“The armor and the attitude of defence afford the best security against those collisions which the ambition, or interest, or some other passion of nations not more justifiable, is liable to produce. In many countries it is considered unsafe to put arms into the hands of the people, and to instruct them in the elements of military knowledge. That fear can have no place here, when it is recollected that the people are the sovereign power. Our Government was instituted, and is supported, by the ballot-box, not by the musket.”

- President Andrew Jackson, Dec. 7, 1935 message to U.S. House and Senate. [Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, 1789-1873. TUESDAY, December 8, 1835.]

**********

 “We are in no danger from violations of the Constitution by which encroachments are made upon the personal rights of the citizen. The sentence of condemnation long since pronounced by the American people upon acts of that character, will, I doubt not, continue to prove as salutary in its effects, as it is irreversible in its nature. But against the dangers of unconstitutional acts which, instead of menacing the vengeance of offended authority, proffer local advantages, and bring in their train the patronage of the Government, we are, I fear, not so safe. To suppose that because our Government has been instituted for the benefit of the people, it must therefore have the power to do whatever may seem to conduce to the public good, is an error into which even honest minds are too apt to fall. In yielding themselves to this fallacy, they overlook the great considerations in which the Federal Constitution was founded. They forget that, in consequence of the conceded diversities in the interest and condition of the different States, it was foreseen at the period of its adoption, that, although a particular measure of the Government might be beneficial and proper in one State, it might be the reverse in another--that it was for this reason the States would not consent to make a grant to the Federal Government of the general and usual powers of Government, but of such only as were specifically enumerated, and the probable effects of which they could, as they thought, safely anticipate: and they forget also the paramount obligation upon all to abide by the compact then so solemnly, and, as it was hoped, so firmly established. In addition to the dangers to the Constitution, springing from the sources I have stated, there has been one which was perhaps greater than all. I allude to the materials which this subject has afforded for sinister appeals to selfish feelings, and the opinion heretofore so extensively entertained of its adaptation to the purposes of personal ambition. With such stimulants, it is not surprising that the acts and pretensions of the Federal Government in this behalf should sometimes have been carried to an alarming extent.”

- President Andrew Jackson, Dec. 1, 1834 message to the U.S. House and Senate. [Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, 1789-1873 TUESDAY, December 2, 1834.]

**********

“...Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority, and should not be regarded as deciding questions of constitutional power, except where the acquiescence of the people and the States can be considered as well settled. . . . .If the opinion of the Supreme Court covered the whole ground of this act, it ought not to control the co-ordinate authorities of this Government. The Congress, the Executive, and the Court, must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the constitution. Each public officer, who takes an oath to support the constitution, swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President, to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval, as it is of the Supreme Judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision. The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress, than the opinion of Congress has over the judges; and, on that point, the President is independent of both. The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive when acting in, their legislative capacities, but to have only such influence as the force of their reasoning may deserve...”

“...It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes. Distinctions in society will always exist under every just government. Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth, cannot be produced by human institutions. In the full enjoyment of the gifts of heaven, and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by law. But when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages, artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer, and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society, the farmers, mechanics, and laborers, who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their government. There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing. In the act before me, there seems to be a wide and unnecessary departure from these just principles.

“Nor is our Government to be maintained, or our Union preserved, by invasions of the rights and powers of the several States. In thus attempting to make our General Government strong, we make it weak. Its true strength consists in leaving individuals and States, as much as possible, to themselves; in making itself felt, not in its power, but in its beneficence, not in its control, but in its protection, not in binding the States more closely to the centre, but leaving each to move, unobstructed, in its proper orbit.

“Experience should teach us wisdom. Most of the difficulties our Government now encounters, and most of the dangers which impend over our Union, have sprung from an abandonment of the legitimate objects of government by our national legislation, and the adoption of such principles, as are embodied in this act. Many of our rich men have not been content with equal protection and equal benefits, but have besought us to make them richer by act of Congress. By attempting to gratify their desires, we have, in the results of our legislation, arrayed section against section, interest against interest, and man against man, in a fearful commotion which threatens to shake the foundations of our Union. It is time to pause in our career, to review our principles, and, if possible, revive that devoted patriotism and spirit of compromise which distinguished the sages of the revolution, and the fathers of our Union. If we cannot at once, in justice to interests vested under improvident legislation, make our Government what it ought to be, we can, at least, take a stand against all new grants of monopolies and exclusive privileges, against any prostitution of our Government to the advancement of the few at the expense of the many, and in favor of compromise and gradual reform in our code of laws and system of political economy.

