Friends, Countrymen, and Fellow-Citizens, Mr. Wilson in a speech delivered in our Convention on Saturday the 24th instant, has conceded, nay forceably proved, that one consolidated government, will not answer for so extensive a territory as the United States includes, that slavery would be the necessary fate of the people under such a government; his words are so remarkable, that I cannot forbear reciting them, they are as follows, viz. “The extent of country for which the new constitution was required, produced another difficulty in the business of the federal convention. It is the opinion of some celebrated writers, that to a small territory, the democractical, to a middling territory, (as Montesquieu has termed it) the monarchical, and, to an extensive territory, the despotic form of government, is best adapted. Regarding then, the wide and almost unbounded jurisdiction of the United States, at first view, the hand of despotism seemed necessary to controul, connect, and protect it; and hence the chief embarrassment rose. For, we know that, although our constituents would chearfully submit to the legislative restraints of a free government, they would spurn at every attempt to shackle them with despotic power.” See page 5 of the printed speech. And again in page 7, he says “Is it probably that the dissolution of the state governments, and the establishment of one consolidated empire, would be eligible in its nature, and satisfactory to the people in its administration? I think not, as I have given reasons to shew that so extensive a territory could not be governed, connected, and preserved, but by the supremacy of a despotic power, All the exertions of the most potent emperors of Rome were not capable of keeping that empire together, which, in extent, was far inferior to the dominion of America.”

This great point having been now confirmed by the concession of Mr. Wilson, though indeed it was self evident before, and the writers against the proposed plan of governments, having proved to demonstration, that the powers proposed to be vested in Congress, will necessarily annihilate and absorb the state Legislatures and judiciaries and produce from their wreck one consolidated government, the question is determined. Every man therefore who has the welfare of his country at heart, every man who values his own liberty and happiness, in short, every description of persons, except those aspiring despots who hope to benefit by the mystery and vassalage of their countrymen, must now concur in rejecting the proposed system of government, must now unite in branding its authors with the stigma of eternal infamy. The anniversary of this great escape from the fangs of despotism, ought to be celebrated as ling as liberty shall continue to be dear to the citizens of America.

I will repeat some of my principal arguments, and add some further remarks, on the subject of consolidation.

The Legislative is the highest delegated power in government, all others are subordinate to it. The celebrated Montesquieu establishes it as a maxim, that legislation necessarily follows the power of taxation. By the 8th sect. of article the 1st of the proposed government, “the Congress are to have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States.” Now, what can be more comprehensive than these words? Every species of taxation, whether external or internal are included. Whatever taxes, duties, and excises that the Congress may deem necessary to the general welfare may be imposed on the citizens of these states and levied by their officers. The congress are to be the absolute judges of the propriety of such taxes, in short they may construe every purpose for which the state legislatures now lay taxes, to be for the general welfare, they may seize upon every source of taxation, and thus make it impracticable for the states to have the smallest revenue, and if a state should presume to impose a tax or excise that would interfere with a federal tax or excise, congress may soon terminate the contention, by repealing the state law, by virtue of the following section-“To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for the carrying into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department thereof.” Indeed every law of the states may be controuled by this power. The legislative power granted for these sections is so unlimited in its nature, may be so comprehensive and boundless in exercise, that his alone would be amply sufficient to carry the coup de grace to the state governments, to swallow them up in the grand vortex of general empire. But the legislative has an able auxiliary in the judicial department, for a reference to my second number will shew that this may be made greatly instrumental in effecting a consolidation; as the federal judiciary would absorb all others. Lest the foregoing powers should not be suffice to consolidate the United States into one empire, the Convention as if determined to prevent the possibility of a doubt, as if to prevent all clashing by the opposition of state powers, as if to preclude all struggle for state importance, as if to level all obstacles to the supremacy of universal sway, which in so extensive a territory, would be an iron-handed despotism, have ordained by article the 6th, “That this constitution, and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.“

The words “pursuant to the constitution” will be no restriction to the authority of congress; for the foregoing section gives them unlimited legislation; their unbounded power of taxation does alone include all others, as whoever has the purse strings will have full dominion. But the convention has superadded another power, by which the congress may stamp with the sanction of the constitution every possible law; it is contained in the following clause-“To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for the carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.” Whatever law-congress may deem necessary and proper for the carrying into execution any of the powers vested in them, may be enacted; and by virtue of this clause, they may controul and abrogate any and every of the laws of the state governments, on the allegation that they would interfere with the execution of any of their powers, and yet these laws will “be made in pursuance of the constitution,” and of course will “be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary not withstanding.”

There is no reservation made in the whole of this plan in favor of the rights of the separate states. In the present plan of confederation in the year 1778, it was thought necessary by article the 2d to declare that “each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled.” Positive grant was not then thought sufficiently descriptive and restrictive upon congress, and the omission of such a declaration now, when such great devolutions of power are proposed, manifests the design of consolidating the states.

What restriction does Mr. Wilson pretend there is in the new constitution to the supremacy of despotic sway over the United States? What barrier does he assign for the security of the state governments? Why truly a mere cobweb of a limit! [sic] by interposing the shield of what will become mere form, to check the reality of power. He says, that they existence of the state governments are essential to the organization of congress, that they former is made the necessary basis of the latter, for the federal senators and president are to be appointed by the state legislatures; and that hence all fears of a consolidation are groundless and imaginary. It must be confession, as reason and argument would have been foreign to the defence of the proposed plan of government, Mr. Wilson has displayed much ingenuity on this occasion, he has involved the subject in all the mazes of sophistry, and by subtil distinctions, he has established principles and positions, that exist only in his fertile imagination. It is a solecism in politics for two co-ordinate sovereignties to exist together, you must separate the sphere of their jurisdiction, or after running the race of dominion for some time, one would necessarily triumph over the other; but in the mean time the subjects of it would be harrassed with double impositions to support the contention; however the strife between congress and the states could not be of long continuance, for the former has a decisive superiority in the outset, and has moreover the power by the very constitution itself to terminate it, when expedient.

