Journal of the Senate, "...it was done in full reliance that the best interests, as well as the rights of the country, would be fully protected..":

THURSDAY, March 3, 1842.
.
...Mr. Simmons presented the following resolutions, passed by the General Assembly of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations:
.
"STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS.
.
"In General Assembly, January session, A. D. 1842.
.
"Resolved, That when this State, in conjunction with the other States of this Union, adopted the constitution of the United States, and surrendered into the hands of the General Government the power of regulating by law our intercourse with foreign nations, it was done in full reliance that the best interests, as well as the rights of the country, would be fully protected, and that our peculiar advantages as an agricultural, commercial, mechanical, and manufacturing nation, would at all times be enjoyed, and receive the fostering care of that Government.
.
"Resolved, That the duty of cherishing and protecting the whole labor of the country (which is alone the source of national wealth), and giving to that labor full and permanent assurance of defence against the productions of an exhausted and starving population elsewhere, should be first in the high exercise of powers conceded to Congress, and that a surrender of that principle can eventuate only in a total prostration of all the great interests for which the States became united, and the constitution the great bond of union.
.
"Resolved, That the doctrines of free trade, in the present state of commercial restrictions throughout the world, is but an idle abstraction of theorists; and that while the great staples of our agriculture are denied admission into the ports of Europe, unless under duties nearly prohibitory (except the article of cotton, which survives only until the same product is matured in British India), the producer demands and is entitled to receive the home market for his produce, and to realize, from his surplus, such other articles as require the same market, and which are equally entitled to protection from foreign labor.
.
"Resolved, That the subdivision of labor is one of the first principles in political economy; and that the great interests of manufactures and the mechanic arts, warmed into being by the legislation of Congress, have established this principle, and made the producers of nearly every article essential to the comforts of life, reciprocally the consumers of all the great products of the land, and given a sure and onward march to national wealth and prosperity; and that the abandonment of the principle of protection will not only destroy this division of labor, and force the whole into the one great pursuit of agriculture, but our country will ere long become exhausted by a drain of all its specie to pay for articles of necessity imported from other countries and produced by their labor.
.
"Resolved, That it is equally the duty of Congress to protect the labor of the country from a competition in our own market with
foreign labor, as it is to defend the soil from foreign aggression. The latter may be repelled by a brave and free people, but a neglect of the former will insidiously undermine all that is valuable, and bring us back to a state of dependance upon Great Britain, as servile as the bondage from which we were relieved by the establishment of ourindependence.
.
Resolved, That while we acknowledge the principle that duties should be levied only to supply the wants of an economical administration of the Government, yet those
duties should be discriminative, not only for the protection of our own labor, but also so to countervail the legislation and restrictions of other nations, as to force upon them the principles of reciprocity in trade, and open their markets to us as freely as our own are open to them.
.
"Resolved, That the principle of levying duties upon the foreign invoice value of goods, with all the frauds consequent upon a reliance on such invoices, gives to the producer abroad the power of fixing the duty, in fact, and to the foreign adventurer the control of our imports, and the business rightfully belonging to our citizens; and that the adoption of this principle loses the character of just and wise legislation, when its only effect is to impair the strength and sacrifice the honor and independence of the country.
.
"Resolved, That his excellency the Governor transmit a copy of these resolutions to each of our Senators and Representatives in Congress, with a request that they be communicated to each House, and that they be further requested to use their best exertions to effect such legislation as shall promote the interest of this State, and the whole interest of our common country.
.
"True Copy:"WITNESS--"HENRY
BOWEN,
"Secretary of State."
.
The resolutions were read.
.
Ordered, That they be referred to the Committee on Manufactures, and printed.

Well now, that is interesting, now isn't it?

"To guard against the assumption of all powers which encroach..."...

Journal of the House of Representatives,
Aug. 3, 1846
.
"...That this bill assumes for the federal government the right to exercise this power, cannot, I think, be doubted. The approved course of the government, and the deliberately expressed judgment of the people, have denied the existence of such a power under the constitution. Several of my predecessors have denied its existence in the most solemn forms."
.
"The general proposition that the federal government does not possess this power is so well settled, and has for a considerable period been so generally acquiesced in, that it is not deemed necessary to reiterate the arguments by which it is sustained. Nor do I deem it necessary, after the full and elaborate discussions which have taken place before the country on this subject, to do more than state the general considerations which have satisfied me of the unconstitutionality and inexpediency of the exercise of such a power...."
.
"It is not questioned that the federal government is one of limited powers. Its powers are such, and such only, as are expressly granted in the constitution, or are properly incident to the expressly granted powers, and necessary to their execution. In determining whether a given power has been granted, a sound rule of construction has been laid down by Mr. Madison. That rule is, that "whenever a question arises concerning a particular power, the first question is whether the power be expressed in the constitution. If it be, the question is decided. If it be not expressed, the next inquiry must be, whether it is properly an incident to an expressed power, and necessary to its execution. If it be, it may be exercised by Congress. If it be not, Congress cannot exercise it." It is not pretended that there is any express grant in the constitution conferring on Congress the power in question...."
.
(Click on link on th above date to continue article)....

"The power will have been deliberately assumed..."

