damning evidence of a situation until a period of time has elapsed - often fifty years - to protect the living reputations of those involved in a particular undertaking. Did you know that they did this in 1787????? There were 65 men delegated by their states to attend the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. Did you know that ten of these refused to attend, including one whole state, Rhode Island? Did you know that of those who did attend another sixteen were too ashamed of the document to put their names to it? That means that of those who were delegated to attend not even a two-thirds majority could be mustered to ratify the thing, let alone the unanimous agreement required by the Articles of Confederation, the amendment of which was the sole purpose for calling the 1787 convention. Of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, 16 signed the Articles of Confederation; 8 attended the 1787 Con-Con, but only 4 of those signed the Constitution. If it was so great, why didn't those who were a party to its creation jump at the chance to add their names as signers?
Of those who actually attended the 1787 Constitutional Convention I'd imagine all kept copious notes of the goings-on. Madison's notes are easily obtainable but reflect his objective of creating an all-powerful central government. He condemned democracy but gave us just that. I do appreciated Madison's vetoing of Hamilton's first US Bank act extension however. In fact it was Madison who wrote Washington's objection to the act in 1791, which act handed over 80% of the new central bank to Crown interests. Some independence, huh?
Robert Yates' notes are obtainable from Omni Publications. He was a NY delegate who refused to sign, Chief Justice of his state. Yates' notes were copied for publication by John Lansing, Chancellor of NY, who also refused to sign. The Yates volume also contains Attorney-General Luther Martin's exposition on the Constitution as presented to his state, Maryland. Good stuff in Yates. I would like very much to dig up more of these records as surely more were published. Only then can one be qualified to say anything about the true nature of the document in question.
John Lansing's notes, entitled THE DELEGATE FROM NEW YORK might be obtainable from used sources as I know of no current publication. As a proponent of state sovereignty he wrote that Hamilton had urged that "state governments ought to be subverted so far as to leave them only corporate rights." Lansing wrote more of Hamilton: "It will not do to propose formal extinction of State Governments - It would shock public Opinion too much. --Some subordinate Jurisdictions --something like limited Corporations. If general Government properly modified it may extinguish State Governments gradually." Delegate Wilson said "National Government implies the Idea of an Absorption of State Sovereignty." So much for the nonsense that it was Lincoln who ended state sovereignty. It was the Founding Scoundrels themselves.
It is interesting that when speaking of the staggered elections of Senators they referred to "retiring" a third of them every election. Apparently the limiting ideas of the Articles were still in mind. On the other hand Franklin moved "that the Executive should receive no Salary Stipend or Emolument for the Devotion of his Time to the public Service but that its Expences (sic)should be paid." This was the same scam that Washington pulled as commander in chief which shocked the Congress so that it took upwards of a year to come up with the cash. His wine bill alone might have gone a long way towards supplying Arnold's fighting troops with shoes.
Lansing brings out the fact that most state delegations were only empowered to propose amendments to the existing Articles. There was also supposed to be a calling for state conventions to approve of the new rules, called by the people, but as you study the words of the Founding Scoundrels you see the people have no affective place in the new system. Lansing also remarked on the difference in office holding, whereas in the old Congress, members held office for only one year, and could be recalled at any time; in the new, they would have longer and more secure tenure and would feel safer to take bribes.
There was decided class consciousness in all this. The second Branch of the new Congress "ought to represent the Wealth of the Nation - if so they ought to serve without Compensation," said Charles C. Pinckney. Johnson said "must unite Ideas of States with Districts of Country containing a certain Number of Inhabitants." So here the modern idea of districting the US isn't so modern after all. Read said he favored proportional representation only if the new government were "truly national," but that he feared the mixture of state and federal powers. He favored Hamilton's plan.
Madison said "it is a contest for power, not for liberty." G. Morris said "2nd Branch must be Men of great Property." A House of Lords would have been met with considerable opposition back then. "Aristocracy should keep down Democracy" he added. Rutledge said "Honesty will probably predominate in lower House Ability in upper." He missed the mark twice with that statement. More from Gouverneur Morris: "If our establishments are good they must be supported and will take a proper Direction - If the State Governments have Distribution of Loaves and Fishes the general Government cannot prevail -- You must give them Disposition of Offices and Baubles -- The Senatorship will operate as a Lure." I wonder how many gullible state legislators who thereby were lured into ratifying the new Constitution weren't salivating over the thought of becoming parties to the new Roman Senate.
So here are a few notations that give one an idea of some of the thinking of these characters. I urge anyone who has an interest in the Constitution to collect some of these published minutes and discover the real purposes behind it all. The idea of another Constitution holds no promise of any rebirth of freedom. It only offers a new set of chains to bind down the people. Only by going back to the Saxon (and earlier) basic ten family political unit (the Tun) and working up from there by appointing - NOT ELECTING - representations to sit in council can a limited government ever be constructed. It has to come up from the people, not from a real or imagined aristocracy. This is what a republican FORM of government is all about. The democratic form is suicidal. http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=20039
The Taft Ranch