“I have now done my duty to my country. If sustained by my fellow-citizens, I shall be grateful and happy; if not, I shall find, in the motives which impel me, ample grounds for contentment and peace. In the difficulties which surround us, and the dangers which threaten our institutions, there is cause for neither dismay nor alarm. For relief and deliverance let us firmly rely on that kind Providence which, I am sure, watches with peculiar care over the destinies of our Republic, and on the intelligence and wisdom of our countrymen. Through His abundant goodness, and their patriotic devotion, our liberty and Union will be preserved.”

- President Andrew Jackson, Washington, July 10, 1832. [Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, TUESDAY, July 10, 1832.]

**********

“...From the nature of our institutions, the movements of the Government in preparation for hostilities, must ever be too slow for the exigencies of unexpected war. I submit it then to you, whether the first duty we owe to the people who have confided to us their power, is not to place our country in such an attitude as always to be so amply supplied with the means of self-defence, as to afford no inducements to other nations to presume upon our forbearance, or to expect important advantages from a sudden assault, either upon our commerce, our sea coast, or our interior frontier. In case of the commencement of hostilities during the recess of Congress, the time necessarily elapsing before that body could be called together, even under the most favorable circumstances, would be pregnant with danger, and if we escaped without signal disaster or national dishonor, the hazard of both, unnecessarily incurred, could not fail to excite a feeling of deep reproach. I earnestly recommend to you, therefore, to make such provisions that in no future time shall we be found without ample means to repel aggression, even although it may come upon us without a note of warning. We are now fortunately so situated that the expenditure for this purpose will not be felt, and if it were, it would be approved by those from whom all its means are derived, and for whose benefit only it should be used with a liberal economy, and an enlightened forecast.”

“In behalf of these suggestions, I cannot forbear repeating the wise precepts of one whose counsels cannot be forgotten: "The United States ought not to indulge a persuasion that, contrary to the order of human events, they will forever keep at a distance those painful appeals to arms with which the history of every other nation abounds. There is a rank due to the United States among nations, which will be withheld, if not absolutely lost, by the reputation of weakness. If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it: if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war."”

- President Andrew Jackson, Feb. 22, 1836 message to U.S. House of Representatives. [Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, Feb. 23, 1836.]

**********

"The old English esteem for valor seems quite done away, and in several instances where young Americans displaid heroic spirit, and happened to fall in to their power, they have butchered them in cold blood in a most cruel and barbarous manner. They have been so frequently shameless in this way, after remonstrance has been in vain made to Gen. Howe, that the patience of our Soldiery is exhausted, and it appears as if no more prisoners will be taken, until Mr. Howe & his people learn the practice of humanity. I have received two letters from [ ....] (1) But he thinks strongly in favor of Great Britain. Was it not the most unrelenting and cruel persecution of us that forced us from her, and are we not compelled upon the clearest principles of self preservation to seek from Strangers what our kindred denied us? Must a great Continent be buried in ruin because the people of England cannot rouse from a lethargy which suffers the most abandoned of Men to trample upon the rights of human nature? It is decreed above, and we are parted Forever. Every Friendly American Nerve will now be strained to procure the active interference of France, by which, under God, the liberty of North America must be secured."

- Richard Henry Lee, Feb. 17, 1777 letter to Arthur Lee. [Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 6 January 1, 1777 - April 30, 1777. Library of Congress.] 

**********

"We condemn, and with arms in our hands,--a resource which Freemen will never part with,--we oppose the claim and exercise of unconstitutional powers, to which neither the Crown nor Parliament were ever entitled. By the British Constitution, our best inheritance, rights, as well as duties, descend upon us: We cannot violate the latter by defending the former: We should act in diametrical opposition to both, if we permitted the claims of the British Parliament to be established, and the measures pursued in consequence of those claims to be carried into execution among us. Our sagacious ancestors provided mounds against the inundation of tyranny and lawless power on one side, as well as against that of faction and licentiousness on the other."

- Journals of the Continental Congress, Dec. 6, 1775

**********

“Who expected to live to see the Principles of Liberty Spread and prevail so rapidly, human Nature exerting her whole Rights, unshackled by Priests or Kings or Nobles, pulling down Tyrannies like Sampson, and building up, what Governments the People think best framed for human Felicity.
God grant the Spirit, success.”

- John Adams, Nov. 5. l 775 letter to James Warren. [Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 2 September 1775 - December 1775. Library of Congress.]

**********

“On this first occasion of addressing Congress, since, by the choice of my constituents, I have entered on a second term of administration, I embrace the opportunity to give this public assurance, that I will exert my best endeavors to administer faithfully the Executive Department, and will zealously co-operate with you in every measure which may tend to secure the liberty, property, and personal safety, of our fellow-citizens, and to consolidate the republican forms and principles of our government.”

