In the Words of Our Founders: ...and other Historians, Philosophers, and Statesmen: Volume II

By Tullius

In the Words of Our Founders, Volume II

Since the introduction of COVID-19 in March 2020, the Constitutional and natural law violations by local, state, and federal officials against the US citizenry continues unchecked. The fear they successfully instilled into the population provided many unique opportunities in varying spheres and degrees within our country to further their sinister and godless agenda. The Republic, lacking the moral and virtuous pillars required for its continuation, teeters on the brink. The United States has reached its peaceful high-water mark.

The illegal mandates and dictums of "shelter in place," and "mask-up," the closing of once thriving businesses for many months now, and the limiting of numbers of people that wish to peaceably assemble, is alarming. When citizens and business owners challenge these "rogue" officials, as happened in Dallas in May, they are first lectured as being "selfish," and then jailed. Her crime: Exercising her natural right of self-preservation. But this is to be expected given the current level of our national sickness. After all, it is the churches and businesses that are closed, not the abortion clinics and liquor stores.

As for the Presidential election, some question the ability or even a desire to steal it. Really? When considering what has happened to our individual freedoms over these past many decades, and continuing with largely the same criminal actors, is it outside the realm of possibility, or even probability? Wake up, America!

In this volume of work the investigative journey of our true heritage continues. We observe what many of our Founders intended for our government under natural law; what our lives were supposed to look like under the liberties of our Constitution and Bill of Rights; what our lives should be as a free people; and of course, the difficulties maintaining our natural state against "designing men." The tyrannical behaviors by our ruling class to implement a communist- political and socialist-economic society continues without resistance as the apathetic, dependent, lethargic, and ill-educated American people stand idle and even welcome destruction by way of "death by a thousand cuts."

Once again, it is best for the reader to simply strap-in!

"Tullius"

• Language: English
• Publisher: Christian Faith Publishing, Inc.
• Release date: Apr 27, 2021
• ISBN: 9781098065775

Book preview

cover.jpg

In the Words of Our Founders

...and other Historians, Philosophers, and Statesmen: Volume II

Tullius

Copyright © 2020 by Tullius

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods without the prior written permission of the publisher. For permission requests, solicit the publisher via the address below.

Christian Faith Publishing, Inc.

832 Park Avenue

Meadville, PA 16335

www.christianfaithpublishing.com

Printed in the United States of America

Table of Contents

The Character of the General Welfare Clause, the Articles of Confederation, the State Constitutions, and General Washington

The Varying Views and Phases of Slavery Thoughts and Actions from the Revolutionary Period to 1787

The Rise of the US Constitution The Complications with Slavery in Persons and Property (1780–1788)

Constitutional Conflicts of 1787–1788 The State Ratification Debates Part 1

Constitutional Conflicts of 1787–1788 The State Ratification Debates Part 2

Constitutional Conflicts of 1788 The State Ratification Debates Part 3—Virginia (A Comparative View)

Constitutional Conflicts of 1788 The State Ratification Debates Part 4—Virginia (A Comparative View)

The Race toward Consolidation (1791–1803) The Early Dismantling of the Tenth Amendment and States’ Rights

Introduction

The Bible contains the most profound Philosophy,

the most perfect Morality, and the most refined Policy that ever was conceived upon the earth. It is the most Republican Book in the World, and therefore I will still revere it.¹

—John Adams to Benjamin Rush, 1807

In our mortal state , it cannot be forgotten by the reader that our individual time upon this earth is merely a transient one. We are often reminded of this fact through the daily course of life as we listen to our news, place our loved ones in the grave, and watch our own bodies decay. Indeed, in terms of human history , our entire lifespan is but [a] mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes. But in the mind of the Christian, upon completion of their mortal state , there lies ahead of them a transition into one of a spiritual nature , one that is occupied not by the mortal body but one that is new, and that will last for eternity. Nevertheless, while on this earth, the Christian and non-Christian alike face realities that are often unpleasant and unsatisfying and hostile and sinister. But to the Christian, it is both expected and temporary.

The Holy Bible is quite clear that there is a cosmic and spiritual battle that rages beyond the temporal sphere. This battle is between the Triune-God and his angelic creatures against the fallen angel, Lucifer, and his own angelic beings. According to the Bible, the battles continue, but the war has already been won. As these battles continue until the end of the age, when God (the Father) declares its conclusion, the prize is not for power nor wealth; nor is it for placement or position; rather, it is for the human soul. It is not for a collection of human souls per se. It is specifically for each and every individual human soul in which God (the Son) will judge and determine the eternal placement of each human soul.

In the temporal sphere, the earth is the actual battlefield. It is here that each human soul occupies a transient space and acts out their life either in support of God or Lucifer. This support is not necessarily cognizant to each human, though in many cases it is so. Nevertheless, both God and Lucifer can view into the soul of men and women to the extent that a determination might be made as to whom that individual human allies themselves with, either in a purposeful state or that of ignorance throughout the course of their lifetimes. In short, all people are either wittingly or unwittingly an agent of God or Lucifer.

The Holy Bible conveys that in the future, there will be in existence a single world currency, government, and religion—a communist totalitarian dictatorship. What is often overlooked by many Christians is the seductive and deductive processes with which this totalitarian domination will unfold. The existence and activities of peoples and forces that serve Lucifer is often simply too deep or too profound or perhaps too intimidating for servants of Christ to contemplate. They are considered conspiracy theorists or off their rocker or some other phrase that identifies them as insane. The forces of Lucifer whom control much of the world’s temporal institutions purposely pillory those Christians who understand what is actually taking place in the world. Why? To keep them from influencing people of the cosmic battle taking place between God and Lucifer for the prize of the human soul. But the battle is real.