As this necessary connexion, as it has been termed, between the state governments and the general government, has been made a point of great magnitude by the advocates of the new plan, as it is the only obstacle alledged [sic] by them against a consolidation, it ought to be well considered. Is is declared by the proposed plan, that the federal senators and the electors who chuse [sic] the president of the United States, shall be appointed by the state legislatures for the long period of six and four years respectively;-how will this connexion prevent the state legislatures being divested of every important, every efficient power? may not they, will not they dwindle into mere boards of appointment, as has ever happened in other nations to public bodies, who, in similar circumstances, have been so weak as to part with the essentials of power? Does not history abound with such instances? And this may be the might amount of the inseparable connexion, which is so much dwelt upon as the security of the state governments. Yet even this shadow of a limit against consolidation, may be annihilated by the imperial fiat, without any violation of even the forms of the constitution, section 4th of article the 1st has made a provision for this, when the people are sufficiently fatigued with the useless expence of maintaining the forms of departed power and security, and when they shall pray to be relieved from the imposition. This section cannot be too often repeated, as it gives such a latitude to the designing, as it revokes every other part of the constitution that may be tolerable, and as it may enable the administration under it, to complete the system of despotism; it is in the following words, viz. “The times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or [alter] such regulations, except as to the place of chusing senators. The only apparent restriction in this clause, is as to the place of appointing senators, but even this may be rendered of no avail, for as the Congress have the controul over the time of appointment of both senators and representatives, they may under the pretence of an apprehension of invasion, upon the pretence of the turbulence of what they may stile a faction, and indeed pretences are never wanting to the designing, they may postpone the time of the election of the senators and the representatives from period to period to perpetuity; thus they may and if they may, they certainly will from the lust of dominion, so inherent in the mind of man, relieve the people from the trouble of attending elections by condescending to create themselves. Has not Mr. Wilson avowed it in fact? Has he not said in the Convention, that is was necessary that Congress should possess this power as the means of its own preservation, otherwise says he, an invasion, a civil war, a faction, or a secession of a minority of the assembly might prevent the representation of a state in Congress.

The advocates of the proposed government must be hard driven, when the represent, that because the legislatures of this and the other states have exceeded the due bounds of power, notwithstanding every guard provided by their constitutions; that because the lust of arbitrary sway is so powerful as sometimes to get the better of every obstacle; that therefore we should give full scope to it, for that all restriction would be useless and nugatory. And further, when they tell you that a good administration will atone for all the defects in the government, which, say they, you must necessarily have, for now can it be otherwise, your rulers are to be taken from among yourselves. My fellow citizens, these aspiring despots, must indeed have a great contempt for your understandings, when they hope to full you out of your liberties by such reasoning; for what is the primary object of government, but to check and controul the ambitious and designing, how then can moderation and virtue be expected from men, who will be in possession of absolute sway, who will have the United States at their disposal? They would be more than men, who could resist such temptation! [sic] their being taken away from among the people, would be no security; tyrants are of native growth in all countries, the greatest bashaw in Turky [sic] has been one of the people, as Mr. Wilson tells you the president-general will be. What consolation would this be, when you shall be suffering under his oppression.

Philadelphia, Nov. 30, 1787.

The post Centinel V appeared first on 色中色.

The organized populism of late-nineteenth-century America was predominantly an outgrowth of southern and midwestern agrarian movements during the 1870s and 1880s. Cooperative alliances emerged claiming to defend the interests of farmers in the face of railroad expansion, exploitative banking practices, and diminishing crop prices. Of key importance were groups such as the Farmers鈥� Alliance, the Agricultural Wheel, and the Grange. In the early 1890s, the Farmers鈥� Alliance and other groups reached out to northeastern labor to form the relatively short-lived Populist (or People鈥檚) Party. Among other things, the new party advocated the regulation and possible public ownership of the railroads, the abolition of national banking, the graduated income tax, reduced tariffs, abandoning the gold standard and embracing free silver, the initiative and referendum, the direct election of U.S. senators, and the eight-hour workday.

The Populist Party reached its zenith when it joined with the Democrats to nominate William Jennings Bryan for president in 1896. While the Democratic Party absorbed Jennings鈥� defeat and survived, the smaller Populist Party could not, especially when Bryan lost again in 1900. The Populist Party collapsed soon afterward. Various strands of the party were absorbed into other elements of the political landscape, among them an emerging movement we now call progressivism.

The American progressive movement lasted roughly from the early 1890s to the early 1920s, encompassing much more than the political party that sprang up around Theodore Roosevelt in 1912. Yet, as with many such 鈥渕ovements,鈥� it 听is difficult to reduce progressivism to a single defining concept or motivation. Among turn-of-the century progressives we find a hodgepodge of political and intellectual strains. Under the tent of progressivism one could find the remnants of the populist agrarians, a variety of Christian social activists, temperance advocates and suffragists, labor and industrial reformers, and university Ph.D.s in philosophy and the new behavioral and social sciences, just to name a few. Nevertheless, we might see in the movement some common themes, perhaps the most significant of which resides in the name attached to it鈥斺�減rogressivism.鈥� It might seem obvious, but one key element uniting many of these reformers, politicians, and intellectuals was their shared embrace of the doctrine of Progress with a capital 鈥淧.鈥� The particular engine of that progress, be it the internal dynamics of history itself or some notion of biological or social evolution, varied among thinkers. We might say, however, that a progressive is someone who likely adheres to some notion that the human condition, and the human being, are improving, developing, or evolving over time. Through social, political, and economic reform, we not only participate in that progress but might help speed it along. As the 鈥渋sm鈥� in the name suggests, progressivism is an ideology of progress. Distinguished from philosophy, which contemplates truth for its own sake, ideology tends to investigate and employ ideas for the expressed purpose of practical, political action, be it preservation or change. Whatever particular concerns might separate the various elements of the progressive movement, they were united in their dedication to changing American life in the name of progress.

In general, the progressives sought to reinterpret the American political order by giving the people more direct power over legislation and elected politicians, and in turn, giving administrative experts in state and federal agencies more power to regulate social and economic life. Progressive political scientists such as Woodrow Wilson and Frank Goodnow distinguished politics from administration. Politics might determine the broad ends or purposes of government, but administration, they argued, deals with detailed policy and the particular, technical means by which we secure those ends. Many progressives argued that enlightened administration could be released from the restraints of elections, separation of powers, and checks and balances to help solve political and economic problems. This progressive vision was perhaps best realized a few years later in the form of Franklin Roosevelt鈥檚 New Deal. Political scientists sometimes refer to this as the rise of the 鈥渁dministrative state.鈥�

Key to the progressive project was the attempt to regulate certain sectors of the economy and redistribute wealth and private property in the name of 听鈥渟ocial and industrial justice.鈥� But these policies, many progressives argued, would not be enacted as long as the political process was dominated by powerful special interests and as long as the Constitution presented supposedly antidemocratic obstacles to progressive reform (e.g., representation, a difficult method of constitutional amendment, federalism, separation of powers and checks and balances, and a cumbersome legislative process).