- President Thomas Jefferson, December 3, 1805 message to the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. [Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, 1789-1873.]

Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume: 3
the New Jersey Provincial Convention

Gentlemen Philadelphia March 15th. 1776
From the Intelligence lately Rec'd both from Boston & England, there is but too much Reason to believe our implacable Enemies are Determin'd to bend their Force against New York & Endeavour to possess themselves of that important post.
The Congress have therefore thought proper to order Coll. Dayton's Battalion thither & Rely that you will exert your most strenuous Endeavours in arming and forwarding them. (1) But lest the Enemy should come before our Troops are prepar'd to Receive them, or in case they should come with a superior force, the Congress have Empower'd the Continental Commander to Call in the Aid of the Militia of that & the Neighbouring Colonies agreeable to the Inclos'd Resolve, and I am Directed to Request you to hold your Militia in Readiness to March in such Numbers & at such times as he may Desire.(2) The Alertness & Zeal you have hitherto shewn, render it unnecessary to use any Arguments to enforce this Request. I Trust by the Blessing of God our United & Spirited exertions, will baffle the Designs of our Enemies, & notwithstanding all their Attempts secure & preserve the Liberties of our Country.
I am with Respect, Gentn., Your most Obed hum sevt,
J H Prt.

LB (DNA: PCC, item 12A).
l See Hancock to John Shee et al., March 14, 1776.
2 See JCC, 4:207.

**********

“...They have encouraged where we have prohibited; and by those iniquitous measures have made our virtue and public spirit an additional cause of our calamity. Nor have our calamities been local; they have reached to all parts of the United States, and have produced dissipation and indigence at home, and contempt in foreign countries. On the one hand, the haughty Spaniard has deprived us of the navigation of the River Mississippi; on the other, the British nation are, by extravagant duties, ruining our fishery. Our sailors are enslaved by the pirates of Algiers. Our credit is reduced to so low an ebb, that American faith is a proverbial expression for perfidy, as Punic faith was among the Romans. Thus have we suffered every species of infamy abroad, and poverty at home. Such, in fact, have been our calamities, as are enough to convince the most skeptical among us of the want of a general government, in which energy and vigor should be established, and at the same time, the rights and liberties of the people preserved.

“A Constitution hath been presented to us, which was composed and planned by men, who, in the council and field, have, in the most conspicuous offices, served their country in the late war. It comes authenticated by a man who, without any pecuniary reward, commanded our army, and who retired to a private station with more pleasure than he left it. I do not say, Mr. President, that this proves the form of government to be perfect, or that it is an unanswerable argument that we should adopt it; but it is a reason why we should examine it with care and caution, and that we ought not rashly and precipitately to reject it.

“It will be objected, "There are more powers granted than are necessary, and that it tends to destroy the local governments of the particular states, and that it will eventually end either in aristocracy or despotism." To answer the objection, two considerations should be taken into view--the situation of the continent when a Constitutions was formed, and the impossibility of preserving a perfect sovereignty in the states, after necessary powers were ceded to a supreme council of the whole....”

“...If this system is broken up, will thirteen, or even nine states, ever agree to another? And will Providence smile on a people who despise the privileges put into their hands, and who neglect the plainest principles of justice and honesty? After all, I by no means pretend that there is complete perfection in this proposed Constitution. Like all other human productions, it hath its faults. Provision is made for an amendment, whenever, from practice, it is found oppressive. I would add, the proposals which his excellency hath condescended to lay before this honorable Convention, respecting future alterations, are real improvements for the better; and we have no reason to doubt but they will be equally attended to by other states, as they lead to common security and preservation.”

- Rev. Thomas Thacher, Feb. 4, 1788. The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand's Records, Volume 1]

**********

The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States, Volume 2
Franklin to Samuel Cooper.^*

[Note *: * 6 Bigelow's Franklin, 96.]

Paris, May 1, 1777.

I thank you for your kind congratulations on my safe arrival here and for your good wishes. I am, as you supposed treated with great civility and respect by all orders of people; but it gives me still greater satisfaction to find that our being here is of some use to our country. On that head I can not be more explicit at present.

I rejoice with you in the happy change of affairs in America last winter. I hope the same train of success will continue through the summer. Our enemies are disappointed in the number of additional troops they purpose to send over. What they have been able to muster will not probably recruit their army to the state it was in the beginning of last campaign; and ours, I hope, will be equally numerous, better armed, and better clothed than they have been heretofore.