There are present in the world Christians who fail to read God’s Word, and as a result, are often unwitting victims of Lucifer’s evil designs. As many of God’s followers are unaware, inactive, or passive in their behaviors within the sphere of societal activities, to include the establishment and energies of public policies, Lucifer’s followers succeed in changing the culture into one that creates and supports his goals, which include chaos, immorality, and communistic tyranny. This is to the detriment of not only the world generally, but to their own offspring specifically. To Lucifer, however, their passivity increases the total count of human souls he will ultimately capture. Indeed, when God’s people fail to be the salt of the earth, there is a negative reaction.

But when God’s people are aware of the great cosmic conflict and promote individual freedom and liberty among men or establish and maintain republican government, promoting what is good and right to include educating others that man is both designed and born to be free from the will of other men, a peace among members of the community becomes more achievable. When man governs himself under the republican system and buttresses laws under those of nature, which is how our own government was designed and established, it inherently stymies the evils associated with communist-socialist-totalitarian ideas. Furthermore, when good government is established anywhere in the world where men and women might be free, whether within the local community, the state, or a nation, Lucifer immediately puts his energies into its destruction. Why is this? It is because virtue and moral behaviors are required for its existence, and this is antithetical to his designs. And this statement is not to be taken lightly. Lucifer will use his followers to vilify, oppress, and murder God’s followers to remove anything and everything that promotes morality and virtue—those two crucial pillars that uphold the republican system.

As to this great fight and its rewards, God chooses to convey the long-term ideas of perfection and eternal salvation in a world governed by Jesus Christ while Lucifer takes the opposite approach of short-term gratifications in the form of worldly possessions, powers, and wealth. It is in part for this reason that man measures success in terms of material possessions and the number of dollars held in a bank account. This ever-popular phrase goes like this: Whomever dies with the most toys wins! But of course, we know this not to be the case. And how do we know this? First because Christ warns us that, It is harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle. Second, an onlooker never sees a U-Haul truck behind a hearse. No indeed. In truth, success is measured in terms of only being reborn and the acts of goodness and kindness toward their fellow man.

Let it be assumed for a moment that the Bible is correct—that there will at some point in human history be in place a single world currency, single world government, and single world religion, no matter how brief the period may prove to be. Let it also be assumed that technology will play a significant role with which the speed and effectiveness of a consolidated structure will unfold. It can be reasonably argued that if one can instantly transfer information and money or spy upon and track the movements of all humanity or further still be able to message whole populations a particular viewpoint almost instantaneously, which all these things are believed to be currently taking place, then consolidation of currency, government, and religion is not only possible but indeed is quite probable. And whatever technologies remain undiscovered to further this consolidation, they most certainly will be quickly yet methodically employed to remove by degrees the rights of the people by the ruling class or favored few. The Bible represents a freedom and liberty to men that is both mortal and immortal, while Lucifer represents opposite of these—slavery and subjugation. Lucifer’s hatred of God and man, both of whom he was created to serve, knows no bounds or restraints. Like God, he uses people to do his will.

With all of the above as the backdrop, it must always be present within the minds of freedom-loving people that this is the war at hand—a war of independence versus bondage. It must never be forgotten by the reader that each and every day, designing men and rogues are plotting and manipulating to control events geared toward consolidation and totalitarianism at the expense of the people. And while Jefferson is quite correct that fourteen out of fifteen are in favor of general honesty, the fourteen have, in large measure, been placed into a state of ignorance of what is really going on in the world.

For over two centuries now, the United States has represented freedom to the world. And while this was quite true during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries and as people flocked from war-torn and religious-persecuting nations to gain freedoms, rogue men have, without question, ruined this nation not for lack of intellect but rather for lack of moral virtue and integrity—they have sold out the United States to the favored few for desire of money, position, and power. As the beacon of freedom that the United States represented then, it was crucial for those serving Lucifer to overtake our nation with evil and corruption and to inculcate by whatever means available and necessary into the population this same immorality. It is necessary that this be performed against this nation if the single world currency, government, and religion are to be the reality claimed by the Bible. Indeed, in the measurement of nations, the United States is the big prize. After all, it was James Madison who wrote in Federalist No. 51: If men were angels, no government would be necessary. This, however, is the bird’s-eye view.

More recently, the apparent facts related to outright treasonous activities by our highest government officials reflects a level of exposure in criminal activity that boggles the mind. Indeed, it could even be argued that these same criminals whom through our decent nature trust to do the right things for us have inarguably behaved in a duplicitous and mischievous way, working for their employer within the favored few class whom are in large part the owners and players within the deep state or shadow government. This is not to say that corruptive actors were not within the halls of our government prior to what we are seeing today because as has been said, they have been in place in all facets of government and private businesses for many decades and even centuries. And these same people within government especially warp the original meanings of the words of our Founders. They clearly bend and break the Constitution to meet a predetermined goal, which always turns out woeful for the people, robbing them of precious inherent rights and the fruits of their labor. Why do they do this? They are enslaved by evil. Like all of us, they are riddled with a sinful nature—a single original sin, but many branches stemming from it. But unlike those fourteen out of fifteen men, they have sold themselves to their vices, enjoying its alluring effects. Thomas Aquinas put it best when he wrote, Consequently, original sin is specifically one, and in one man can be only one in number; while in different men it is one in species and in proportion, but numerically many.²

When the society undergoes the levels of moral decay, we have clearly seen over these past many decades in our nation, and as traditional norms are being utterly famished and broken by these rogues, there is present an equal and opposite reaction that has naturally unfolded. Good cannot knowingly coexist with evil any more than good people can coexist with evil people because the latter group does not seek peace; rather, they seek only war. The long-term coexistence between the two—goodness and evil—simply cannot be. One side must yield to the other at some point in time. And absent a miracle, death, destruction, and force are almost exclusively the mechanisms used by the opposing parties. The Founders knew all this as well. As was reflected in Volume I of my book, they fully understood the makeup of men and women. And while they too were imperfect and recognized themselves as such, they held in large measure the necessary levels of morality and virtue to perceive, formulate, and place into operation a republican character and federal-style form of government unknown to any other group of men and women throughout the human historical record. And it should not be lost upon the reader that we have been given, starting in 1789, an outstanding form of government! But because men are not angels, we have allowed it to become an albatross that will lead to our destruction if we do not check its insatiable appetite for us. Indeed, it will most certainly destroy us.

