Archives for Diatribe

“Who’s George Mason?” you might ask, proving that the victors indeed write the history.

People inherently bring their previous experiences to any challenges they encounter in life.  As a Virginia delegate to the Ratifying Convention and framer of the U.S. Constitution, George Mason certainly drew on his experiences in Virginia state politics.  As the author of Virginia’s Declaration of Rights, which preceded the Virginia State Constitution, he expected a declaration of rights to precede the federal constitution, or at least be included from the outset. 

Given that our Bill of Rights did not come about until two years after the signing of the Constitution, George Mason became a vocal opponent of the Constitution’s ratification.  He refused to sign the Constitution, saying that without a Bill of Rights, its first principles were “highly and dangerously oligarchic” and with a Bill of Rights, the Constitution would be restricted in its “awful squint towards monarchy.” 

In May of 1776, two months before Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, the origins of which I recently discussed here in relation to property rights, George Mason penned these words in the Virginia Declaration of Rights:

“That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent natural Rights… among which are the Enjoyment of Life and Liberty, with the Means of acquiring and possessing Property, and pursueing and obtaining Happiness and Safety.”

George Mason’s words obviously influenced the direction Jefferson took.  These principles were commonly regarded as sacred among our founders, but the execution of a federal government for the protection of these rights was hotly debated.  The belief that a decentralized government would govern best solidified a group of patriots known as the Anti-Federalists, opposed to the majority party, deemed, you might have guessed, the Federalists.  If today we think the minority party is defined by its opposition alone, it is worth looking back and seeing what a true opposition party looks like.  America’s First Congress fought over the Bill of Rights for two whole years, the principal founding years of our nation.

What I found interesting about this particular debate is that the minority party did not capitulate on their ideas.  Instead of meeting the majority’s demands for a stronger federal government, they stood by their fundamental beliefs that the individual was sovereign and any authority is a trust endowed by individuals, conceded to the state first, and then to the federal government.  These are the very principles George Mason believed in, and are reflected in our Bill of Rights today.

The Anti-Federalists vocal opposition of the Constitution, as it was proposed, lead them to sponsors for their concerns within the majority party, including the influential statesman Thomas Jefferson, and leader of the Federalists, James Madison.  Their sponsorship, however, was not achieved without a partisan fight.

Standing Athwart History

Federalist Alexander Hamilton, co-author of the Federalist Papers, eloquently argued against the Bill of Rights on justifiable grounds in The Federalist No. 84, stressing that the while he favored a British system of common law, that is, of rights that exist undefined, the U.S Constitution was different than anything seen before, and therefore, a Bill of Rights in America was unnecessary.  Hamilton stated: 

“Bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince.  Such was “Magna Charta”, obtained by the Barons, swords in hand, from King John.”

To Hamilton, defining particular rights of the citizen would put restraints on the citizen through omission.  ”Why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?  Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?”

While his logic is reasonable, Hamilton in fact dissects his own argument:  The limits of state power were not defined, and the individual needed explicit protection from his government.

It became clearer to the founders on both sides of the aisle that a Bill of Rights was going to be necessary, and Thomas Jefferson in particular realized that Anti-Federalist support for the Constitution depended on a Bill of Rights, but further delay endangered the entire process.  As Ambassador to France, Jefferson, in a letter to James Madison, wrote, “Half a loaf is better than no bread.  If we cannot secure all our rights, let us secure what we can.”  The Federalists answered in kind, and the Constitution was finalized without a Bill of Rights.

Meaningful Opposition

George Mason, in turn, refused to sign the Constitution on September 17, 1787, a great document he saw as wanting, and it underwent the Ratification process without his approval.  George Mason’s opposition cut ties with George Washington, his neighbor and friend, and along with his affiliation with the Anti-Federalists, accounts for why George Mason is lesser known than his Federalist colleagues. 

The Anti-Federalists united in opposition against a Constitution without a Bill of Rights, and stood their ground.  Patrick Henry, the articulate, well-known leader of the Anti-Federalists, even refused to accept offers to be this nation’s first Secretary of State or a Supreme Court Justice.  In June of 1788, he argued against the Ratification in his famous “Liberty or Death” speech:

“Is it necessary for your liberty that you should abandon those great rights by the adoption of this system?  Is the relinquishment of the trial by jury and the liberty of the press necessary for your liberty?  Will the abandonment of your most sacred rights tend to the security of your liberty?  Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings — give us that precious jewel, and you may take every thing else!”

The vehement opposition of the minority had a subsequent effect on the process.  James Madison, the other co-author of the Federalist Papers, tried to reassure a concerned, fledgling nation of colonies, in the process of becoming states, in The Federalist No. 39, in 1788: 

“Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act.  In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution.”

State by state, the Constitution was ratified, with the exception of Rhode Island, who opposed it on similar grounds as George Mason; they felt the Constitution, without explicitly enumerating rights, had the power to reinstitute a monarchy.  When Rhode Island finally ratified the Constitution, it sent a message back to Congress, with demands for a Bill of Rights.  Acts such as these from other colonies – North Carolina, South Carolina, and New York were also visibly upset - as they became states lent credence to the Anti-Federalist movement.