All Europe is on our side of the question, as far as applause and good wishes can carry them. Those who live under arbitrary power do nevertheless approve of liberty, and wish for it; they almost despair of recovering it in Europe; they read the translations of our separate colony constitutions with rapture, and there are such numbers everywhere who talk of removing to America with their families and fortunes as soon as peace and our independence shall be established, that it is generally believed we shall have a prodigious addition of strength, wealth, and arts, from the emigration of Europe; and it is thought that to lessen or prevent such emigrations the tyrannies established there must relax and allow more liberty to their people. Hence it is a common observation here that our cause is the cause of all mankind, and that we are fighting for their liberty in defending our own. It is a glorious task assigned us by Providence, which has, I trust, given us spirit and virtue equal to it, and will at last crown it with success.

I am ever, my dear friend, yours most affectionately,

B. Franklin.

**********

“...You will probably enquire, what Inconveniences I allude to, & the answer is, the Inconveniences of being entangled with European politics; of being the puppets of European Statesmen; of being gradually divested of our virtuous republican principles; of being a divided, influenced, & dissipated, people; of being induced to Prefer the Splendor of our Court, to the Happiness of our Citizens; & finally of changing our Form of Government, established at an amazing Expence of Blood & Treasure, for a vile Aristocracy, & an arbitrary Monarchy. These are the inconveniences, or rather the deplorable evils which I apprehend from a permanent System of Embassies, & had You seen what I have been so unfortunate as to see, after only three Years Absence from Congress, almost a total Change of political principles; & had You the same Reasons for tracing those Effects to the Causes alluded to, perhaps We should not differ much in our proposals for a Remedy. We are my dear sir happily placed at a distance from civilized stations; We are surrounded by barbarous ones, which if they could be humanized, would in my opinion be as far beyond some that boast of being civilized, as they conceive themselves to be above the others. If such a Love of Grandeur & power, as induces men to prefer Art, Intrigue, Injustice, perfidy & Inhumanity to the contrary Virtues, designate a civilized Nation, in Gods Name, may America never aspire to the delusive Honor, but may her ne plus Ultra be such a Degree of Dignity as is consistent with good Faith, & admits the Salus populi to be suprema Lex--remote then from civilized Nations, wherein consists the policy of such Connections with them as must produce a change of our principles both moral & political, a Change of our Government; the Loss of our internal Confidence & Tranquility; an Interest in their Broils & quarrels; in short Wars perpetual intestine or foreign? Perhaps You may say these are chimeras, mere Creatures of the Imagination; that can never be realized, by a ministerial Intercourse with European Powers: but behold the Influence already established in the united States by such Means, & then judge for Yourself, with this Assurance, if We differ in opinion on this point, that I shall with the greatest pleasure listen to your Reasons & be happy in acquiescing in them....”

• Elbridge Gerry, Nov. 23, 1783 letter to John Adams. [Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 21]

“When the Constitution was framed, the great and leading interests of the whole country were considered, and, in the spirit of liberality and compromise, were adjusted and settled. They were settled upon principles that ought to remain undisturbed so long as the Constitution lasts, which I hope will be forever; for although liberty may be preferable to the Union, yet I think the Union is indispensable to the security of liberty....”

- Hugh L. White, U.S. House of Representatives, Jan. 1836. The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 4]

**********

“...To suppose that the framers of the Constitution--no, not the framers, but those jealous patriots who were not satisfied with that instrument as it came from the hands of the framers, and who proposed this very provision to guard what they considered a sacred right performed their task so bunglingly as to omit any essential guard, would be to do great injustice to the memory of those stern and sagacious men....”

• John C. Calhoun, U.S. House of Representatives, Jan. 1836. The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 4]

**********

“...Mr. HENRY begged gentlemen to consider the condition this country would be in if two thirds of a quorum should be empowered to make a treaty: they might relinquish and alienate territorial rights, and our most valuable commercial advantages. In short, if any thing should be left us, it would be because the President and senators were pleased to admit it. The power of making treaties, by this Constitution, ill-guarded as it is, extended farther than it did in any country in the world. Treaties were to have more force here than in any part of Christendom; for he defied any gentleman to show any thing so extensive in any strong, energetic government in Europe. Treaties rest, says he, on the laws and usages of nations. To say that they are municipal is, to me, a doctrine totally novel. To make them paramount to the Constitution and laws of the states, is unprecedented. I would give them the same force and obligation they have in Great Britain, or any other country in Europe. Gentlemen are going on in a fatal career; but I hope they will stop before they concede this power unguarded and unaltered.