The illicit and illegal takeover of our government has likely not been an easy task for these designing men. We have, in large measure, been protected by the wisdom of our Founders through the establishment of the separation of powers and limited government political philosophies in which our republican character and federal-style form has been buttressed. This protection was furthered and fortified by an educated and well-informed citizenry—something Jefferson took extremely seriously. Indeed, he wrote many tracts on the necessity of the Diffusion of Knowledge and even spent large sums of his energies upon establishing the University of Virginia. But because the Central government has become all-powerful and unlimited as well as the system of education being deficient in most every aspect today, the core of our republican and federal systems is broken quite possibly beyond repair. For example, the First Amendment, specifically the freedom of religion (rather than the ideological shift inculcated today of freedom from religion) is being systematically dismantled. Indeed, plaques and chiseled stone monuments of the Ten Commandments continue to be removed at an alarming rate, and Christian crosses that once dotted our landscape continue to be systematically eliminated. This is true also for the Second Amendment where the complete and forced takeover of the rights of the people cannot be performed while people are able to defend themselves against government tyranny. More recently, the legislative and executive branches of the State of Virginia have openly violated the US Constitution while the American public largely stands idle. The death of American freedom is now being fast-tracked by the ruling class. The death of America’s foundational documents and their cornerstones of the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and the US Constitution is required in order that individual freedom under the laws of Nature be brought to ashes.

It is quite interesting to hold a conversation with like-minded people whom know well that something is afoot, something is amiss—something is just not right. They will agree with much that has taken place with our destruction, much that has been dismantled, much that has brought about the chaos we see in our politics today. They claim to know and agree with the theological beliefs of Christianity yet still cannot make the direct correlation between the steady and manipulative destruction of our form of government (both at the federal and state levels), and the conspiracy by rogue men residing within both secret and not-so-secret societies and organizations. Let us assume that these Christians are genuine in their belief that the Holy Bible is the inerrant Word of God. If these assumptions be true, which after investigation they quite clearly are true, then it is no little wonder how God’s people fail to make the connections. Can these Christians actually believe that all these momentous turnings of events over the previous many decades are by mere chance rather than by sinister design? Can they believe that the relentless destruction of Christian-based principals taking place within our culture are by mere chance? Can they believe that a business owner being brought to the dust by a rogue judiciary for refusing to bake a cake for a homosexual couple is by mere chance? Can they believe that it is by happenstance that the numerous anti-biblical positions and actions taken by our government leaders who claim their love of country, love of the Constitution, and love of us is by mere accident? Can they believe that the resulting effects of the decisions by government leaders and their accomplices in business, education, and media that have brought this nation to its current dismal state is by mere accident? I think not.

In Volume I, it was shown how our Founders developed their political philosophies, which were rooted in large part to Aristotle, Cicero, and Locke among some others. It was also shown how the Declaration of Independence, under the natural law, was the very linchpin to our governing structure following the year 1776. In the following pages, it will be shown how our government was debated, established, and subsequently altered as time progressed; how our nation’s original governing texts, specifically the Articles of Confederation, the US Constitution, and its Bill of Rights were created to provide the citizenry with an inflexible republican character in its foundation and federal-style in operation. Furthermore, it will also be shown how these structural pillars have been steadily and methodically manipulated by those tireless forces whom have either sold their souls or those whom work for its destruction by way of ignorance, steadily steering it toward consolidation; examples of damaging intent, pernicious applications, and catastrophic results most especially by the federal judiciary to whom it is entrusted to interpret our Constitution. Once these facts are presented, and the reader verifies what is reflected in this writing, it may be better understood what actually took place in the hijacking of our liberties, and indeed, a more conclusive level of education showing that we are not living within the civil society which was intended for us. As President Harding once said:

America’s present need is not heroics, but healing; not nostrums, but normalcy; not revolution, but restoration; not agitation, but adjustment; not surgery, but serenity; not the dramatic, but the dispassionate; not experiment, but equipoise; not submergence in internationality, but sustainment in triumphant nationality. It is one thing to battle successfully against world domination by military autocracy because the infinite God never intended such a program, but it is quite another thing to revise human nature and suspend the fundamental laws of life and all of life’s acquirements…³

Let us again begin our journey!

Prologue

I do most anxiously wish to see the highest degrees of education given to the higher degrees of genius, and to all degrees of it, so much as may enable them to read & understand what is going on in the world, and to keep their part of it going on right: for nothing can keep it right but their own vigilant & distrustful superintendence. I do not believe with the Rochefoucaults & Montaignes, that fourteen out of fifteen men are rouges: I believe a great abatement from that proportion may be made in favor of general honesty. But I have always found that rogues would be uppermost, and I do not know that the proportion is too strong for the higher orders, and for those who, rising above the swinish multitude, always contrive for themselves into the places of power & profit. The rouges are set out with stealing the people’s good opinion, and then steal from them the right of withdrawing it, by contriving laws and associations against the power of the people themselves. Our part of the country is in considerable fermentation, on what they suspect to be a recent roguery of this kind. They say that while all hands were below deck mending sails, splicing ropes, and every one at his own business, & the captain in his cabbin attending to his log book & chart, a rogue of a pilot has run them into an enemy’s port. But metaphor apart, there is much dissatisfaction with Mr. Jay & his treaty. For my part, I consider myself now but as a passenger, leaving the world, & it’s government to those who are likely to live longer in it. That you may be among the longest of these, is my sincere prayer.⁴