Journal of the Senate of the United States of America,
.
May 3, 1854
.
"...If, in presenting my objections to this bill, I should say more than strictly belongs to the measure, or is required for the discharge of my official obligation, let it be attributed to a sincere desire to justify my act before those whose good opinion I so highly value, and to that earnestness which springs from my deliberate conviction that a strict adherence to the terms and purposes of the federal compact offers the best, if not the only, security for the preservation of our blessed inheritance of representative liberty...."
.
"...and it presents at the threshold the question whether any such act on the part of the federal government is warranted and sanctioned by the Constitution, the provisions and principles of which are to be protected and sustained as a first and paramount duty...."
.
"...The whole field of public beneficence is thrown open to the care and culture of the federal government. Generous impulses no longer encounter the limitations and control of our imperious fundamental law. For, however worthy may be the present object in itself, it is only one of a class. It is not exclusively worthy of benevolent regard. Whatever considerations dictate sympathy for this particular object, apply in like manner, if not in the same degree. . . . If Congress may and ought to provide for any one of these objects, it may and ought to provide for them all. And if it be done in this case, what answer shall be given when Congress shall be called upon, as it doubtless will be, to pursue a similar course of legislation in the others? It will obviously be vain to reply that the object is worthy, but that the application has taken a wrong direction. The power will have been deliberately assumed..."
.
"...And if it were admissible to contemplate the exercise of this power for any object whatever, I cannot avoid the belief that it would in the end be prejudicial, rather than beneficial...."

"...Are we not too prone to forget that the federal Union is the creature of the States, not they of the federal Union? We were the inhabitants of colonies, distinct in local government one from the other, before the revolution. By that revolution, the colonies each became an independent State. . . . And when the people of the several States had, in their State conventions, and thus alone, given effect and force to the Constitution, not content that any doubt should in future arise as to the scope and character of this act, they engrafted thereon the explicit declaration that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," ..."
.
"... I have never found anything in the Constitution which is susceptible of such a construction. No one of the enumerated powers touches the subject, or has even a remote analogy to it...."
.
"...If it were otherwise, all the rest of the Constitution, consisting of carefully-enumerated and cautiously-guarded grants of specific powers, would have been useless, if not delusive. It would be impossible, in that view, to escape from the conclusion that these were inserted only to mislead for the present, and, instead of enlightening and defining the pathway of the future, to involve its action in the mazes of doubtful construction. Such a conclusion the character of the men who framed that sacred instrument will never permit us to form. Indeed, to suppose it susceptible of any other construction, would be to consign all the rights of the States, and of the people of the States, to the mere discretion of Congress, and thus to clothe the federal government with authority to control the sovereign States, by which they would have been dwarfed into provinces or departments, and all sovereignty vested in an absolute consolidated central power, against which the spirit of liberty has so often, and in so many countries, struggled in vain. In my judgment, you cannot, by tributes to humanity, make any adequate compensation for the wrong you would inflict, by removing the sources of power and political action from those who are to be thereby affected...."

The rest of the article can be read by clicking the link above. The President goes on, and continues to makes some very good points concerning proper, and Constitutional, legislative authority. There are some quotations and obsevations at the end of the article as well....

The Circular Letter from the Convention of the State of New York to the governors of the several states in the Union.

Poughkeepsie, July 28, 1788.
.
Sir:
.
We, the members of the Convention of this state, have deliberately and maturely considered the Constitution proposed for the United States. Several articles in it appear so exceptionable to a majority of us, that nothing but the fullest confidence of obtaining a revision of them by a general convention, and an invincible reluctance to separating from our sister states, could have prevailed upon a sufficient number to ratify it, without stipulating for previous amendments. We all unite in opinion, that such a revision will be necessary to recommend it to the approbation and support of a numerous body of our constituents.
.
We observe that amendments have been proposed, and are anxiously desired, by several of the states, as well as by this; and we think it of great importance that effectual measures be immediately taken for calling a convention, to meet at a period not far remote; for we are convinced that the apprehensions and discontents, which those articles occasion, cannot be removed or allayed, unless an act to provide for it be among the first that shall be passed by the new Congress.
.
As it is essential that an application for the purpose should be made to them by two thirds of the states, we earnestly exhort and request the legislature of your state to take the earliest opportunity of making it. We are persuaded that a similar one will be made by our legislature, at their next session; and we ardently wish and desire that the other states may concur in adopting and promoting the measure.
.
It cannot be necessary to observe, that no government, however constructed, can operate well, unless it possesses the confidence and goodwill of the body of the people; and as we desire nothing more than that the amendments proposed by this or other states be submitted to the consideration and decision of a general convention, we flatter ourselves that motives of mutual affection and conciliation will conspire with the obvious dictates of sound policy to induce even such of the states as may be content with every article in the Constitution to gratify the reasonable desires of that numerous class of American citizens who are anxious to obtain amendments of some of them.
.
Our amendments will manifest that none of them originated in local views, as they are such as, if acceded to, must equally affect every state in the Union. Our attachment to our sister states, and the confidence we repose in them, cannot be more forcibly demonstrated than by acceding to a government which many of us think very imperfect, and devolving the power of determining whether that government shall be rendered perpetual in its present form, or altered agreeably to our wishes, and a minority of the states with whom we unite.
.
We request the favor of your excellency to lay this letter before the legislature of your state; and we are persuaded that your regard for our national harmony and good government will induce you to promote a measure which we are unanimous in thinking very conducive to those interesting objects.
.
We have the honor to be, with the highest respect, your excellency's most obedient servants.

By the unanimous order of the Convention,
.
GEORGE CLINTON,
President.

.
Clinton? Hmmmm, wonder if there is any relation to Bubba? If so, Bill's reign sure was a major departure from George Clinton's, wasn't it?