Mr. MADISON, instead of being alarmed, had no doubt but the Constitution would increase, rather than decrease, the security of territorial rights and commercial advantages, as it would augment the strength and respectability of the country. The honorable gentleman, says he, has said we are making great innovations in extending the force of treaties. Are not treaties the law of the land in England? I will refer you to a book which is in every man's hand--Blackstone's Commentaries. It will inform you that the treaties made by the king are to be the supreme law of the land. If they are to have any efficacy, they must be the law of the land: they are so in every country. He thinks that, by the power of making treaties, the empire may be dismembered in time of peace. The king of Great Britain has the power of making peace, but he has no power of dismembering the empire, or alienating any part of it. Nay, the king of France has no right of alienating part of his dominions to any power whatsoever. The power of making treaties does not involve a right of dismembering the Union....”

“...Mr. HENRY, ...Sure I am, if treaties are made infringing our liberties, it will be too late to say that our constitutional rights are violated. We are in contact with two powers--Great Britain and Spain. They may claim our most valuable territories, and treaties may be made to yield them. It is easy on our part to define our unalienable rights, and expressly secure them, so as to prevent future claims and disputes. Suppose you be arraigned as offenders and violators of a treaty made by this government. Will you have that fair trial which offenders are entitled to in your own government? Will you plead a right to the trial by jury? You will have no right to appeal to your own Constitution. You must appeal to your Continental Constitution. A treaty may be made giving away your rights, and inflicting unusual punishments on its violators. It is contended that, if the king of Great Britain makes a treaty within the line of his prerogative, it is the law of the land. I agree that this is proper, and, if I could see the same cheeks in that paper which I see in the British government, I would consent to it. Can the English monarch make a treaty which shall subvert the common law of England, and the constitution? Dare he make a treaty that shall violate Magna Charta, or the bill of rights? Dare he do any thing derogatory to the honor, or subversive of the great privileges, of his people? No, sir. If he did, it would be nugatory, and the attempt would endanger his existence....”

- The Debates in the Several State Conventions, (Virginia), on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 3] June 18, 1788.

**********

“...I never saw Mr. Giles but once-from what I have seen & from all I have heard of him I own I feel no partiality for him. Perhaps I may be prejudiced, (but do not think I am) from the part he took against me in the Senate. In the present instance where he begins by representing himself as lasting only to the other world & having one foot in the grave, & then wishing to get both feet on the Senate floor, he certainly reminds me of the fable of the old Cat who feigned himself deseased, devout & dying in order to bring the rats around him that he might pounce upon them.”

- William Short to Thomas Jefferson, December 14, 1825. [Thomas Jefferson and William Short Correspondence, Transcribed and Edited by Gerard W. Gawalt, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress]

**********

“...The honorable member must forgive me for declaring my dissent from it; because, if I understand it rightly, it admits that the new system is defective, and most capitally; for, immediately after the proposed ratification, there comes a declaration that the paper before you is not intended to violate any of these three great rights--the liberty of religion, liberty of the press, and the trial by jury. What is the in-when you enumerate the rights which you are to enjoy? That those not enumerated are relinquished. There are only three things to be retained--religion, freedom of the press, and jury trial. Will not the ratification carry every thing, without excepting these three things? Will not all the world pronounce that we intended to give up all the rest? Every thing it speaks of, by way of rights, is comprised in these things. Your subsequent amendments only go to these three amendments.

“I feel myself distressed, because the necessity of securing our personal rights seems not to have pervaded the minds of men; for many other valuable things are omitted:--for instance, general warrants, by which an officer may search suspected places, without evidence of the commission of a fact, or seize any person without evidence of his crime, ought to be prohibited. As these are admitted, any man may be seized, any property may be taken, in the most arbitrary manner, without any evidence or reason. Every thing the most sacred may be searched and ransacked by the strong hand of power. We have infinitely more reason to dread general warrants here than they have in England, because there, if a person be confined, liberty may be quickly obtained by the writ of habeas corpus. But here a man living many hundred miles from the judges may get in prison before he can get that writ.

“Another most fatal omission is with respect to standing armies. In our bill of rights of Virginia, they are said to be dangerous to liberty, and it tells you that the proper defence of a free state consists in militia; and so I might go on to ten or eleven things of immense consequence secured in your bill of rights, concerning which that proposal is silent. Is that the language of the bill of rights in England? Is it the language of the American bill of rights, that these three rights, and these only, are valuable? Is it the language of men going into a new government? Is it not necessary to speak of those things before you go into a compact? How do these three things stand? As one of the parties, we declare we do not mean to give them up. This is very dictatorial--much more so than the conduct which proposes alterations as the condition of adoption. In a compact there are two parties--one excepting, and another proposing. As a party, we propose that we shall secure these three things; and before we have the assent of the other contracting party, we go into the compact, and leave these things at their mercy.