—Thomas Jefferson to Mann Page,

August 30, 1795

Similar to President Kennedy , Thomas Jefferson knew as well the existence of a cabal or more accurately, the rogues, or still further, designing men. He knew that honorable men and women within the population of the United States whom were gifted with a greater intellect would be needed to be trained up to better understand the forces that oppose them to defend the liberties of all the people. Furthermore, he told us not only of their existence but how they would fight to gain and maintain their corruptive positions. He was equally clear throughout much of his writings that these rogues would attempt to deceive the people to achieve their evil ends. They have now transitioned to a place where we should not question their intentions or motives nor their results. Be cautious of our leaders; always question their policies with a wise scrutiny; resist their hyperbolic language to be lackadaisical with your liberty . ⁵ Once again, past remains prologue!

---

¹ John Adams, Writings from the New Nation 1784–1826, Library of America: New York, 2016, p. 460.

² Thomas Aquinas, The Basic Writings of Saint Thomas Aquinas, Volume Two, Edited and annotated by Anton C. Pegis. New York: Random House, 1945, p. 675.

³ Warren G. Harding, National Ideals and Policies, The Protectionist, May 1920, p. 71–81, The Miller Center, Accessed January24, 2020, http://millercenter.org/president/harding/speeches/readjustment

⁴ Thomas Jefferson, Writings, Library of America: New York, 1984, p. 1030

⁵ YouTube, President Obama: Reject Those Who Think Government Shouldn’t Be Trusted, 13 May 2013, Accessed January 16, 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VU8lQdj9qdg)

1

The Character of the General Welfare Clause, the Articles of Confederation, the State Constitutions, and General Washington

The notion that the freedom and independence of the states refers to a consolidation of states, admits of a perfect refutation. It would render the language of the declaration of independence ungrammatical because had this been intended, it ought to have recognised the rights of sovereignty as residing in one consolidated state, and not in several states. It would have rendered the confederation unnecessary; because, had the declaration of independence invested a consolidation of states with a power to do all acts and things which a free and independent states may of right do, there would not have existed the least for delegating powers to a federal Congress. It would have divested each province or state of the right to make and alter its own constitution and its own laws; and it would have converted the exercise of any sovereign power by a state, subsequent to the declaration of independence was completely adverse to the idea that it had conferred any sovereign power, whatever, upon a consolidation of states. Hence a confederation became necessary; and hence the several states exercised, among others, the sovereign powers of raising armies, imposing taxes, and regulating commerce. The language used in the declaration of independence was adopted and explained by the confederation framed in 1777. It is entitled a perpetual union, its style was The United States of America, and it declares that each state retains its sovereignty. So far state sovereignty is explicitly recognised, and no idea existed that it had been lost by a union of states. Upon trial, it being rediscovered that the powers bestowed upon Congress by the first confederation, were insufficient for their common defence and general welfare, the ends it expresses; another union was framed by the constitution of 1787, rendered more perfect by enlarging federal powers, and repeating the same words of common defence and general welfare as its chief ends. If this phrase was understood, as neither creating a supreme national government, nor extending the powers delegated by the confederation of 1777, it must have been also understood in the same sense when used in the constitution of 1787. Its meaning is ascertained by the tenth section of that instrument. The individual states are prohibited from exercising certain attributes of sovereignty, particularly those of making war, treatises, and regulating commerce because except for the prohibition, they would have retained them, as adjuncts of sovereignty. The prohibition is therefore a construction of this phrase, corresponding with the construction it received when used in the confederation of 1777, and uniting both instruments with the public opinion, that neither the word union, nor this specification of its objects, extended delegated powers, created a general government or supremacy, or deprived the states of any attributes of sovereignty except those prohibited.⁶

—John Taylor

(of Caroline), 1823

There are existing three distinct categories of Founders : First, those like Jefferson and Taylor who held the rightful political ideology that supported individual freedoms and advanced the principles upon which the American Revolution was won. Second, those like Hamilton and Wilson who held the wrongful political ideology that infringed upon the rights of the people by expanding the central authority beyond what was intended and agreed. Third, those like Madison and Randolph whose unwavering support of ratification of the Constitution ultimately showed them naïve when measured against the warnings they were given by the Anti-Federalists .

The overtaking of the United States Government by designing men has been systematically taking place for many decades now. It has been performed with a distinct and discreet methodology in which men holding positions of the public trust, both high and low, have successfully manipulated the original intent of our Founders into a warped application of laws by way of forceful means. The use of direct force by public officials culminated in the War Between the States (1861–65). Since that time, the machinations to sustain and grow their governing powers by controlling education, communications, among other elements of our society has been mainly performed through blackmail, bribery, deceit, and intimidation. The examples of this are aplenty. The reader need only to review actions taken and sanctioned by our public officials (in the form of perverted law) to see its fruits. When this is performed by the objective individual, there is little room for doubt that most pieces of legislation, most all executive actions (or executive orders), and most judicial interpretations of our Constitution has resulted in the loss of our individual private property rights inherent to us from God.

In Volume I, it was shown to the reader that as a result of their classical educations, the core system of political beliefs held by our Founding Fathers was that which followed the laws of nature—that each individual citizen of the States held inherent rights. When these inherent rights due the citizenry (known today as our Bill of Rights) were violated by other men, regardless of what stations they may have held or hold, including public officers, there lay a similar inherent right to throw off the yoke of their applied tyranny. If human laws were manufactured and found to violate either of the two greater laws (Divine and Natural), then those human laws were, as St. Thomas Aquinas declared, little more than perverted law.