Mr. Thomas Tredwell, July 2, 1788. THE DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK;

Mr. TREDWELL. Sir, little accustomed to speak in public, and always inclined, in such an assembly as this, to be a hearer rather than a speaker, on a less important occasion than the present I should have contented myself with a silent vote; but when I consider the nature of this dispute, that it is a contest, not between little states and great states, (as we have been told,) between little folks and great folks, between patriotism and ambition, between freedom and power; not so much between the navigating and non-navigating states, as between navigating and non-navigating individuals, (for not one of the amendments we contend for has the least reference to the clashing interests of states;) when I consider, likewise, that a people jealous of their liberties, and strongly attached to freedom, have reposed so entire a confidence in this assembly, that upon our determination depends their future enjoyment of those invaluable rights and privileges, which they have so lately and so gallantly defended at every risk and expense, both of life and property,--it appears to me so interesting and important, that I cannot be totally silent on the occasion, lest lisping babes should be taught to curse my name, as a betrayer of their freedom and happiness.
.
The gentleman who first opened this debate did (with an emphasis which I believe convinced every one present of the propriety of the advice) urge the necessity of proceeding, in our deliberations on this important subject, coolly and dispassionately. With how much candor this advice was given, appears from the subsequent parts of a long speech, and from several subsequent speeches almost totally addressed to our fears. The people of New Jersey and Connecticut are so exceedingly exasperated against us, that, totally regardless of their own preservation, they will take the two rivers of Connecticut and Delaware by their extremities, and, by dragging them over our country, will, by a sweeping deluge, wash us all into the Hudson, leaving neither house nor inhabitant behind them. But if this event should not happen, doubtless the Vermontese, with the British and tories, our natural enemies, would, by bringing down upend us the great Lake Ontario, sweep hills and mountains, houses and inhabitants, in one deluge, into the Atlantic. These, indeed, would be terrible calamities; but terrible as they are, they are not to be compared with the horrors and desolation of tyranny. The arbitrary courts of Philip in the Netherlands, in which life and property were daily confiscated without a jury, occasioned as much misery and a more rapid depopulation of the province, before the people took up arms in their own defence, than all the armies of that haughty monarch were able to effect afterwards; and it is doubtful, in my mind, whether governments, by abusing their powers, have not occasioned as much misery and distress, and nearly as great devastations of the human species, as all the wars which have happened since Milton's battle of the angels to the present day. The end or design of government is, or ought to be, the safety, peace, and welfare of the governed. Unwise, therefore, and absurd in the highest degree, would be the conduct of that people, who, in forming a government, should give to their rulers power to destroy them and their property, and thereby defeat the very purpose of their institutions; or, in other words, should give unlimited power to their rulers, and not retain in their own hands the means of their own preservation. The first governments in the world were parental, the powers of which were restrained by the laws of nature; and doubtless the early succeeding governments were formed on the same plan, which, we may suppose, answered tolerably well in the first ages of the world, while the moral sense was strong, and the laws of nature well understood, there being then no lawyers to explain them away. But in after times, when kings became great, and courts crowded, it was discovered that governments should have a right to tyrannize, and a power to oppress; and at the present day, when the juris periti are become so skilful in their profession, and quibbling is reduced to a science, it is become extremely difficult to form a constitution which will secure liberty and happiness to the people, or laws under which property is safe. Hence, in modern times, the design of the people, in forming an original constitution of government, is not so much to give powers to their rulers, as to guard against the abuse of them; but, in a federal one, it is different.
.
Sir, I introduce these observations to combat certain principles which have been daily and confidently advanced by the favorers of the present Constitution, and which appear to me totally indefensible. The first and grand leading, or rather misleading, principle in this debate, and on which the advocates for this system of unrestricted powers must chiefly depend for its support, is that, in forming a constitution, whatever powers are not expressly granted or given the government, are reserved to the people, or that rulers cannot exercise any powers but those expressly given to them by the Constitution. Let me ask the gentlemen who advanced this principle, whether the commission of a Roman dictator, which was in these few words--to take care that the state received no harm--does not come up fully to their ideas of an energetic government; or whether an invitation from the people to one or more to come and rule over them, would not clothe the rulers with sufficient powers. If so, the principle they advance is a false one. Besides, the absurdity of this principle will evidently appear, when we consider the great variety of objects to which the powers of the government must necessarily extend, and that an express enumeration of them all would probably fill as many volumes as Pool's Synopsis of the Critics. But we may reason with sufficient certainty on the subject, from the sense of all the public bodies in the United States, who had occasion to form new constitutions. They have uniformly acted upon a direct and contrary principle, not only in forming the state constitutions and the old Confederation, but also in forming this very Constitution, for we do not find in every state constitution express resolutions made in favor of the people; and it is clear that the late Convention at Philadelphia, whatever might have been the sentiments of some of its members, did not adopt the principle, for they have made certain reservations and restrictions, which, upon that principle, would have been totally useless and unnecessary; and can it be supposed that that wise body, whose only apology for the great ambiguity of many parts of that performance, and the total omission of some things which many esteem essential to the security of liberty, was a great desire of brevity, should so far sacrifice that great and important object, as to import a number of provisions which they esteemed totally useless? Why is it said that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it? What clause in the Constitution, except this very clause itself, gives the general government a power to deprive us of that great privilege, so sacredly secured to us by our state constitutions? Why is it provided that no bill of attainder shall be passed, or that no title of nobility shall be granted? Are there any clauses in the Constitution extending the powers of the general government to these objects? Some gentlemen say that these, though not necessary, were inserted for greater caution. I could have wished, sir, that a greater caution had been used to secure to us the freedom of election, a sufficient and responsible representation, the freedom of the press, and the trial by jury both in civil and criminal cases.
.