For many, the progressive project required an explicit, direct criticism of the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Progressive thinkers understood that the natural rights and social contract thinking that informed the Declaration of Independence provided the basis for a limited government constitutionalism that often seemed to frustrate contemporary progressive reform. They often claimed that these founding principles had been swept aside in the march of progressive history or by the evolutionary science of Darwinism. Educated men, they asserted, now knew that there were no transhistorical truths or natural rights that applied to all human beings everywhere and always. Liberty ought not to be seen as natural to man, but as a product of history, a convention, or a dispensation of government. Moreover, if human nature and political wisdom can be improved through historical and scientific progress, perhaps limitations on government were no longer necessary. These admittedly abstract ideas had very practical consequences for America鈥檚 political development.

This document volume deviates from more common 鈥渢extbook鈥� approaches to the study of populism and progressivism in American history, not only because it focuses on primary sources but because it takes ideas seriously. Indeed, the leaders in these movements asked Americans to think about the proper ends and means of American democracy. This is especially true of the progressive movement. Insofar as it is a reaction to the founding, any real understanding of progressivism requires that we place its ideas and institutions in conversation with those of the Founders. We must weigh, balance, and ultimately judge what among their opinions is most reasonable. Necessarily limited in its scope, the present volume can only contribute to part of that dialogue. The reader might begin to construct that dialogue, however, by pairing this volume with others in the Core Documents series, perhaps those on the American Founding and the Constitutional Convention.

I thank David Tucker for editorial advice and assistance. I am also grateful for the advice provided by two anonymous readers. In closing, I should also note that this volume is in part the result of a progressivism course I sometimes teach as a visiting faculty member in Ashland University鈥檚 MAHG program (Master of Arts in American History and Government). I wish to thank the students in those classes鈥攎ost of them teachers鈥攆or their conversation, insights, questions, and dedication to learning through primary source documents. I have also benefitted much from other faculty who have taught the course, among them Christopher Burkett, David Alvis, Ronald J. Pestritto, and William Atto. Pestritto and Atto鈥檚 excellent and frequently assigned reader on American progressivism originated in their iteration of the course. That volume should be required reading for anyone interested in the principles of American progressivism and is listed among the suggested readings in Appendix C.

Jason R. Jividen

Saint Vincent College

The post Populists and Progressives appeared first on 色中色.

Mr. Speaker, when a young woman graduates from college and starts looking for a job, she is likely to have a frustrating and even demeaning experience ahead of her. If she walks into an office for an interview, the first question she will be asked is, “Do you type?”

There is a calculated system of prejudice that lies unspoken behind that question. Why is it acceptable for women to be secretaries, librarians, and teachers, but totally unacceptable for them to be managers, administrators, doctors, lawyers, and Members of Congress?

The unspoken assumption is that women are different. They do not have executive ability, orderly minds, stability, leadership skills, and they are too emotional.

It has been observed before, that society for a long time discriminated against another minority, the blacks, on the same basis – that they were different and inferior. The happy little homemaker and the contented “old darkey” on the plantation were both produced by prejudice.

As a black person, I am no stranger to race prejudice. But the truth is that in the political world I have been far oftener discriminated against because I am a woman than because I am black.

Prejudice against blacks is becoming unacceptable although it will take years to eliminate it. But it is doomed because, slowly, white America is beginning to admit that it exists. Prejudice against women is still acceptable. There is very little understanding yet of the immorality involved in double pay scales and the classification of most of the better jobs as “for men only.”

More than half of the population of the United States is female. But women occupy only 2 percent of the managerial positions. They have not even reached the level of tokenism yet. No women sit on the AFL-CIO council¹ or Supreme Court. There have been only two women who have held Cabinet rank, and at present there are none. Only two women now hold ambassadorial rank in the diplomatic corps. In Congress, we are down to one Senator and 10 Representatives.

Considering that there are about 3 1/2 million more women in the United States than men, this situation is outrageous.

It is true that part of the problem has been that women have not been aggressive in demanding their rights. This was also true of the black population for many years. They submitted to oppression and even cooperated with it. Women have done the same thing. But now there is an awareness of this situation particularly among the younger segment of the population.

As in the field of equal rights for blacks, Spanish-Americans, the Indians, and other groups, laws will not change such deep-seated problems overnight. But they can be used to provide protection for those who are most abused, and to begin the process of evolutionary change by compelling the insensitive majority to reexamine its unconscious attitudes.

It is for this reason that I wish to introduce today a proposal that has been before every Congress for the last forty years and that sooner or later must become part of the basic law of the land – the equal rights amendment.

Let me note and try to refute two of the commonest arguments that are offered against this amendment. One is that women are already protected under the law and do not need legislation. Existing laws are not adequate to secure equal rights for women. Sufficient proof of this is the concentration of women in lower paying, menial, unrewarding jobs and their incredible scarcity in the upper level jobs. If women are already equal, why is it such an event whenever one happens to be elected to Congress?

It is obvious that discrimination exists. Women do not have the opportunities that men do. And women that do not conform to the system, who try to break with the accepted patterns, are stigmatized as “odd” and “unfeminine.” The fact is that a woman who aspires to be chairman of the board, or a Member of the House, does so for exactly the same reasons as any man. Basically, these are that she thinks she can do the job and she wants to try.

A second argument often heard against the equal rights amendment is that it would eliminate legislation that many States and the Federal Government have enacted giving special protection to women and that it would throw the marriage and divorce laws into chaos.

As for the marriage laws, they are due for a sweeping reform, and an excellent beginning would be to wipe the existing ones off the books. Regarding special protection for working women, I cannot understand why it should be needed. Women need no protection that men do not need. What we need are laws to protect working people, to guarantee them fair pay, safe working conditions, protection against sickness and layoffs, and provision for dignified, comfortable retirement. Men and women need these things equally. That one sex needs protection more than the other is a male supremacist myth as ridiculous and unworthy of respect as the white supremacist myths that society is trying to cure itself of at this time.

The post Speech Introducing the Equal Rights Amendment appeared first on 色中色.

AN ACT To protect the United States against certain un-American and subversive activities by requiring registration of Communist organizations, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the 鈥淚nternal Security Act of 1950.鈥�

TITLE I 鈥� SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL

Section 1. (a) This title may be cited as the 鈥樷�楽ubversive Activities Control Act of 1950.鈥�

(b) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize, require, or establish military or civilian censorship or in any way to limit or infringe upon freedom of the press or of speech as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and no regulation shall be promulgated hereunder having that effect.