As was also shown in Volume I, our Founders knew well the lessons of history. They not only understood that all governments ultimately failed, but they equally understood the reasons why they fell—the external or internal forces that brought them to ashes. Indeed, they fully realized that as a result of being made up of flawed men (and women), governments were merely the vehicles used to destroy things, to include themselves. Indeed, the aristocratical and ruling classes throughout human history, while certainly doing good toward humanity from time to time, most certainly performed from very bad actions against their fellow man. This includes popes and presidents, kings and khan’s, congressman and Caesar’s, judicatures and justices. It is for these reasons that our Founders fought the American Revolution, established free and independent states, and created two central authorities with distinct and defined powers. They desired a free citizenry according to our inherent rights given us by (the Christian) God.

As part of altering and revising the original intentions of our Founders, the favored few—having placed themselves and in many cases their offspring within positions of governmental power—have used specific phrases within the preamble and the text of the Constitution. The general welfare phrase as well as a few others, which will be covered in greater detail in the following chapters, have been exploited against the citizenry in order to grow governmental powers. The meaning of some phrases, even between the Founders and succeeding generations, proved hotly debated. This became especially true after the US Supreme Court case, United States v. Butler 297 US 1 (1936), whereby a flagrant misuse of taxpayer funds was used to pay off one group of people (compliant farmers) at the expense of another group of people (taxpayers) as part of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, one of several harbingers of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s socialistic agenda known as The New Deal.

Representing the majority opinion in Butler, Justice Owen J. Roberts declared that the tax created by the Act was unconstitutional—a decision that was quite correct. But the core of Butler represented the taxing powers of Congress. Article I, Section 8, states to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare… There were then and remain today only two roads to travel upon in answering the question: First, either Congress had a limited authority to create or apply a tax (republican/federal view) or second, they had an unlimited authority to create or apply a tax (consolidation/socialist view). This is the very epicenter of the argument at hand and will also be furthered in future chapters of both this volume and Volume III as the State Convention debates and the federal legislative, executive, and judicial actions are reviewed. Unfortunately, it is the injurious adoption by the federal judiciary (to whom it is entrusted to appropriately interpret the US Constitution) of the irresponsible and illicit use of general welfare that has led to our doom, both in terms of the reduction and elimination of our property rights and the financial debacle we currently face. And while the taxing and spending powers of Congress will be reviewed further in a later chapter as well as the preamble to the US Constitution and its general welfare language, this author believes that it is necessary to place the proverbial stake in the ground here in order to provide the reader with the context and true intention of the phrase moving forward. Indeed, the general welfare clause (a.k.a. the elastics clause) has been the basis for defending the advancement of the consolidated-minded agenda since the 1930s.⁷ Indeed, the rulings by rogue members of the judiciary that support and maintain these failed and perverted laws, such as Social Security, continue to bleed the people of their natural law and property rights. And as will be shown, this was a concern held by some Anti-Federalists during the ratification period of 1788. Moreover, as the American people are continually dumbed down, there is little doubt that the general welfare clause will be used by designing men in the future to implement other perverted laws that illegally confiscate our many God-given rights, such as with red flag and other gun laws disarming the population. The absurdity of the application of the general welfare clause used by so many today is exceeded only by its criminality.

To fully understand the significance of the phrase common defence and general welfare, we must review the writings of those men that were involved in its insertion into the draft of the US Constitution in 1787. The most trustworthy and qualified source is inarguably James Madison who kept copious notes during each day of the Philadelphia Convention. Moreover, as we will see, while Madison supported the ratification of the Constitution in 1787–88, he does not appear to have been ill-influenced by material self-aggrandizement purposes nor a bystander when he viewed something amiss. Indeed, when reviewing his writings in totality, he seemingly is a man who just wanted the governing system in which he played a significant role in creating to succeed in maintaining our freedom from tyrannical behaviors. And while this author would place Jefferson in this same category, it cannot be forgotten that he was not present in Philadelphia or Richmond during those debates, though he was kept informed by many as to the proceedings, including Madison.

On the other side of the equation was Alexander Hamilton who initially used the general welfare clause to advance the notion that the powers of the central government were far greater than what was discussed at the Philadelphia Convention or in his home state’s ratifying convention the following year. In short, he claimed powers due the central authority after the debate period of 1787–88 had closed and after the US Constitution went into operation in 1790. He performed this through his Report on Manufactures in December 1791. Suffice it to say, while Hamilton endorsed the Constitution with his signature, he was quite disappointed with it, writing to Gouverneur Morris that it was but a frail and worthless fabric.⁸ In his mind, the central government did not hold near enough powers. As a result, he set out to not only alter it but essentially destroy it, both in its letter and its spirit. Indeed, he was a man desiring empire versus individual freedom. He simply was unable to grasp or at least accept the identity and necessities of the concept of limited powers, which the Constitution represented, much less fully identify the freedoms associated with its accompanying Bill of Rights. Hamilton wanted the United States to be something of his own creation rather than that which was agreed to that September day in 1787. Most historians do not treat Hamilton with criticism; however, it cannot be forgotten the exchange reflected in Volume I where John Adams knew well that people were rewriting history for their own sinister purposes, much like that is done so today. As King Solomon proclaimed many centuries ago, there is nothing new under the sun.