These, sir, are the rocks on which the Constitution should have rested; no other foundation can any man lay, which will secure the sacred temple of freedom against the power of the great, the undermining arts of ambition, and the blasts of profane scoffers--for such there will be in every age--who will tell us that all religion is in vain; that is, that our political creeds, which have been handed down to us by our forefathers as sacredly as our Bibles, and for which more of them have suffered martyrdom than for the creed of the apostles, are all nonsense; who will tell us that paper constitutions are mere paper, and that parchment is but parchment, that jealousy of our rulers is a sin, &c. I could have wished also that sufficient caution had been used to secure to us our religious liberties, and to have prevented the general government from tyrannizing over our consciences by a religious establishment--a tyranny of all others most dreadful, and which will assuredly be exercised whenever it shall be thought necessary for the promotion and support of their political measures. It is ardently to be wished, sir, that these and other invaluable rights of freemen had been as cautiously secured as some of the paltry local interests of some of the individual states. But it appears to me, that, in forming this Constitution, we have run into the same error which the lawyers and Pharisees of old were charged with; that is, while we have secured the tithes of mint, anise, and cumin, we have neglected the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith. Have we not neglected to secure to ourselves the weighty matters of judgment or justice, by empowering the general government to establish one supreme, and as many inferior, courts as they please, whose proceedings they have a right to fix and regulate as they shall think fit, so that we are ignorant whether they shall be according to the common, civil, the Jewish, or Turkish law? What better provisions have we made for mercy, when a man, for ignorantly passing a counterfeit continental note, or bill of credit, is liable to be dragged to a distant county, two or three hundred miles from home, deprived of the support and assistance of friends, to be tried by a strange jury, ignorant of his character, ignorant of the character of the witnesses, unable to contradict any false testimony brought against him by their own knowledge of facts, and with whom the prisoner being unacquainted, he must be deprived totally of the benefit of his challenge? and besides all that, he may be exposed to lose his life, merely for want of property to carry his witnesses to such a distance; and after all this solemn farce and mockery of a trial by jury, if they should acquit him, it will require more ingenuity than I am master of, to show that he does not hold his life at the will and pleasure of the Supreme Court, to which an appeal lies, and consequently depend on the tender mercies, perhaps, of the wicked, (for judges may be wicked;) and what those tender mercies are, I need nor tell you. You may read them in the history of the Star Chamber Court in England, and in the courts of Philip, and in your Bible.
.
This brings me to the third and last weighty matter mentioned in the text--to wit, faith. The word faith, may, with great propriety, be applied to the articles of our political creed, which, it is absolutely necessary, should be kept pure and Uncorrupted, if we mean to preserve the liberties of our country and the inestimable blessings of a free government. And, sir, I cannot but be seriously alarmed on this head, as has frequently been the case during the present discussion,--gentlemen of the first rank and abilities openly opposing some of the most essential principles of freedom, and endeavoring, by the most ingenious sophistry, and the still more powerful weapons of ridicule, to shake or corrupt our faith therein. Have we not been told that, if government is but properly organized, and the powers were suitably distributed among the several members, it is unnecessary to provide any other security against the abuse of its power? that power thus distributed needs no restriction? Is this a whig principle? Does not every constitution on the continent contradict this position? Why are we told that all restrictions of power are found to be inconvenient? that we ought to put unlimited confidence in our rulers? that it is not our duty to be jealous of men in power? Have we not had an idea thrown out of establishing an aristocracy in our own country,--a government than which none is more dreadful and oppressive?
.
What the design of the preacher on this occasion is, I will not attempt to determine; far be it from me to judge men's hearts: but thus much I can say, from the best authority, they are deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked. But whatever be the design of the preachers, the tendency of their doctrines is clear; they tend to corrupt our political faith, to take us off our guard, and lull to sleep that jealousy which, we are told by all writers,--and it is proved by all experience,--is essentially necessary for the preservation of freedom. But notwithstanding the strongest assertions that there are no wolves in our country, if we see their footsteps in every public path, we should be very credulous and unwise to trust our flocks abroad, and to believe that those who advised us to do it were very anxious for their preservation.
.
In this Constitution, sir, we have departed widely from the principles and political faith of '76, when the spirit of liberty ran high, and danger put a curb on ambition. Here we find no security for the rights of individuals, no security for the existence of our state governments; here is no bill of rights, no proper restriction of power; our lives, our property, and our consciences, are left wholly at the mercy of the legislature, and the powers of the judiciary may be extended to any degree short of almighty. Sir, in this Constitution we have not only neglected,--we have done worse,--we have openly violated, our faith,--that is, our public faith.
.
The seventh article, which is in these words, "The ratifications of the Conventions of nine states shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same," is so flagrant a violation of the public faith of these states, so solemnly pledged to each other in the Confederation, as makes me tremble to reflect upon; for, however lightly some may think of paper and parchment constitutions, they are recorded, sir, in that high court of appeals, the Judge of which will do right, and I am confident that no such violation of public faith ever did, or ever will, go unpunished.
.
The plan of the federal city, sir, de parts from every principle of freedom, as far as the distance of the two polar stars from each other; for, subjecting the inhabitants of that district to the exclusive legislation of Congress, in whose appointment they have no share or vote, is laying a foundation on which may be erected as complete a tyranny as can be found in the Eastern world. Nor do I see how this evil can possibly be prevented, without razing the foundation of this happy place, where men are to live, without labor, upon the fruit of the labors of others; this political hive, where all the drones in the society are to be collected to feed on the honey of the land. How dangerous this city may be, and what its operation on the general liberties of this country, time alone must discover; but I pray God, it may not prove to this western world what the city of Rome, enjoying a similar constitution, did to the eastern.
.