“What will be the consequence? Suppose the other states shall call this dictatorial. They will say, Virginia has gone into the government, and carried with her certain propositions, which, she says, ought to be concurred in by the other states. They will declare that she has no right to dictate to other states the conditions on which they shall come into the Union. According to the honorable member's proposal, the ratification will cease to be obligatory unless they accede to these amendments. We have ratified it. You have committed a violation, will they say. They have not violated it. We say, we will go out of it. You are then reduced to a sad dilemma--to give up these three rights, or leave the government. This is worse than our present Confederation, to which we have hitherto adhered honestly and faithfully. We shall be told we have violated it, because we have left it for the infringement and violation of conditions which they never agreed to be a part of the ratification. The ratification will be complete. The proposal is made by the party. We, as the other, accede to it, and propose the security of these three great rights; for it is only a proposal. In order to secure them, you are left in that state of fatal hostility which I shall as much deplore as the honorable gentleman. I exhort gentlemen to think seriously before they ratify this Constitution, and persuade themselves that they will succeed in making a feeble effort to get amendments after adoption.

“With respect to that part of the proposal which says that every power not granted remains with the people, it must be previous to adoption, or it will involve this country in inevitable destruction. To talk of it as a thing subsequent, not as one of your unalienable rights, is leaving it to the casual opinion of the Congress who shall take up the consideration of that matter. They will not reason with you about the effect of this Constitution. They will not take the opinion of this committee concerning its operation. They will construe it as they please. If you place it subsequently, let me ask the consequences. Among ten thousand implied powers which they may assume....”

“...I have thus candidly submitted to you, Mr. Chairman, and this committee, what occurred to me as proper amendments to the Constitution, and a declaration of rights containing those fundamental, unalienable privileges, which I conceive to be essential to liberty and happiness. I believe that, on a review of these amendments, it will still be found that the arm of power will be sufficiently strong for national purposes, when these restrictions shall be a part of the government. I believe no gentleman who opposes me in sentiments will be able to discover that any one feature of a strong government is altered; and at the same time your unalienable rights are secured by them. The government unaltered may be terrible to America, but can never be loved till it be amended. You find all the resources of the continent may be drawn to a point. In danger, the President may concentre to a point every effort of the continent. If the government be constructed to satisfy the people, and remove their apprehensions, the wealth and the Strength of the continent will go where public utility shall direct. This government, with these restrictions, will be a strong government, united with the privileges of the people. In my weak judgment, a government is strong when it applies to the most important end of all governments--the rights and privileges of the people. In the honorable member's proposal, jury trial, the press and religion, and other essential rights, are not to be given up. Other essential rights--what are they? The world will say that you intended to give them up. When you go into an enumeration of your rights, and stop that enumeration, the inevitable conclusion is, that what is omitted is intended to be surrendered...”

- Patrick Henry, June 24, 1788. The Debates in the Several State Conventions, (Virginia), on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 3]

"If we have this inherent, this unalienable, this indefeasible title to those rights, if they are not given up, are they not retained? If Congress should make a law beyond the powers and the spirit of the Constitution, should we not say to Congress, "You have no authority to make this law. There are limits beyond which you cannot go. You cannot exceed the power prescribed by the Constitution. You are amenable to us for your conduct. This act is unconstitutional. We will disregard it, and punish you for the attempt."

- William Maclaine, July 29, 1788. The Debates in the Several State Conventions, (North Carolina), on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 4]

**********

“In Great Britain there are three estates--King, Lords, and Commons. Neither of these can be represented by the other; but they conjointly can form constructions upon the rights of the people, which have been obtained, sword in hand, from the crown. These, with the legislative acts, form the British constitution; and if there is an omitted case, Parliament has a right to make provision for it. But this is not the case in America, consisting of a single estate. The people have expressly granted certain powers to Congress, and they alone had the right to form the Constitution. In doing so, they directed a particular mode of making amendments, which we are not at liberty to depart from.

“The system, it cannot be denied, is in many parts obscure. If Congress are to explain and declare what it shall be, they certainly will have it in their power to make it what they please. It has been a strong objection to the Constitution, that it was remarkably obscure; nay, some have gone so far as to assert that it was studiously obscure--that it might be applied to every purpose by Congress. By this very act, the house are assuming a power to alter the Constitution. The people of America can never be safe, if Congress have a right to exercise the power of giving constructions to the Constitution different from the original instrument. Such a power would render the most important clause in the Constitution nugatory; and one without which, I will be bold to say, this system of government never would have been ratified. If the people were to find that Congress meant to alter it in this way, they would revolt at the idea: it would be repugnant to the principles of the revolution, and to the feelings of every freeman in the United States. . . . . . View the matter in any point of light, and it is utterly impossible to admit this clause. It is both useless and unnecessary; it is inconsistent with the Constitution, and is an officious interference of the house in a business which does not properly come before them. We expose ourselves to most dangerous innovations by future legislatures, which may finally overturn the Constitution itself.”