Madison first addressed the general welfare clause to Edmund Pendleton in January 1792 during the debate over the First National Bank and less than two months after Hamilton published his Report on Manufactures (1791). The reader should place close attention to the origination of the perversion. Madison pens:

I have reserved for you a copy of the Report of the Secretary of Treasury on Manufactures for which I hoped to have found before this a private conveyance, it being rather bulky for the mail. Having not yet succeeded in hitting on an opportunity, I send you part of it in a newspaper which broaches a new constitutional doctrine of vast consequence and demanding the serious attention of the public, I consider it myself as subverting the fundamental and characteristic principle of the Government, as contrary to the true & fair, as well as the received construction, and as bidding defiance to the sense in which the Constitution is known to have been proposed, advocated and adopted. If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions. It is to be remarked that the phrase out of which this doctrine is elaborated, is copied from the old articles of Confederation, where it was always understood as nothing more than a general caption to the specified powers, and it is a fact that it was preferred in the new instrument for that very reason as less liable than any other to misconstruction. Remaining always & most Affecly yours.⁹

The words speak for themselves. Madison knew well something was afoot. It can only be wondered if he began to reflect upon the strenuous debates which he had just recently completed against the Anti-Federalists at the Virginia ratifying convention when they voiced concerns over consolidation and manipulations, such as with Patrick Henry. It can only be further wondered if like Jefferson’s belief of Washington, he had been duped by designing men.

Madison’s letter to Pendleton, however, was not a lone writing on the subject. Six years before his death and with the advancement of the consolidation-minded ideology and the resistance to it becoming more volatile with each passing year, he wrote to Andrew Stevenson in November 1830. The note to Stevenson, accompanied with other crucial information upon the history and understanding of the general welfare clause, is quite worthy of inspection by the reader.¹⁰ In short, this compilation of Madison’s views, coupled with the early writing to Pendleton, was apparently either overlooked or disregarded by members of the US Supreme Court during the twentieth century. It is unfortunate, however, that rogues are frequently not interested in the value of evidence, rather there lay in their own minds the desire for vice.

Finally, it should be noted that while the US Supreme Court has wrongly interpreted the US Constitution and many of its phrases, the US Congress too has been quite successful in using some phrases for its own ends, and some presidents, like Franklin Roosevelt, are not without suspicion and blame. Beyond the issue of the National Bank, one of the early battles over the tax and spending powers of Article 1, Section 8, came during Madison’s presidency in the form of Internal Improvements, the controversy stemming in part from the rightful belief that tax dollars gleaned from the taxpayers in Georgia would be allocated to the benefit of the business person or citizen in New York for the development of a canal, road, or other project. This battle would continue well into the nineteenth century, though it would be an unconventional visage known as the American System.

Madison proved consistent upon his views of the general welfare clause not only in private but in public as well. This public pronouncement also extended beyond this clause and into another controversially driven clause that has also been equally misinterpreted over the many previous decades, i.e. Congressional power to regulate commerce.

On March 3, 1817, on his final day in office, Madison issued a Veto Message to the House of Representatives, one that simultaneously chastised and educated that body. He writes:

The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eight section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers, or that it falls by any just interpretation within the power to make laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution those or other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States.

The power to regulate commerce among the several States can not include a power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses in order to facilitate, promote, and secure such a commerce without a latitude of construction departing from the ordinary import of the terms strengthened by the known inconveniences which doubtless led to the grant of this remedial power to Congress.

To refer the power in question to the clause to provide for the common defense and general welfare would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms ‘common defense and general welfare’ embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust. It would have the effect of subjecting both the Constitution and laws of the several States in all cases not specifically exempted to be superseded by laws of Congress, it being expressly declared ‘that the Constitution of the United States and laws made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land…

If a general power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses, with the train of powers incident thereto, be not possessed by Congress, the assent of the States in the mode provided in the bill can not confer the power. The only cases in which the consent and cession of particular States can extend the power of Congress are those specified and provided for in the Constitution.

I am not unaware of the great importance of roads and canals and the improved navigation of water courses, and that a power in the National Legislature to provide for them might be exercised with a signal advantage to the general prosperity. But seeing that such a power is not expressly given by the Constitution, and believing that it can not be deduced from any part of it without an inadmissible latitude of construction and a reliance on insufficient precedents; believing also that the permanent success of the Constitution depends on a definite partition of powers between the General and State Governments, and that no adequate landmarks would be left by the constructive extension of the powers of Congress as proposed in this bill, I have no option but to withhold my signature from it, and to cherishing the hope that its beneficial objects may be attained by a resort for the necessary powers to the same wisdom and virtue in the nation which established the Constitution in its actual form and providently marked out in the instrument itself a safe and practicable mode of improving it as experience might suggest.¹¹

The reader should understand that the warped interpretation of the general welfare clause that we have seen through the twentieth century is not exclusively impactful to the taxing and spending powers of Congress. Indeed, any legislation that is enacted with the support of this phrase naturally reverberates into other spheres of the federal system, specifically into those powers of state sovereignty. Moreover, while Section 8 of the Articles of Confederation carried the same intentions and wording as the preamble and Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, it is best to investigate the whole of the subject.

On June 11, 1776, some three weeks before the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Congress put forth a resolution that a committee should be formed to see how best to approach the many challenges that lay ahead. The following day, a member from each state was then chosen to assist in the development of a confederated government.¹² The word confederation is quite important for the reader to keep in mind since to the Founders, the written word holds great meaning and purpose. During the formation of this confederated government, the committee held no preconceived notions that a state would be relinquishing its political sovereignty or independence in favor of a consolidated governing body. Moreover, each state understood that it would have an equal weight in determining resolutions that would be put forth in such a confederation. It cannot be forgotten that Virginia had previously acted in its sovereign capacity and had all but declared independence from Britain when Mason put forth his Declaration of Rights, which was published before the collective signing of the Declaration of Independence in Philadelphia. The question may be asked: What is a confederation? Its definition is:

Act of confederating, or state of being confederated; a league; a compact for mutual support; alliance, particularly of princes, nations, or states; formerly, also in a bad sense, a conspiracy.

This was no less than a political confederation of the colonies of New England. Palfrey.

The parties that are confederated, considered as a unit; a body of confederated states; a confederacy. Specif.: Polit. Science. A body of independent states more or less permanently joined together for joint action in matters, esp. in foreign affairs, which affect them in common.