There is another clause in this Constitution, which, though there is no prospect of getting it amended, I think ought not to be passed over in silence, lest such a silence should be construed into a tacit approbation of it. I mean the clause which restricts the general government from putting a stop, for a number of years, to a commerce which is a stain to the commerce of any civilized nation, and has already blackened half the plains of America with a race of wretches made so by our cruel policy and avarice, and which appears to me to be already repugnant to every principle of humanity, morality, religion, and good policy. There are other objections to this Constitution, which are weighty and unanswerable; but they have been so clearly stated, and so fully debated, in the course of this discussion, that it would be an unjustifiable intrusion on the patience of the house to repeat them. I shall therefore content myself with a few observations on the general plan and tendency. We are told that this is a federal government. I think, sir, there is as much propriety in the name, as in that which its advocates assume, and no more; it is, in my idea, as complete a consolidation as the government of this state, in which legislative powers, to a certain extent, are exercised by the several towns and corporations. The sole difference between a state government under this Constitution, and a corporation under a state government, is, that a state being more extensive than a town, its powers are likewise proportionably extended, but neither of them enjoys the least share of sovereignty; for, let me ask, what is a state government? What sovereignty, what power is left to it, when the control of every source of revenue, and the total command of the militia, are given to the general government? That power which can command both the property and the persons of the community, is the sovereign, and the sole sovereign. The idea of two distinct sovereigns in the same country, separately possessed of sovereign and supreme power, in the same matters at the same time, is as supreme an absurdity, as that two distinct separate circles can be bounded exactly by the same circumference. This, sir, is demonstration; and from it I draw one corollary, which, I think, clearly follows, although it is in favor of the Constitution, to wit--that at least that clause in which Congress guaranties to the serial states a republican form of government, speaks honestly; that is, that no more is intended by it than is expressed; and I think it is clear that, whilst the mere form is secured, the substance--to wit, the whole power and sovereignty of our state governments, and with them the liberties of the country--is swallowed up by the general government; for it is well worth observing, that, while our state governments are held up to us as the great sufficient security of our rights and privileges, it is carefully provided that they shall be disarmed of all power, and made totally dependent on the bounty of Congress for their support, and consequently for their existence,--so that we have scarce a single right secured under either.
.
Is this, sir, a government for freemen? Are we thus to be duped out of our liberties? I hope, sir, our affairs have not yet arrived to that long-wished-for pitch of confusion, that we are under the necessity of accepting such a system of government as this.
.
I cannot, sir, express my feelings on a late occasion, when I consider with what unspeakable indignation the spirit of a Montgomery, a Herkimer, a Paris, &c., must have fired at the insults offered to their memories on this floor, and that not by a stranger, but by a brother, when their names, which will ever be dear to freemen, were profanely called upon as an inducement for us to surrender up those rights and privileges, in the defence of which they so gallantly fought, and so gloriously died. We are called upon at this time (I think it is an early day) to make an unconditional surrender of those rights which ought to be dearer to us than our lives.
.
But I hope, sir, that the memory of these patriot heroes will teach us a duty on this occasion. If we follow their example, we are sure not to err. We ought, sir, to consider--and it is a most solemn consideration--that we may now give away, by a vote, what it may cost the dying groans of thousands to recover; that we may now surrender, with a little ink, what it may cost seas of blood to regain; the dagger of Ambition is now pointed at the fair bosom of Liberty, and, to deepen and complete the tragedy, we, her sons, are called upon to give the fatal thrust. Shall we not recoil at such a deed, and all cry out with one voice, "Hands off!" What distraction has seized us? Is she not our mother, and if the frenzy of any should persist in the parricidal attempt, shall we not instantly interpose, and receive the fatal point into our own bosom? A moment's hesitation would ever prove us to be bastards, not sons. The liberties of the country are a deposit, a trust, in the hands of individuals; they are an entailed estate, which the possessors have no right to dispose of; they belong to our children, and to them we are bound to transmit them as a representative body. The trust becomes tenfold more sacred in our hands, especially as it was committed to us with the fullest confidence in our sentiments, integrity, and firmness. If we should betray that trust on this occasion, I fear (think there is reason to fear) that it will teach a lesson dangerous to liberty--to wit, that no confidence is to be placed in men.
.
But why, sir, must we be guilty of this breach of trust? Why surrender up the dear-bought liberties of our country? Because we are told, in very positive terms, that nothing short of this will satisfy, or can be accepted by, our future rulers? Is it possible that we can be at a loss for an answer to such declarations as these? Can we not, ought we not, to speak like freemen on this occasion, (this perhaps may be the last time when we shall dare to do it,) and declare, in as positive terms, that we cannot, we will not, give up our liberties; that, if we cannot be admitted into the Union as freemen, we will not come in as slaves? This I fully believe to be the language of my constituents; this is the language of my conscience; and, though I may not dare longer to make it the language of my tongue, yet I trust it will ever be the language of my heart, If we act with coolness, firmness, and decision, on this occasion, I have the fullest confidence that the God who has so lately delivered us out of the paw of the lion and the bear, will also deliver us from this Goliath, this uncircumcised Philistine. This government is founded in sin, and reared up in iniquity; the foundations are laid in a most sinful breach of public trust, and the top-stone is a most iniquitous breach of public faith; and I fear, if it goes into operation, we shall be justly punished with the total extinction of our civil liberties. We are invited, in this instance, to become partakers in other men's sins; if we do, we must likewise be content to take our share in the punishment.
.
We are told, sir, that a government is like a mad horse, which, notwithstanding all the curb you can put upon him, will sometimes run away with his rider. The idea is undoubtedly a just one. Would he not, therefore, justly be deemed a mad man, and deserve to have his neck broken, who should trust himself on this horse without any bridle at all? we are threatened, sir, if we do not come into the Union, with the resentment of our neighboring states. I do not apprehend we have much to fear from this quarter, for our neighbors must have the good sense to discover that not one of our objections is founded on motives of particular state interest. They must see likewise, from the debates, that every selfish idea that has been thrown out has come from those who very improperly call themselves the federal side of the house. A union with our sister states I as ardently desire as any man, and that upon the most generous principles; but a union under such a system as this, I think, is not a desirable thing. The design of a union is safety, but a union upon the proposed plan is certain destruction to liberty. In one sense, indeed, it may bring us to a state of safety; for it may reduce us to such a condition that we may bevery sure that nothing worse can happen to us, and consequently we shall have nothing to fear.
.
This, sir, is a dreadful kind of safety; but I confess it is the only kind of safety I can see in this union. There are no advantages that can possibly arise from a union which can compensate for the loss of freedom, nor can any evils be apprehended from a disunion which are as much to be dreaded as tyranny.
.
- The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 2]