Necessity for Legislation

Sec. 2. As a result of evidence adduced before various committees of the Senate and House of Representatives, the Congress hereby finds that

(1) There exists a world Communist movement which, in its origins, its development, and its present practice, is a world-wide revolutionary movement whose purpose it is, by treachery, deceit, infiltration into other groups (governmental and otherwise), espionage, sabotage, terrorism, and any other means deemed necessary, to establish a Communist totalitarian dictatorship in the countries throughout the world through the medium of a world-wide Communist organization.

(2) The establishment of a totalitarian dictatorship in any country results in the suppression of all opposition to the party in power, the subordination of the rights of individuals to the state, the denial of fundamental rights and liberties which are characteristic of a representative form of government, such as freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, and of religious worship, and results in the maintenance of control over the people through fear, terrorism, and brutality.

(3) The system of government known as a totalitarian dictatorship is characterized by the existence of a single political party, organized on a dictatorial basis, and by substantial identity between such party and its policies and the government and governmental policies of the country in which it exists.

(4) The direction and control of the world Communist movement is vested in and exercised by the Communist dictatorship of a foreign country.

(5) The Communist dictatorship of such foreign country, in exercising such direction and control and in furthering the purposes of the world Communist movement, establishes or causes the establishment of, and utilizes, in various countries, action organizations which are not free and independent organizations, but are sections of a world-wide Communist organization and are controlled, directed, and subject to the discipline of the Communist dictatorship of such foreign country.

(6) The Communist action organizations so established and utilized in various countries, acting under such control, direction, and discipline, endeavor to carry out the objectives of the world Communist movement by bringing about the overthrow of existing governments by any available means, including force if necessary, and setting up Communist totalitarian dictatorships which will be subservient to the most powerful existing Communist totalitarian dictatorship. Although such organizations usually designate themselves as political parties, they are in fact constituent elements of the world-wide Communist movement and promote the objectives of such movement by conspiratorial and coercive tactics, instead of through the democratic processes of a free elective system or through the freedom-preserving means employed by a political party which operates as an agency by which people govern themselves.

(7) In carrying on the[ir] activities . . . such Communist organizations . . . are organized on a secret, conspiratorial basis and operate to a substantial extent through organizations, commonly known as 鈥樷�楥ommunist fronts鈥欌��, which in most instances are created and maintained, or used, in such manner as to conceal the facts as to their true character and purposes and their membership. One result of this method of operation is that such affiliated organizations are able to obtain financial and other support from persons who would not extend such support if they knew the true purposes of, and the actual nature of the control and influence exerted upon, such 鈥淐ommunist fronts鈥�. . . .

(9) In the United States those individuals who knowingly and willfully participate in the world Communist movement, when they so participate, in effect repudiate their allegiance to the United States, and in effect transfer their allegiance to the foreign country in which is vested the direction and control of the world Communist movement. . . .

(11) The agents of communism have devised clever and ruthless espionage and sabotage tactics which are carried out in many instances in form or manner successfully evasive of existing law.

(12) The Communist network in the United States is inspired and controlled in large part by foreign agents who are sent into the United States ostensibly as attach茅s of foreign legations, affiliates of international organizations, members of trading commissions, and in similar capacities, but who use their diplomatic or semi-diplomatic status as a shield behind which to engage in activities prejudicial to the public security.

(13) There are, under our present immigration laws, numerous aliens who have been found to be deportable, many of whom are in the subversive, criminal, or immoral classes who are free to roam the country at will without supervision or control.

(14) One device for infiltration by Communists is by procuring naturalization for disloyal aliens who use their citizenship as a badge for admission into the fabric of our society.

(15) The Communist movement in the United States is an organization numbering thousands of adherents, rigidly and ruthlessly disciplined. Awaiting and seeking to advance a moment when the United States may be so far extended by foreign engagements, so far divided in counsel, or so far in industrial or financial straits, that overthrow of the Government of the United States by force and violence may seem possible of achievement, it seeks converts far and wide by an extensive system of schooling and indoctrination. . . .

Certain Prohibited Acts

Sec. 4. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to combine, conspire, or agree, with any other person to perform any act which would substantially contribute to the establishment within the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship, . . . the direction and control of which is to be vested in, or exercised by or under the domination or control of, any foreign government, foreign organization, or foreign individual: Provided, however, That this subsection shall not apply to the proposal of a constitutional amendment. . . .

. . .

(f) Neither the holding of office nor membership in any Communist organization by any person shall constitute per se a violation of subsection (a) or subsection (c) of this section or of any other criminal statute. The fact of the registration of any person under section 7 or section 8 of this title as an officer or member of any Communist organization shall not be received in evidence against such person in any prosecution for any alleged violation of subsection (a) or subsection (c) of this section or for any alleged violation of any other criminal statute.

Employment of Members of Communist Organizations

Sec. 5. (a) When a Communist organization, as defined in paragraph (5) of section 3 of this title, is registered or there is in effect a final order of the Board requiring such organization to register, it shall be unlawful

(1) For any member of such organization, with knowledge or notice that such organization is so registered or that such order has become final

(A) in seeking, accepting, or holding any nonelective office or employment under the United States, to conceal or fail to disclose the fact that he is a member of such organization; or

(B) to hold any nonelective office or employment under the United States; or

(C) in seeking, accepting, or holding employment in any defense facility, to conceal or fail to disclose the fact that he is a member of such organization; or

(D) if such organization is a Communist-action organization, to engage in any employment in any defense facility.

(2) For any officer or employee of the United States or of any defense facility, with knowledge or notice that such organization is so registered or that such order has become final 鈥�

(A) to contribute funds or services to such organization; or

(B) to advise, counsel or urge any person, with knowledge or notice that such person is a member of such organization, to perform, or to omit to perform, any act if such act or omission would constitute a violation of any provision of subparagraph (1) of this subsection. . . .

Denial of Passports to Members of Communist Organizations

Sec. 6. (a) When a Communist organization as defined in paragraph (5) of section 3 of this title is registered, or there is in effect a final order of the Board requiring such organization to register, it shall be unlawful for any member of such organization, with knowledge or notice that such organization is so registered or that such order has become final 鈥�

(1) to make application for a passport, or the renewal of a passport, to be issued or renewed by or under the authority of the United States; or

(2) to use or attempt to use any such passport. . . .

Registration and Annual Reports of Communist Organizations

Sec. 7. (a) Each Communist-action organization (including any organization required, by a final order of the Board, to register as a Communist-action organization) shall . . . register with the Attorney General, on a form prescribed by him . . . as a Communist-action organization. . . .