[cap.] U.S. Hist. With the, the union formed in 1781 by the colonies under the Articles of Confederation, lasting until the formation of the United States under the Constitution in 1789.

Syn.—See ALLIANCE.¹³

As time progressed beyond the Revolutionary-period, some yearned for a greater consolidation of the central power, including Hamilton. After ratification of the US Constitution in 1788–89, as is reflected above, words became interestingly ambiguous and nebulous. Gaining control of the central government became a warped fixation to many in the mercantile and commercial sectors of the society in spite of what both the spirit and letter of our founding documents reflect. Nevertheless, this allegation must be proven with an assessment of intent and operative actions.

The Declaration of Independence had formally informed the world that the individual states in America had removed themselves as colonial subjects of the Crown. They proclaimed that they were now free and independent states, but not a consolidated body of states. However, declaring a political status was far different than maintaining it. Indeed, anyone who viewed the events taking place in America knew well that the Founders and their supporting populations had at best but a longshot for keeping their newly proclaimed political status. After all, the world knew that the British were, in fact, the most powerful economic and military nation on the planet. If the colonists were to have any chance in winning their revolution, all the states would be forced to harness their collective efforts and resources. Thus, as powerful as the signing of the Declaration by a group of states may have been, placing ink to parchment did not make them free and independent; they would have to both fight and die for that freedom.

Benjamin Franklin was the first of the principal founders to begin thinking about a plan to unite the colonies into a political body. He drafted his Proposed Articles of Confederation on July 21, 1775, a full year before the Second Continental Congress appointed its own committee as reflected above. To gain the appropriate understanding with which the political frame of mind was grounded, the below is provided to the reader. As will be shown, any thought of a consolidated form of government on the part of Franklin was entirely nonexistent. The sovereignty of each state becomes indisputable. He writes:

Art. I. The Name of the Confederacy shall henceforth be The United Colonies of North America.

Art. II. The said United Colonies hereby enter into a firm League of Friendship with each other, binding on themselves and their Posterity, for their common Defence against their Enemies, for the Security of their Liberties and Propertys, the Safety of their Persons and Families, and their mutual and general welfare.

Art. III. That each colony shall enjoy and retain as much as it may think fit of its own present Laws, Customs, Rights, Privileges, and peculiar Jurisdictions within its own Limits; and may amend its own Constitution as shall seem best to its own Assembly or Convention.

Art. IV. That for more convenient Management… Delegates shall be annually elected…it is understood to be a Rule, that each succeeding Congress be held in a different Colony…till the whole Number be gone through, and so in perpetual Rotation.

Art. V. That the Power and Duty of the Congress shall extend to the Determining on War and Peace, to sending and receiving Ambassadors, and entering into Alliances, [the Reconciliation with Great Britain;] the Settling all Disputes and Differences between Colony and Colony about Limits or any other cause is such should arise. The Congress shall also make such general Ordinances as tho’ necessary to the General Welfare, particular Assemblies cannot be competent to; viz., those that may relate to our general Commerce or general Currency; to the Establishment of Posts; and the Regulations of our common Forces. The Congress shall also have the Appointment of all Officers, civil and military, appertaining to the general Confederacy, such as General Treasurer Secretary, &c.

Art. VI. All Charges of Wars…shall be defrayed out of a common Treasury, which is to be supply’d by each Colony in proportion to its Number of Male Polls between 16 and 60 Years of Age; the Taxes for paying that proportion are to be laid and levied by the Laws of each Colony.

Art. VII. The Number of Delegates to be elected and sent to the Congress by each Colony…so that one Delegate be allow’d for every [5000] Polls.

Art. VIII. At every Congress One Half of the Members…be necessary to make a Quorum.

Art IX. An executive Council shall be appointed by the Congress…consisting of [12] Persons… (of whom two thirds shall be a Quorum) in the Recess of the Congress is to execute… Applications from foreign Countries; to prepare Matters for the Consideration of the Congress; to fill up continental Offices that fall vacant; and to draw on the General Treasurer…for general Services.

Art. X. No Colony shall engage in an offensive War with any Nation of Indians without the Consent of the Congress…who are first to consider the Justice and Necessity of such War.

Art. XI. A perpetual Alliance offensive and defensive, is to be entered into as soon as may be with the Six Nations; their Limits to be ascertain’d and secur’d to them; their Land not to be encroach’d on, nor any private or Colony Purchases made of them hereafter to be held good; nor any Contract for Lands to be made but between the Great Council of the Indians at Onondaga and the General Congress. The Boundaries and Lands of all the other Indians shall also be ascertain’d and secur’d to them in the same manner; and Persons appointed to reside among them in proper Districts, who shall take care to prevent Injustice in the Trade with them, and be enabled at our General Expence by occasional small Supplies, to relieve their Personal Wants and Distresses. And all Purchases from them shall be by the Congress for the General Advantage and Benefit of the United Colonies.

Art. XII. As all new Institutions may have Imperfections which only Time and Experience can discover, it is agreed, that the General Congress from time to time shall propose such Amendment to this Constitution as may be found necessary; which being approv’d by a Majority of the Colony Assemblies, shall be equally binding with the rest of the Articles of Confederation.

Art. XIII. Any and every Colony from Great Britain upon the Continent of North America not at present engag’d in our Association, be receiv’d into this Confederation, viz. [Ireland] the West India Islands, Quebec, St. John’s, Nova Scotia, Bermudas, and the East and West Floridas: and shall thereupon be entitled to all the Advantages of our Union, mutual Assistance and Commerce.