George Washington on Thanksgiving

City of New York, October 3, 1789.
.
Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor, and Whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me "to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanks-giving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness."
.
Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th. day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be. That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks, for his kind care and protection of the People of this country previous to their becoming a Nation, for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his providence, which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war, for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed, for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted, for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.
.
And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions, to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually, to render our national government a blessing to all the People, by constantly being a government of wise, just and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed, to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shown kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord. To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and Us, and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.
.
From the "Letter Book" in the Washington Papers.

"We were resolved never to resign our Rights but with our Lives", Feb. 5, 1775....

Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 1
.
Samuel Chase to James Duane
.
Dear Sir Annapolis. Febry. 5th. 1775....
.
"...From an entire & perfect Approbation of the Resolve of the Congress, that if the late Acts of Parliamt. relative to the Massachusetts Bay should be attempted to be carried into Execution by force, that in such Case all America ought to support that Colony in her Opposition; From the Declaration by the Congress to the Throne, that our accumulated Injuries were too severe to be any longer tolerable, & that our Militia would protect Us in Time of Peace; From a Concurrence with the Sentiments expressed to the Inhabitants of Quebec, that We were resolved never to resign our Rights but with our Lives, and to the People of G. Britain, that We never would submit to be Hewers of Wood or Drawers of Water for any Ministry or Nation in the World; In Compliance with the advice of the Congress, to extend our Views to the most unhappy Event, & to be in all Respects prepared for every Contingency; From the Consideration of our defenceless State, unable to protect Ourselves, or assist our Friends; From a firm persuasion that a Militia was the proper military force, & Arms and Ammunition the only Means, to defend & secure our Liberties; From a Conviction that to be prepared for a Civil War, is the finest & most effectual Means to prevent one, and for many other Reasons, our provincial Convention passed the Resolutions, which I enclosed You in my last Letter...."
.
"We must either resist or infamously submit. If We are resolved to resist, & to defend our Liberties at the Risque of our Lives, a military force & Arms and Ammunition are the only Means. To resolve to resist, without making the necessary Preparations for Resistance, appears to Me to be weak, & a Deception to ourselves & our Friends...."
.
"...If the Question was to be decided by Justice or Policy, I should not doubt, that our indubitable Rights would be restored, our Capital Grievances redressed, and peace and Harmony once more established with the Mother Country; but when I reflect on the enormous Influence of The Crown, the System of Corruption introduced as the Art of Government, The Venality of the Electors (the radical Source of every other Evil) the open & repeated Violations, by Parliament, of the Constitution, at Home, The regular, arbitrary System of Colony administration, The several Acts relative to the Massachusetts, The Quebec Bill, and The Re-election of the Members of the last Parliament, I have not the least Dawn of Hope in the Justice, Humanity, Wisdom or Virtue of the British Nation. I consider them as one of the most abandon'd & wicked People under the Sun. They openly sell themselves & their Posterity to their Representatives, who as openly traffic their Integrety & Honor to The Minister. The Roman Senate in the Reigns of Claudius Caesar, Domitian or Nero, were not more servilely wicked, than the present House of Commons. They no longer regard even the Appearance of Virtue. Our Dependance must be on God & ourselves...."
.
"...The martial Ardor prevails very generally here. Above 100 Companies, of 81 Men each, are already formed on the western Shore of this Province.
.
Colo. Washington in a Letter of 6th Jany, writes "In this County, Prince William, Loudoun, Faquier, Berkely, & many others round about them, a noble Ardour prevails. Men are forming themselves into independent Companies, chusing their officers, arming, Equipping, & training for the worst Event. The last Appeal!"....

Debates in the Convention of the State of NO. Carolina, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution....

I still think that a bill of rights is necessary. This necessity arises from the nature of human societies. When individuals enter into society, they give up some rights to secure the rest. There are certain human rights that ought not to be given up, and which ought in some manner to be secured. With respect to these great essential rights, no latitude ought to be left. They are the most inestimable gifts of the great Creator, and therefore ought not to be destroyed, but ought to be secured.

- Samuel Spencer, July 29, 1788

The Debates in the Several State Conventions, (Virginia), on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 3]