- Elbridge Gerry, June 16, 1789, U.S. House of Representatives. The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 4]. (Removal by the President.--On the Bill for establishing an executive Department, to be denominated the Department of Foreign Affairs).

**********

“I feel the importance of the question, and know that our decision will involve the decision of all similar cases. The decision that is at this time made will become the permanent exposition of the Constitution; and on a permanent exposition of the Constitution will depend the genius and character of the whole government. It will depend, perhaps, on this decision, whether the government shall retain that equilibrium which the Constitution intended, or take a direction towards aristocracy, or anarchy, among the members of the government. Hence, how careful ought we to be to give a true direction to a power so critically circumstanced! It is incumbent on us to weigh, with particular attention, the arguments which have been advanced in support of the various opinions with cautious deliberation. I own to you, Mr. Chairman, that I feel great anxiety upon this question. I feel an anxiety, because I am called upon to give a decision in a case that may affect the fundamental principles of the government under which we act, and liberty itself. But all that I can do, on such an occasion, is to weigh well every thing advanced on both sides, with the purest desire to find out the true meaning of the Constitution, and to be guided by that, and an attachment to the true spirit of liberty, whose influence I believe strongly predominates here. . . . .

“. . . .There is another maxim which ought to direct us in expounding the Constitution, and is of great importance. It is laid down in most of the constitutions, or bills of rights, in the republics of America,--it is to be found in the political writings of the most celebrated civilians, and is every where held as essential to the preservation of liberty,--that the three great departments of government be kept separate and distinct; and if in any case they are blended, it is in order to admit a partial qualification, in order more effectually to guard against an entire consolidation. . . .”

- James Madison, June 16, 1789, U.S. House of Representatives. The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 4]. (Removal by the President.--On the Bill for establishing an executive Department, to be denominated the Department of Foreign Affairs).

**********

“...We are warned against betraying the liberties of our country: we are told that all powers tend to abuse: it is our duty, therefore, to keep them single and distinct. Where the executive swallows up the legislature, it becomes a despotism; where the legislature trenches upon the executive, it approaches towards despotism; and where they have less than is necessary, it approximates towards anarchy. . . .”

“We should be careful, therefore, to preserve the limits of each authority, in the present question. As it respects the power of the people, it is but of little importance; it is not pretended that the people have reserved the power of removing bad officers. It is admitted, on all hands, that the government is possessed of such power; consequently, the people can neither lose nor gain power by it. We are the servants of the people; we are the watchmen; and we should be unfaithful, in both characters, if we should so administer the government as to destroy its great principles and most essential advantages. The question now among us is, which of these servants shall exercise a power already granted. Wise and virtuous as the Senate may be, such a power lodged in their hands will not only tend to abuse, but cannot tend to any thing else. Need I repeat the inconveniences which will result from vesting it in the Senate? No. I appeal to that maxim which has the sanction of experience, and is authorized by the decision of the wisest men: to prevent an abuse of power, it must be distributed into three branches, who must be made independent, to watch and check each other: the people are to watch them all. While these maxims are pursued, our liberties will be preserved. It was from neglecting or despising these maxims, the ancient commonwealths were destroyed. A voice issues from the tomb which covers their ruins, and proclaims to mankind the sacredness of the truths that are at this moment in controversy.

“It is said that the Constitution has blended these powers which we advise to keep separate, and, therefore, we ought to follow in completing similar regulations; but gentlemen ought to recollect, that has been an objection against the Constitution; and if it is a well-founded one, we ought to endeavor, all that is in our power, to restrain the evil, rather than to increase it. But, perhaps, with the sole power of removal in the President, the check of the Senate in appointments may have a salutary tendency: in removing from office, their advice and consent are liable to all the objections that have been stated. It is very proper to guard the introduction of a man into office by every check that can properly be applied; but after he is appointed, there can be no use in exercising a judgment upon events which have heretofore taken place. If the Senate are to possess the power of removal, they will be enabled to hold the person in office, let the circumstances be what they may, that point out the necessity or propriety of his removal: it creates a permanent connection; it will nurse faction; it will promote intrigue to obtain protectors, and to shelter tools. Sir, it is infusing poison into the Constitution; it is an impure and unchaste connection: there is ruin in it: it is tempting the Senate with forbidden fruit: it ought not to be possible for a branch of the legislature even to hope for a share of the executive power; for they may be tempted to increase it. by a hope to share the exercise of it. People are seldom jealous of their own power; and if the Senate become part of the executive, they will be very improper persons to watch that department: so far from being champions for liberty, they will become conspirators against it.