Eventually, the Constitution was adopted, and went into effect on March 4, 1789.  The First Congress met in September of that year, two years after George Mason’s dissent; almost immediately, delegates began to argue for a Bill of Rights.  James Madison had proposed a Bill of Rights to Congress earlier that June, in an attempt to avoid a Second Constitutional Convention, which he knew had the potential to destroy the budding nation.

Madison’s proposal was based mostly on the work of his friend and fellow Virginian, George Mason, which drew upon centuries of laws and theories, from John Locke to the Magna Carta.  It took two more years for the colonies to ratify the Bill of Rights, which went into effect December 1791, more than four years after the signing of the Constitution, and more than fifteen years after George Mason first wrote Virginia’s Declaration of Rights.

The Prescience of George Mason

George Mason feared a powerful federal government would eventually usurp the privileges granted to it under the Constitution, as he felt the federal government would see powers not prohibited explicitly as permitted implicitly.  Although he had crafted the Declaration of Rights for his own state, he feared for state rights under the new federal system.  In his major speech detailing the reasons for his objection to the Constitution, George Mason argued, “The laws of the general government being paramount to the laws and constitutions of the several states, the declarations of rights in the separate states are no security.”

Mason also feared the powers granted to the Executive Branch, and made these salient points about the dangers of an unrestrained governing body:

“The President of the United States has no constitutional council, (a thing unknown in any safe and regular government).  He will therefore be unsupported by proper information and advice, and will generally be directed by minions and favorites; or he will become a tool to the Senate; or a council of state will grow out of the principal offers of the great departments – the worst and most dangerous of all ingredients for such council, in a free country; for they may be induced to join in any dangerous or oppressive measures, to shelter themselves, and prevent an inquiry into their own misconduct in office.”

George Mason’s objections drew a proverbial line in the sand with the majority party, and his dissent did not come without consequence.  Although Mason found a critical sponsor for his Declaration of Rights in James Madison, the leader of the Virginia Federalists, he relinquished his spot in American history with his opposition.  Instead, George Mason shares the title of “Father of the Bill of Rights” with James Madison.

In his closing remarks before the Constitutional Convention, Mason made this prediction about the burgeoning governing body for the newly formed United States of America:

“This government will commence in a moderate aristocracy: it is at present impossible to see whether it will, in its operation, produce a monarchy or a corrupt oppressive aristocracy; it will most probably vibrate some years between the two, and then terminate in one or the other.”

On this point, I sincerely hope we prove George Mason wrong.  Looking at the fever pitch of politics today, I’m not sure where we are heading.  It looks like we are coming apart at our seams.  What common thread weaves together the diverse fabrics of America?  It’s hard to see what, if anything, we have in common with each other anymore.

I wonder what the founders would think of our arguments today.  Patriots today still stand athwart history, and have become targets for the bosses in both government and media.  To quote French philosopher Voltaire, “It is lamentable, that to be a good patriot one must become the enemy of the rest of mankind.”

Some Final Thoughts

When an archer draws back his bow to launch an arrow at his intended target, the glide path of that arrow is always the same:  the arrow ascends upward; the arrow crests; the arrow begins its descent.  So it is with governments.  Nations may remain constant, but their governments come and go, ebbing and flowing, with distinct historical trends.

State power gained is individual liberty acquiesced; it you don’t believe me, look at the “communist” countries in the world, and assess the magnitude of personal freedoms their citizens enjoy.  Pretty blight, huh?  This trend is not coincidental; democracy depends on the protection of individual liberties, which are devalued by state control.

Our government is the longest lasting sovereign democracy in the world.  I believe our arrow has crested, and is descending towards either its intended target, or a failed state.  Constant maintenance is required to keep the arrow moving towards the target the founders intended for the people of this nation.  President Ronald Reagan conveyed as much by reminding us:

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.  We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream.  It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

I hope the cause of individual liberty might provide a little more lift for this arrow, and for our current government.  If not, I hope that when individuals take action, it will be for that cause, in accordance with Jefferson’s finalized words in the Declaration of Independence, which I have included in context:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.  That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.  But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”

Share on Facebook

Famous last words of Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), regarding the upcoming Health Care Bill:  “If you like what you’ve got, you get to keep it.  We’re not changing that.”

 

 

I am beginning to sense Machiavelli’s tension

This Trojan Horse Prince preemptively spent Achilles’ pension

And Homer would be offended

He would have preferred we spent ourselves

In efforts to cover our vulnerable tendons

And while it can be pensive, it’s even more expensive

To wage a war for the poor by destroying the wealthy

Like fighting for the sick by incriminating the healthy

Without common sense there are no dollars and cents

 

“Government interventions create unintended consequences that lead to calls for further intervention, and so on into a destructive spiral of more and more government control.” – Ludwig von Mises

Share on Facebook