. . . containing the following information:

(1) The name of the organization and the address of its principal office.

(2) The name and last-known address of each individual who is . . . [or] who was at any time during the period of twelve full calendar months next preceding the filing of such statement, an officer of the organization, with the designation or title of the office so held, and with a brief statement of the duties and functions of such individual as such officer.

(3) An accounting . . . of all moneys received and expended (including the sources from which received and the purposes for which expended) by the organization during the period of twelve full calendar months next preceding the filing of such statement.

(4) In the case of a Communist-action organization, the name and last-known address of each individual who was a member of the organization at any time during the period of twelve full calendar months preceding the filing of such statement. . .听

Use of the Mails and Instrumentalities of Interstate or Foreign Commerce

Sec. 10. It shall be unlawful for any organization which is registered under section 7, or for any organization with respect to which there is in effect a final order of the Board requiring it to register under section 7, or for any person acting for or on behalf of any such organization 鈥�

(1) to transmit or cause to be transmitted, through the United States mails or by any means or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce, any publication which is intended to be, or which it is reasonable to believe is intended to be, circulated or disseminated among two or more persons, unless such publication, and any envelope, wrapper, or other container in which it is mailed or otherwise circulated or transmitted, bears the following, printed in such manner as may be provided in regulations prescribed by the Attorney General, with the name of the organization appearing in lieu of the blank: 鈥淒isseminated by ____________, a Communist organization鈥�; or

(2) to broadcast or cause to be broadcast any matter over any radio or television station in the United States, unless such matter is preceded by the following statement, with the name of the organization being stated in place of the blank: 鈥淭he following program is sponsored by ____________, a Communist organization鈥�. . . .

Subversive Activities Control Board

Sec. 12. (a) There is hereby established a board, to be known as the Subversive Activities Control Board, which shall be composed of five members, who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. Not more than three members of the Board shall be members of the same political party. . . .

(e) It shall be the duty of the Board

(1) upon application made by the Attorney General under section 13(a) of this title, or by any organization under section 13(b) of this title, to determine whether any organization is a 鈥淐ommunist-action organization鈥� within the meaning of paragraph (3) of section 3 of this title, or a 鈥淐ommunist-front organization鈥� within the meaning of paragraph (4) of section 3 of this title; and

(2) . . . to determine whether any individual is a member of any Communist-action organization registered, or by final order of the Board required to be registered, under section 7(a) of this title. . . .

Proceedings before Board

Sec. 13. (a) Whenever the Attorney General shall have reason to believe that any organization which has not registered under . . . this title is in fact an organization of a kind required to be registered under such subsection, or that any individual who has not registered under . . . this title is in fact required to register under such section, he shall file with the Board and serve upon such organization or individual a petition for an order requiring such organization or individual to register pursuant to such subsection or section, as the case may be. . . .

(b) Any organization registered under . . . this title, and any individual registered under . . . this title, may, not oftener than once in each calendar year, make application to the Attorney General for the cancellation of such registration and (in the case of such organization) for relief from obligation to make further annual reports. . . .

(c) Upon the filing of any petition pursuant to subsection (a) or subsection (b) of this section, the Board (or any member thereof or any examiner designated thereby) may hold hearings, administer oaths and affirmations, may examine witnesses and receive evidence at any place in the United States, and may require by subpoena the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of books, papers, correspondence, memoranda, and other records deemed relevant, to the matter under inquiry. . . .

(d) (1) All hearings conducted under this section shall be public. Each party to such proceeding shall have the right to present its case with the assistance of counsel, to offer oral or documentary evidence, to submit rebuttal evidence, and to conduct such cross-examination as may be required for a full and true disclosure of the facts. . . .

(e) In determining whether any organization is a 鈥淐ommunist-action organization,鈥� the Board shall take into consideration

(1) the extent to which its policies are formulated and carried out and its activities performed, pursuant to directives or to effectuate the policies of the foreign government or foreign organization in which is vested, or under the domination or control of which is exercised, the direction and control of the world Communist movement referred to in section 2 of this title; and

(2) the extent to which its views and policies do not deviate from those of such foreign government or foreign organization; and

(3) the extent to which it receives financial or other aid, directly or indirectly, from or at the direction of such foreign government or foreign organization; . . .

. . .

(8) the extent to which its principal leaders or a substantial number of its members consider the allegiance they owe to the United States as subordinate to their obligations to such foreign government or foreign organization.

(f) In determining whether any organization is a 鈥淐ommunist-front organization,鈥� the Board shall take into consideration

(1) the extent to which persons who are active in its management, direction, or supervision, whether or not holding office therein, are active in the management, direction, or supervision of, or as representatives of, any Communist-action organization, Communist foreign government, or the world Communist movement referred to in section 2; and

(2) the extent to which its support, financial or otherwise, is derived from any Communist-action organization, Communist foreign govern-ment, or the world Communist movement referred to in section 2; . . .

(k) When any order of the Board requiring registration of a Com-munist organization becomes final under the provisions of . . . this title, the Board shall publish in the Federal Register the fact that such order has become final, and publication thereof shall constitute notice to all members of such organization that such order has become final.

Judicial Review

Sec. 14. (a) The party aggrieved by any order entered by the Board under subsection (g), (h), (i) or (j) of section 13 may obtain a review of such order by filing in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, within sixty days from the date of service upon it of such order, a written petition praying that the order of the Board be set aside. . . .

TITLE II 鈥� EMERGENCY DETENTION

Sec. 100. This title may be cited as the 鈥淓mergency Detention Act of 1950.鈥�

Findings of Fact and Declaration of Purpose

[This Title repeats the findings reported at the beginning of Title I above.]

. . .

(14) The detention of persons who there is reasonable ground to believe probably will commit or conspire with others to commit espionage or sabotage is, in a time of internal security emergency, essential to the common defense and to the safety and security of the territory, the people and the Constitution of the United States.

(15) It is also essential that such detention in an emergency involving the internal security of the Nation shall be so authorized, executed, restricted and reviewed as to prevent any interference with the constitutional rights and privileges of any persons, and at the same time shall be sufficiently effective to permit the performance by the Congress and the President of their constitutional duties to provide for the common defense, to wage war, and to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, the Government and the people of the United States.