“...The honorable member must forgive me for declaring my dissent from it; because, if I understand it rightly, it admits that the new system is defective, and most capitally; for, immediately after the proposed ratification, there comes a declaration that the paper before you is not intended to violate any of these three great rights--the liberty of religion, liberty of the press, and the trial by jury. What is the in-when you enumerate the rights which you are to enjoy? That those not enumerated are relinquished. There are only three things to be retained--religion, freedom of the press, and jury trial. Will not the ratification carry every thing, without excepting these three things? Will not all the world pronounce that we intended to give up all the rest? Every thing it speaks of, by way of rights, is comprised in these things. Your subsequent amendments only go to these three amendments.
.
“I feel myself distressed, because the necessity of securing our personal rights seems not to have pervaded the minds of men; for many other valuable things are omitted:--for instance, general warrants, by which an officer may search suspected places, without evidence of the commission of a fact, or seize any person without evidence of his crime, ought to be prohibited. As these are admitted, any man may be seized, any property may be taken, in the most arbitrary manner, without any evidence or reason. Every thing the most sacred may be searched and ransacked by the strong hand of power. We have infinitely more reason to dread general warrants here than they have in England, because there, if a person be confined, liberty may be quickly obtained by the writ of habeas corpus. But here a man living many hundred miles from the judges may get in prison before he can get that writ.
.
“Another most fatal omission is with respect to standing armies. In our bill of rights of Virginia, they are said to be dangerous to liberty, and it tells you that the proper defence of a free state consists in militia; and so I might go on to ten or eleven things of immense consequence secured in your bill of rights, concerning which that proposal is silent. Is that the language of the bill of rights in England? Is it the language of the American bill of rights, that these three rights, and these only, are valuable? Is it the language of men going into a new government? Is it not necessary to speak of those things before you go into a compact? How do these three things stand? As one of the parties, we declare we do not mean to give them up. This is very dictatorial--much more so than the conduct which proposes alterations as the condition of adoption. In a compact there are two parties--one excepting, and another proposing. As a party, we propose that we shall secure these three things; and before we have the assent of the other contracting party, we go into the compact, and leave these things at their mercy.
.
“What will be the consequence? Suppose the other states shall call this dictatorial. They will say, Virginia has gone into the government, and carried with her certain propositions, which, she says, ought to be concurred in by the other states. They will declare that she has no right to dictate to other states the conditions on which they shall come into the Union. According to the honorable member's proposal, the ratification will cease to be obligatory unless they accede to these amendments. We have ratified it. You have committed a violation, will they say. They have not violated it. We say, we will go out of it. You are then reduced to a sad dilemma--to give up these three rights, or leave the government. This is worse than our present Confederation, to which we have hitherto adhered honestly and faithfully. We shall be told we have violated it, because we have left it for the infringement and violation of conditions which they never agreed to be a part of the ratification. The ratification will be complete. The proposal is made by the party. We, as the other, accede to it, and propose the security of these three great rights; for it is only a proposal. In order to secure them, you are left in that state of fatal hostility which I shall as much deplore as the honorable gentleman. I exhort gentlemen to think seriously before they ratify this Constitution, and persuade themselves that they will succeed in making a feeble effort to get amendments after adoption.
.
“With respect to that part of the proposal which says that every power not granted remains with the people, it must be previous to adoption, or it will involve this country in inevitable destruction. To talk of it as a thing subsequent, not as one of your unalienable rights, is leaving it to the casual opinion of the Congress who shall take up the consideration of that matter. They will not reason with you about the effect of this Constitution. They will not take the opinion of this committee concerning its operation. They will construe it as they please. If you place it subsequently, let me ask the consequences. Among ten thousand implied powers which they may assume....”
.
“...I have thus candidly submitted to you, Mr. Chairman, and this committee, what occurred to me as proper amendments to the Constitution, and a declaration of rights containing those fundamental, unalienable privileges, which I conceive to be essential to liberty and happiness. I believe that, on a review of these amendments, it will still be found that the arm of power will be sufficiently strong for national purposes, when these restrictions shall be a part of the government. I believe no gentleman who opposes me in sentiments will be able to discover that any one feature of a strong government is altered; and at the same time your unalienable rights are secured by them. The government unaltered may be terrible to America, but can never be loved till it be amended. You find all the resources of the continent may be drawn to a point. In danger, the President may concentre to a point every effort of the continent. If the government be constructed to satisfy the people, and remove their apprehensions, the wealth and the Strength of the continent will go where public utility shall direct. This government, with these restrictions, will be a strong government, united with the privileges of the people. In my weak judgment, a government is strong when it applies to the most important end of all governments--the rights and privileges of the people. In the honorable member's proposal, jury trial, the press and religion, and other essential rights, are not to be given up. Other essential rights--what are they? The world will say that you intended to give them up. When you go into an enumeration of your rights, and stop that enumeration, the inevitable conclusion is, that what is omitted is intended to be surrendered...”
.
- Patrick Henry, June 24, 1788.

The War on Guns: United States vs. Fincher

The War on Guns: United States vs. Fincher

An American Patriot and Fellow Believer has been Arrested

An American Patriot and Fellow Believer has been Arrested

Inauguration Of President James Monroe, "to be prepared for any emergency"...

THE PROCEEDINGS OF A SESSION SPECIALLY CALLED OF TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 1817.
.