These Articles shall be propos’d to the several Provincial Conventions or Assemblies…and if approved…the Union thereby estblish’d is to continue firm till the Terms of Reconciliation proposed in the Petition of the last Congress to the King are agreed to; till the Acts since made restraining the American Commerce and Fisheries are repeal’d; till Reparation is made for the Injury done to Boston by shutting up its Port; for the Burning of Charlestown; and for the Expence of this unjust War; and till all the British Troops are withdrawn from America. On the arrival of these Events the Colonies are to return to their former Connection and Friendship with Britain: But on Failure thereof this Confederation is to be perpetual.¹⁴

Let us now consider each of these articles proposed by Franklin against the theory of consolidated government. Though the Articles lacked both executive and judicial bodies reflected in the US Constitution, its unicameral legislature absorbed both these functions as is shown in Article V.

As to Article I, Franklin names the group of colonies as a confederacy or a confederation, which is a compact among a league of colonies. The word colony was used because the Declaration of Independence had not yet been formed.

As to Article II, he again identifies the group of colonies as in a league, in which their common interests are centered upon their mutual defense, liberty, property, and safety. He also identifies that the league is formed with an intent to move beyond the present state and into a future one. However, the closing of the proposed compact is noted after Article XIII as is shown. But there is little doubt that Franklin knew the king would never agree to the terms.

As to Article III, he is stating two things: First, each colony maintains its political sovereignty insofar as its own internal affairs, including cultural habits, legal rights and privileges (under the natural law), and second, that each colony may amend its own constitution accordingly.

As to Article IV, he posits an electoral process in which delegates from each colony are assigned to a general congress and that there is to be a rotation of meeting places, which include all the colonies at its given time. He holds no thought of having a single capital, such as New York or Philadelphia, which is understandable given the extended geography and the tumultuous events taking place did not immediately call for one.

As to Article V, he outlines the powers the confederated congress would hold relative to foreign affairs. But from the domestic perspective, the congress was to act as judge whenever disputes arose between colonies (something that proved familiar in the US Constitution) and a legislating power that would be mutually best for the general welfare of all parties, such as commerce, currency, and defense. However, it is important to note that these general welfare elements are limited to those that cannot reasonably be addressed by a colonial legislature because they are collective in their spirit and may be geographically outside the Limits of a given colony, such as financing a fort for the safety of all the members of the compact. The congress would also appoint all government personnel to move the confederacy, such as ambassadors, military generals, or clerks.

As to Article VI, he notes that costs associated with the operation of the confederacy shall be borne by each colony according to the number of male voters. But the more important element to understand is that the individual colony would determine its revenue levels.

As to Article VII, he proposes that each colonial delegate be determined by the number of voters, which is numbered at 5,000.

As to Article VIII, he proposes the quorum levels necessary to conduct business.

As to Article IX, he proposes that while the confederate congress is out of session a body of twelve delegates be present in order to perform business with a quorum representing two-thirds of that body.

As to Articles X and XI, he furthers his belief that there is present a need to protect the American Indians, which was also detailed in Volume I. While a colony may defend itself from Indian attacks, it may not move into an offensive stature without approval from the congress, a move again to protect the Indians from white settlers and criminals.

As to Article XII, he identifies the Articles as a Constitution and alludes that amending the instrument will be binding by a simple majority of members. Moreover, any amendment will hold an equal weight to the original portions of the text—a move that would create consternation among the colonies.

As to Article XIII, he invites other British colonies to join them in the compact.

Finally, Franklin closes that the members of the Union within the compact will stand together till such time as the injuries that have been committed by the Crown against the colonies are reconciled. Furthermore, the Confederation is to continue in perpetuity. This does not mean that the colony is bound forever; rather, it is bound while it desires to be in the union or in compact with sister colonies.

What must be recognized is that at no place in Franklin’s proposed form of government is a consolidation of powers by this congress that might be construed to force a colony to do something it did not wish to do. Indeed, consent by each colony to his proposal and subsequent amendments is required at every level of actionable measure. Each colony would maintain their current domestic form without any intrusion from another colony or group of colonies. It becomes equally clear that this confederated congress is primarily focused on foreign affairs rather than domestic ones to include interaction with the Indians. Thus, Franklin’s ideas do reflect both his own and the general pervading political thought of the day.

Unlike the debates concerning the Declaration of Independence, which held precious few minutes in which to reflect, the Articles of Confederation did hold some notes which posterity could use for reference.¹⁵ However, they held a bit less value than Madison’s notes of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 because they largely came from the diaries of Adams and Jefferson. We can assume them reliable because both men are largely aligned as to the discussions that took place. And as will be seen, the main difficulties of agreement between the colonies and as states was centered upon the issues of representation, taxation, and as might be expected, the elemental values of institutional slavery in terms of representation and property.

Armed with Franklin’s proposals of a compact between the colonies of the previous year, the committee reported a draft proposal of the governing articles on July 12. The primary author to these proposals, however, was formed by John Dickinson, and they proved far lengthier than Franklin’s, though the theme and language of government remained largely the same.¹⁶

We find from Adams that debate began to get a bit sticky on July 26, which covered a great deal of political ground and included regulating trade with the Indians. As might be expected, those colonies who held high levels of profitable trade with the Indians, such as Pennsylvania and South Carolina, held little desire to relinquish their interests to the proposed congress.

On July 30 and August 1, Article XVII hit the floor and rather hard. A single proposed sentence fractured the proceedings like an anvil dropped on an egg. It read In determining Questions in Congress each Colony shall have one Vote.¹⁷ While the words in Congress were later struck out, it nevertheless created an angst among the delegates when considering representation, slavery, and taxation. Adams’ notes are worthy of replication here.¹⁸ He writes:

July 30. 1776

Dr. Franklin. Let the smaller Colonies give equal Money and Men, and then have an equal Vote. But if they have an equal Vote, without bearing the Burthens, a Confederation upon such iniquitous Principles, will never last long.

Dr. Witherspoon. We all agree that there must and shall be a Confederation, for this War. It will diminish the Glory of our Object, and deprecate our Hope. It will damp the Ardor of the