Declaration of 鈥淚nternal Security Emergency鈥�

Sec. 102. (a) In the event of any one of the following:

(1) Invasion of the territory of the United States or its possessions,

(2) Declaration of war by Congress, or

(3) Insurrection within the United States in aid of a foreign enemy, and if, upon the occurrence of one or more of the above, the President shall find that the proclamation of an emergency pursuant to this section is essential to the preservation, protection and defense of the Constitution, and to the common defense and safety of the territory and people of the United States, the President is authorized to make public proclamation of the existence of an 鈥樷�業nternal Security Emergency鈥欌��.

(b) A state of 鈥樷�業nternal Security Emergency鈥欌�� (hereinafter referred to as the 鈥樷�榚mergency鈥欌��) so declared shall continue in exercise until terminated by proclamation of the President or by concurrent resolution of the Congress.

Detention during Emergency

Sec. 103. (a) Whenever there shall be in existence such an emergency, the President, acting through the Attorney General, is hereby authorized to apprehend and by order detain, pursuant to the provisions of this title, each person as to whom there is reasonable ground to believe that such person probably will engage in, or probably will conspire with others to engage in, acts of espionage or of sabotage. . . .

Detention Review Board

Sec. 105. (a) The President is hereby authorized to establish a Detention Review Board (referred to in this title as the 鈥淏oard鈥�) which shall consist of nine members, not more than five of whom shall be members of the same political party, appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. . . .

Sec. 109. (a) Any Board created under this title is empowered

(1) to review upon petition of any detainee any order of detention issued pursuant to section 104 (d) of this title;

(2) to determine whether there is reasonable ground to believe that such detainee probably will engage in, or conspire with others to engage in, espionage or sabotage;

(3) to issue orders confirming, modifying, or revoking any such order of detention; . . .

(3) The several departments and agencies of the Government, when directed by the President, shall furnish the Board, upon its request, all records, papers, and information in their possession relating to any matter before the Board.

(f) Every detainee shall be afforded full opportunity to be represented by counsel at the preliminary hearing prescribed by this title and in all stages of the detention review proceedings, including the hearing before the Board and any judicial review, and he shall have the right at hearings of the Board to testify, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to cross-examine adverse witnesses. . . .

(2) Any past act or acts of espionage or sabotage committed by such person, or any past participation by such person in any attempt or conspiracy to commit any act of espionage or sabotage, against the United States, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any public or private national defense facility within the United States; . . .

Orders of the Board

Sec. 110. (a) If upon all the testimony taken in any proceeding for the review of any order of detention issued pursuant to section 104 (d) of this title, the Board shall determine that there is not reasonable ground to believe that the detainee in question probably will engage in, or conspire with others to engage in, espionage or sabotage, the Board shall state its findings of fact and shall issue and serve upon the Attorney General or order revoking the order for detention of the detainee concerned and requiring the Attorney General, and any officer designated by him for the supervision or control of the detention of such person, to release such detainee from custody; and shall forthwith serve a copy of such order upon the detainee. . . .

Judicial Review

Sec. 111. (a) Any petitioner aggrieved by an order of the Board denying in whole or in part the relief sought by him, or by the failure or refusal of the Attorney General to obey such order, shall be entitled to the judicial review or judicial enforcement, provided hereinafter in this section. . . .

Separability of Provisions

Sec. 116. . . . Nothing contained in this title shall be construed to suspend or to authorize the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

Sam Rayburn Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Alben W. Barkley Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate.

The post The Internal Security Act appeared first on 色中色.

Mr. President, I regret that I feel the necessity of bringing up again some parts of the speech of the Senator who has just taken his seat. However, he would not allow me to answer or interject an objection as he went along. It has reference to the race question in the South, the question which has been the cause of more sorrow, more misery, more loss of life, more expenditure of treasure than any and all questions which have confronted the American people from the foundation of the Government to the present day. Out of it grew the war, and after the war came the results of the war, and those results are with us now. The South has this question always with it. It cannot get rid of it. Is it there. It is like Banquo’s ghost, and will not down.¹ I have felt called on to attack the Republican policy of this day and time and to accuse the Republicans in this Chamber with being hypocrites in regard to that issue; I have felt constrained to do so by reason of the facts and of the events of the past few years.

The Senator from Wisconsin² . . . gave us a picture of the condition of the slave during the war, and of the debt of gratitude which the Southern people owe to those slaves, who had charge of our wives and children and homes, and, to their everlasting credit, during those four long and bloody years not one solitary crime was reported against them of the kind that is now reported every week. I say that he cannot exceed me in appreciation of the fact that the Southern people did owe and do owe and will exceedingly owe a debt of gratitude to their slaves for their behavior.

But I would call the Senator’s attention to the absolute and inevitable corollary, that if the slaves of the South, with the opportunities which were afforded them during those years when all the men were at the front, and when their wrongs, if they had any, would have prompted revenge, were guilty of no crime against their mistresses and their children, it in thunder tones gives the lie to the charges as to the cruelty of the slave system in the South.

There were numerous instances, possibly too numerous, of cruelty and wrongdoing, and I shall not apologize for the system, for, thank God, it is gone – torn up by the roots at a great cost of life and sacrifice of property. I would not restore it if I could by the waving of a hand. But I say to him when he parades that as a reason why we ought to be grateful – and I acknowledge that we ought – he at once convicts himself and those of his fellows who went on that crusade of blood and destruction for the purpose of liberating those people of having been misled and of having given Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin undue weight in inaugurating that crusade. I have already given due credit on this floor to the North for patriotism and honesty of purpose and I realize that the love of the Union was a mighty factor in that great struggle. But it cannot be denied that the slaves of the South were a superior set of men and women to the freedmen of today, and that the poison in their minds – the race hatred of the whites – is the result of the teachings of Northern fanatics. Ravishing a woman, white or black, was never known to occur in the South till after the reconstruction era. So much for that phase of the subject.

As to the rights of the negros in the South, of which he now claims to be the champion –

Mr. Spooner. [interrupting] No.

Mr. Tillman. Well, I do not understand the Senator. I am very unfortunate in being unable to fathom his meaning. He speaks clearly, and I usually have the means of interpreting language that is plain and unmistakable; but he did say something about the rights of those people.

Mr. Spooner. I did.

Mr. Tillman. And he said we had taken their rights away from them. He asked me was it right to murder them in order to carry the elections. I never saw one murdered. I never saw one shot at an election. It was the riots before the election, precipitated by their own hotheadedness in attempting to hold the government, that brought on conflicts between the races and caused the shotgun to be used. That is what I meant by saying we used the shotgun.

I want to call attention to one fact. He said that the Republican Party gave the negroes the ballot in order to protect themselves against the indignities and wrongs that were attempted to be heaped upon them by the enactment of the black code.³ I say that [the negroes were given the ballot] because the Republicans of that day, led by Thad Stevens, wanted to put white necks under black heels and to get revenge. There is a difference of opinion. You have your opinion about it, and I have mine, and we can never agree.