"...My sensibility is increased by a just estimate of the importance of the trust, and of the nature and extent of its duties; with the proper discharge of which, the highest interests of a great and free people are intimately connected...."
.
"...On whom has oppression fallen in any quarter of our Union? Who has been deprived of any right of person or property? Who restrained from offering his vows, in the mode which he prefers, to the Divine Author of his being? It is well nown, that all these blessings have been enjoyed in their fullest extent..."
.
"...Of the virtue of the people, and of the heroic exploits of the army, the navy, and the militia, I need not speak...."
.
"Such, then, is the happy government under which we live; a government adequate to every purpose for which the social compact is formed; a government elective in all its branches, under which every citizen may, by his merit, obtain the highest trust recognised by the Constitution; which contains within it no cause of discord; none to put at variance one portion of the community with another; a government which protects every citizen in the full enjoyment of his rights..."
.
"...Such, then, being the highly favored Condition of our country, it is the interest of every citizen to maintain it. What are the dangers which menace us? If any exist, they ought to be ascertained and guarded against...."
.
"...In explaining my sentiments on this subject, it may be asked, What raised us to the present happy state? How did we accomplish the revolution? How remedy the defects of the first instrument of our Union, by infusing into the national government sufficient power for national purposes, without impairing the just rights of the States, or affecting those of individuals? How sustain, and pass with glory through the late war? The government has been in the hands of the people. To the people, therefore, and to the faithful and able depositaries of their trust, is the credit due. Had the people of the United States been educated in different principles; had they been less intelligent, less independent, or less virtuous, can it be believed that we should have maintained the same steady and consistent career, or been blessed with the same success? While, then, the constituent body retains its present sound and healthful state, every thing will be safe. They will choose competent and faithful representatives for every department. It is only when the people become ignorant and corrupt; when they degenerate into a populace, that they are incapable of exercising the sovereignty. Usurpation is then an easy attainment, and an usurper soon found. The people themselves become the willing instruments of their own debasement and ruin. Let us, then, look to the great cause, and endeavor to preserve it in full force. Let us, by all wise and constitutional measures, promote intelligence among the people, as the best means of preserving our liberties.
.
"...We must support our rights or lose our character, and with it, perhaps, our liberties. A people who fail to do it, can scarcely be said to hold a place among independent nations. National honor is national property of the highest value. The sentiment in the mind of every citizen, is national strength. It ought, therefore, to be cherished...."
.
"...But it ought always to be held prominently in view, that the safety of these States, and of every thing dear to a free people, must depend, in an eminent degree, on the militia. Invasions may be made too formidable to be resisted by any land and naval force which it would comport either with the principles of our government or the circumstances of the United States to maintain. In such cases, recourse must be had to the great body of the people, and in a manner to produce the best effect. It is of the highest importance, therefore, that they be so organized and trained as to be prepared for any emergency. The arrangement should be such as to put at the command of the government the ardent patriotism and youthful vigor of the country. If formed on equal and just principles, it cannot be oppressive. It is the crisis which makes the pressure--and not the laws, which provide a remedy for it. This arrangement should be formed too in time of peace, to be the better prepared for war. With such an organization of such a people, the United States have nothing to dread from foreign invasion. At its approach, an overwhelming force of gallant men might always be put is motion...."

.
Need it be mentioned, that both Mr. Monroe, and Mr. Madison whom was in attendance at this inauguration. Were at he the debates concerning our Constitution, and Bill of Rights?

Journal of the executive proceedings of the Senate of the United States of America, March 9, 1848:

"...Mr. Sevier submitted the following resolution for consideration:
.
Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring), That the Senate advise and consent to the ratification of the treaty of peace, friendship, limits, and settlement between the United States of America and the Mexican Republic, concluded at Guadalupe Hidalgo on the 2d day of February, in the year 1848, with the following amendments:
.
Insert in Article III, after the words "Mexican Republic," where they first occur, the words and the ratifications exchanged.
.
Strike out the ninth article of the treaty and insert the following in lieu thereof:
.
Article IX.--The Mexicans who in the territories aforesaid shall not preserve the character of citizens of the Mexican Republic, comformably with what is stipulated in the preceding article, shall be incorporated into the Union of the United States, and be admitted at the proper time (to be judged of by the Congress of the United States) to the enjoyment of all the rights of citizens of the United States, according to the principles of the Constitution, and in, the mean time shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty and property, and secured in the free exercise of their religion without restriction.
.
Strike out the tenth article of the treaty.
.
Strike out of the eleventh article of the treaty the following words "nor to provide such Indians with fire arms or ammunition, by sale or otherwise." "

One must assume then, that the continued practice was allowed?

John Lansing, June 24th, 1788. The Debates in the Several State Conventions, (New York), on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution...

"...The gentlemen, in their reasoning on the subject of corruption, seem to set aside experience, and to consider the Americans as exempt from the common vices and frailties of human nature. It is unnecessary to particularize the numerous ways in which public bodies are accessible to corruption. The poison always finds a channel, and never wants an object. Scruples would be impertinent, arguments would be in vain, checks would be useless, if we were certain our rulers would be good men; but for the virtuous government is not instituted: its object is to restrain and punish vice; and all free constitutions are formed with two views--to deter the governed from crime, and the from tyranny."
.

[Elliot's Debates, Volume 2] THE DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.

December 3, 1822 message to the U.S. House and Senate

"Under our happy system, the people are the sole and exclusive fountain of power. Each government originates from them, and to them alone, each to its proper constituents, are they respectively and solely responsible, for the faithful discharge of their duty, within their constitutional limits. And that the people will confine their public agents, of every station, to the strict line of their constitutional duties, there is no cause to doubt...."
.
"The history of the late wars in Europe furnishes a complete demonstration that no system of conduct, however correct in principle, can protect neutral powers from injury from any party; that a defenceless position, and distinguished love of peace, are the surest invitations to war; and that there is no way to avoid it, other than by being always prepared, and willing, for just cause, to meet it. If there be a people on earth whose more especial duty it is to be at all times prepared to defend the rights with which they are blessed, and to surpass all others in sustaining the necessary , and in submitting to sacrifices to make such preparations, it is undoubtedly the people of these states...."
.
- President James Monroe, [Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, 1822-1823. TUESDAY, December 3, 1822.]

Communicated to the Senate Dec. 23, 1833...

"Every citizen is, from the nature of our social organization, a part of the public defense; and he is also, in the last resort, in common with his fellow-citizens, the safeguard of the liberties of all against the government itself. Thus it is that amendments to the Constitutionof the United States have provided that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shallnot be infringed." It seems indispensable to the accomplishment of the objects referred to that every citizen should be armed..."
.
- John C. Edwards, Secretary of State, 11/15/1833. 'Military Affairs', Application of Missouri for the establishment of a depot of arms near the northwestern boundry of that state.