I want to ask the Senator this proposition in arithmetic: In my State, there were 135,000 negro voters, or negroes of voting age, and some 90,000 or 95,000 white voters. General Canby⁴ set up a carpetbag government⁵ there and turned our State over to this majority. Now, I want to ask you, with a free vote and a fair count, how are you going to beat 135,000 to 95,000? How are you going to do it? You had set us an impossible task. You had handcuffed us [and] thrown away the key, and you propped your carpet bag negro government with bayonets. Whenever it was necessary to sustain the government you held it up by the Army.

Mr. President, I have not the facts and figures here, but I want the country to get the full view of the Southern side of this question and the justification for anything we did. We were sorry we had the necessity forced upon us, but we could not help it, and as white men we are not sorry for it, and we do not propose to apologize for anything we have done in connection to it. We took the government away from them in 1876. We did take it. If no other Senator has come here previous to this time who would acknowledge it, more’s the pity. We have had no fraud in our elections in South Carolina since 1884. There has been no organized Republican Party in the State.

We did not disfranchise the negroes until 1895. Then we had a constitutional convention convened which took the matter up calmly, deliberately, and avowedly with the purpose of disenfranchising as many of them as we could under the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments. We adopted the educational qualification as the only means left to us, and the negro is as contented and as prosperous and as well protected in South Carolina today as in any State of the Union south of the Potomac. He is not meddling with politics, for he found that the more he meddled with them, the worse off he got. As to his “rights” – I will not discuss them now. We of the South have never recognized the right of the negro to govern the white men, and we never will. We have never believed him to be equal to the white man, and we will not submit to his gratifying lust on our wives and daughters without lynching him.⁶ I would to God the last one of them was in Africa and that none of them had ever been brought to our shores. . . .

I want to ask permission in this connection to print a speech which I made in the constitutional convention of South Carolina when it convened in 1895, in which the whole carpetbag regime and the indignities and wrongs heaped upon our people, the robberies which we have suffered, and all the facts and figures there brought out are incorporated, and let the whole of the facts go to the country. I am not ashamed to have those facts go to the country. They are our justification for the present situation in our State. . . .

The post Speech in the Senate appeared first on 色中色.

. . . [W]e ask nothing of our Northern brethren but to “let us alone;” leave us to the undisturbed management of our domestic concerns, and the direction of our own industry, and we will ask no more. . . .

The honorable gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Webster¹] while he exonerates me personally from the charge, intimates that there is a party in the country who are looking to disunion. . . . Sir, when the gentleman provokes me to such a conflict, I meet him at the threshold. I will struggle while I have life, for our altars and our fire sides, and if God gives me strength, I will drive back the invader discomfited. Nor shall I stop there. If the gentleman provokes the war, he shall have war. Sir, I will not stop at the border; I will carry the war into the enemy’s territory, and not consent to lay down my arms, until I shall have obtained “indemnity for the past, and security for the future.”² It is with unfeigned reluctance that I enter upon the performance of this part of my duty. I shrink almost instinctively from a course, however necessary, which may have a tendency to excite sectional feelings, and sectional jealousies. But, sir, the task has been forced upon me, and I proceed right onward to the performance of my duty; be the consequences what they may, the responsibility is with those who have imposed upon me this necessity. . . .

Who, then, Mr. President, are the true friends of the Union? Those who would confine the federal government strictly within the limits prescribed by the constitution – who would preserve to the States and the people all powers not expressly delegated – who would make this a federal and not a national Union – and who, administering the government in a spirit of equal justice, would make it a blessing and not a curse. And who are its enemies? Those who are in favor of consolidation; who are constantly stealing power from the States and adding strength to the federal government; who, assuming an unwarrantable jurisdiction over the States and the people, undertake to regulate the whole industry and capital of the country. . . .

The Senator from Massachusetts, in denouncing what he is pleased to call the Carolina doctrine, has attempted to throw ridicule upon the idea that a State has any constitutional remedy by the exercise of its sovereign authority against “a gross, palpable, and deliberate violation of the Constitution.” He called it “an idle” or “a ridiculous notion,” or something to that effect; and added, that it would make the Union “a mere rope of sand”. . . .

Sir, as to the doctrine that the Federal Government is the exclusive judge of the extent as well as the limitations of its powers, it seems to be utterly subversive of the sovereignty and independence of the States. It makes but little difference, in my estimation, whether Congress or the Supreme Court, are invested with this power. If the Federal Government, in all or any of its departments, are to prescribe the limits of its own authority; and the States are bound to submit to the decision, and are not to be allowed to examine and decide for themselves, when the barriers of the Constitution shall be overleaped, this is practically “a Government without limitation of powers;” the States are at once reduced to mere petty corporations, and the people are entirely at your mercy. I have but one word more to add. In all the efforts that have been made by South Carolina to resist the unconstitutional laws which Congress has extended over them, she has kept steadily in view the preservation of the Union, by the only means by which she believes it can be long preserved – a firm, manly, and steady resistance against usurpation. The measures of the Federal Government have, it is true, prostrated her interests, and will soon involve the whole South in irretrievable ruin. . . .

. . . It cannot be doubted, and is not denied, that before the formation of the constitution, each State was an independent sovereignty, possessing all the rights and powers appertaining to independent nations; nor can it be denied that, after the constitution was formed, they remained equally sovereign and independent, as to all powers, not expressly delegated to the Federal Government. This would have been the case even if no positive provision to that effect had been inserted in that instrument. But to remove all doubt it is expressly declared, by the 10th article of the amendment of the constitution, “that the powers not delegated to the States, by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”. . .

The whole form and structure of the Federal Government, the opinions of the framers of the Constitution, and the organization of the State Governments, demonstrate that though the States have surrendered certain specific powers, they have not surrendered their sovereignty. . . .

No doubt can exist, that, before the States entered into the compact, they possessed the right to the fullest extent, of determining the limits of their own powers – it is incident to all sovereignty. Now, have they given away that right, or agreed to limit or restrict it in any respect? Assuredly not. They have agreed, that certain specific powers shall be exercised by the Federal Government; but the moment that Government steps beyond the limits of its charter, the right of the States “to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits the authorities, rights, and liberties, appertaining to them,”³ is as full and complete as it was before the Constitution was formed. It was plenary then, and never having been surrendered, must be plenary now.
. . .

The gentleman has made an eloquent appeal to our hearts in favor of union. Sir, I cordially respond to that appeal. I will yield to no gentleman here in sincere attachment to the Union, – but it is a Union founded on the Constitution, and not such a Union as that gentleman would give us, that is dear to my heart. If this is to become one great “consolidated government,” swallowing up the rights of the States, and the liberties of the citizen, “riding and ruling over the plundered ploughman, and beggared yeomanry,”⁴ the Union will not be worth preserving. Sir, it is because South Carolina loves the Union, and would preserve it forever, that she is opposing now, while there is hope, those usurpations of the Federal Government, which, once established, will, sooner or later, tear this Union into fragments. . . .

The post Remarks in Congress on the “Tariff of Abominations” appeared first on 色中色.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Note on Usage

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

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

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

The post Constitutional Convention appeared first on 色中色.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Note on Usage:

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

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

The post American Founding appeared first on 色中色.

We do not know how far that constitution may have to be changed to admit such propositions as are here鈥he Senate of the United States and the Congress of the United States are now preparing to declare, by public law, that these people shall accept what we here spread before them and make it a part of the constitution or else an ordinance to accompany of equal force and validity in Cuba鈥�

…[I]t is an ultimatum sent by the Congress of the United States to the people of Cuba, not to any government there. You have got no government in Cuba except the government of the United States when you pass this act. It is an ultimatum, then, to the people of Cuba. Have they authorized their representatives in that convention to adopt something like this? When that convention was organized it was upon the basis of the vote of the people of Cuba. They sent their delegates to that convention, many of them very able men, and now before we have seen that constitution we demand that that convention or some other convention shall accept these propositions from the legislative department of the Government of the United States and incorporate them into their organic law, and we put it in the form of an ultimatum. 鈥淵ou have got to do it because we say so. We do not ask you to confer with us about it or anything of the sort. We want no conference with you, although we pretend in the closing article of this proposition that this shall all be secured by a permanent treaty, as if there was ever any such thing in this world in the public law of nations as a permanent treaty鈥︹��

Now, as to the particular matter that is under discussion in article 3, I think there can be no doubt that the proposition as stated by the Senator from Massachusetts is entirely in error. The Monroe Doctrine never had anything to do with a proposition like this, the maintenance of a government adequate to the protection of life, property, and individual liberty in any one of the American States. It has no connection with that. That gives us the right to go into one of these American States that we say we will protect against Europe or Asia or any other country under the aegis of the Monroe Doctrine, and when you go into that State you can exercise the power of the Government of the United States for the maintenance of a government adequate for the protection of life, property, and individual liberty. Whose life? Whose property? Whose individual liberty? Why, as a matter of course, of the people who are in Cuba, whether they are citizens or whether they are denizens, whether they are foreigners 鈥� it makes no difference what country they may belong to.

Now, here is the United States marching into an American republic with the question whether the government of that republic has got sufficient authority or is sufficiently well conducted to protect life, liberty, and property鈥�

Mr. President, the fault and the shame of this proposition are both disclosed on the face of the papers, and it is unnecessary to go outside of the four corners of this proposition for any man of ordinary common sense to discover it. There it is. You leave those words in there, and you compel Cuba at once to subordinate herself at all times to the visitation of the United States, to ascertain how she is dealing with her own people, not ours; whether she is protecting life, and personal liberty, and property there according to our ideas of what she ought to do. Can any man imagine a more absurd position that the Congress of the United States could possibly place itself in than that which is on these papers? I would be ashamed鈥�

I do not speak about foreign interference. I have not the least fear of foreign interference.听There never will be any foreign interference in Cuba鈥�

…[W]hen they want to go down there to rectify the Cubans we will keep a sort of Sunday school down there with an army, at any time and every time that they do not do exactly what we want them to do. They will never put themselves into that attitude. We could not extend a better invitation to those high-tempered and honorable people to rebel, to kick at least against what we are doing, than to put in that provision, which is continuous.

The Senator from South Carolina asked me when it would end. I will tell him never, in my opinion. It is continuous, giving us a right to interfere with their method of conducting their own government in respect to their own people, and then trying to house that or shelter it under the idea of the Monroe doctrine.

Whoever heard of such an application as that made of the Monroe doctrine before, that it gives us the right not only to fence off outside the United States and prevent them from coming in and establishing institutions that might be dangerous to the liberties of the United States, sooner or later, but also the right to enter into these different governments, to visit them, look into their affairs, to determine whether or not their governments are adequate to the protection of the life, personal liberty, and property of their own people?…

I do not want to do anything that will involve our country in a responsibility that is not necessary and unless it is absolutely imperative鈥�

Now, Mr. President, I am perfectly persuaded in my own mind that if we put this legislative ultimatum at those people in Cuba it will not be two months, perhaps it will be less time than that, when the roll of the drum will be heard in our country summoning the volunteers to go to Cuba to put down an insurrection. I believe it is the best invitation for strife and war that has ever been put into a paper to be tendered to another government鈥�

Source: Congressional Record, 57 Cong., I Sess., pp. 3146-3148.

The post Senate Debate on the Platt Amendment appeared first on 色中色.

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Article the first 鈥� After the first enumeration required by the first Article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which, the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.

Article the second 鈥� No Law varying the Compensations for the Services of the Senators and Representatives shall take Effect, until an Election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Article the third 鈥� Congress shall make no Law respecting the Establishment of Religion, or prohibiting the free Exercise thereof; or abridging the Freedom of Speech, or of the Press, or to the Right of the People peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a Redress of Grievances.

Article the fourth 鈥� A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Article the fifth 鈥� No Soldier shall, in Time of Peace, be quartered in any House without the Consent of the Owner, nor, in Time of War, but in a Manner to be prescribed by Law.

Article the sixth 鈥� The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probably cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article the seventh 鈥� No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

Article the eighth 鈥� In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Article the ninth 鈥� In Suits at Common Law, where the Value in Controversy shall exceed Twenty Dollars, the Right of Trial by Jury shall be preserved, and no Fact tried by a Jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the Rules of the Common Law.

Article the tenth 鈥� Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Article the eleventh 鈥� The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article the twelfth 鈥� 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.

FREDERICK AUGUSTUS MUHLENBERG

Speaker of the House of Representatives.
JOHN ADAMS, Vice-President of the United States, and President of the Senate.

ATTEST,

JOHN BECKLEY, Clerk of the House of Representatives.
SAM A. OTIS Secretary of the Senate.

The post Preamble to the Bill Proposing Amendments to the Constitution of the United States appeared first on 色中色.