“The executive department should ever be independent, and sufficiently energetic to defeat the attempts of either branch of the legislature to usurp its prerogative. But the proposed control of the Senate is setting that body above the President: it tends to establish an aristocracy. And at the moment we are endangering the principles of our free and excellent Constitution, gentlemen are undertaking to amuse the people with the sound of liberty. If their ideas should succeed, a principle of mortality will be infused into a government which the lovers of mankind have wished might last to the end of the world. With a mixture of the executive and legislative powers in one body, no government can long remain uncorrupt. With a corrupt executive, liberty may long retain a trembling existence. With a corrupt legislature, it is impossible: the vitals of the Constitution would be mortified, and death must follow in every step. A government thus formed would be the most formidable curse that could befall this country. Perhaps an enlightened people might timely foresee and correct the error; but if a season was allowed for such a compound to grow and produce its natural fruit, it would either banish liberty, or the people would he driven to exercise their unalienable right, the right of uncivilized nature, and destroy a monster whose voracious and capacious jaws could crush and swallow up themselves and their posterity.

“The principles of this Constitution, while they are adhered to, will perpetuate that liberty which it is the honor of Americans to have well contended for. The clause in the bill is calculated to support those principles; and for this, if there was no other reason, I should be inclined to give it my support.”

- Fisher Ames, June 16, 1789, U.S. House of Representatives. The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 4]. (Removal by the President.--On the Bill for establishing an executive Department, to be denominated the Department of Foreign Affairs).

“But, sir, by this government, powers are not given to any particular set of men; they are in the hands of the people; delegated to their representatives chosen for short terms; to representatives responsible to the people, and whose situation is perfectly similar to their own. As long as this is the case we have no danger to apprehend. When the gentleman called our recollection to the usual effects of the concession of powers, and imputed the loss of liberty generally to open tyranny, I wish he had gone on farther. Upon his review of history, he would have found that the loss of liberty very often resulted from factions and divisions; from local considerations, which eternally lead to quarrels; he would have found internal dissensions to have more frequently demolished civil liberty, than a tenacious disposition in rulers to retain any stipulated powers. . . . . . I hope the patriotism of the people will continue, and be a sufficient guard to their liberties.”

• James Madison, June 6, 1788. The Debates in the Several State Conventions, (Virginia), on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 3]

**********

“There are controversies even about the name of this government. It is denominated by some a federal, by others a consolidated government. The definition given of it by my honorable friend (Mr. Madison) is, in my opinion, accurate. Let me, however, call it by another name--a representative federal republic, as contradistinguished from a confederacy. The former is more wisely constructed than the latter; it places the remedy in the hands which feel the disorder: the other places the remedy in those hands which cause the disorder. The evils that are most complained of in such governments (and with justice) are faction, dissension, and consequent subjection of the minority to the caprice and arbitrary decisions of the majority, who, instead of consulting the interest of the whole community collectively, attend sometimes to partial and local advantages. To avoid this evil is perhaps the great desideratum of republican wisdom; it may be termed the philosopher's stone. Yet, sir, this evil will be avoided by this Constitution: faction will be removed by the system now under consideration, because all the causes which are generally productive of faction are removed. This evil does not take its flight entirely; for were jealousies and divisions entirely at an end, it might produce such lethargy as would ultimately terminate in the destruction of liberty, to the preservation of which, watchfulness is absolutely necessary. It is transferred from the state legislatures to Congress, where it will be more easily controlled. Faction will decrease in proportion to the diminution of counsellors. It is much easier to control it in small than in large bodies.”

“...Is the American spirit so degenerated, notwithstanding these advantages, that the love of liberty is more predominant and warm in the breast of a Briton than in that of an American? When liberty is on a more solid foundation here than in Britain, will Americans be less ready to maintain and defend it than Britons? No, sir; the spirit of liberty and independence of the people of this country, at present, is such that they could not be enslaved under any government that could be described. What danger is there, then, to be apprehended from a government which is theoretically perfect, and the possible blemishes of which can only be demonstrated by actual experience?

“The honorable gentleman then urges an objection respecting the militia, who, he tells us, will be made the instruments of tyranny to deprive us of our liberty. Your militia, says he, will fight against you. Who are the militia? Are we not militia? Shall we fight against ourselves? No, sir; the idea is absurd. We are also terrified by the dread of a standing army. It cannot be denied that we ought to have the means of defence, and be able to repel an attack.

“If some of the community are exclusively inured to its defence, and the rest attend to agriculture, the consequence will be, that the arts of war and defence, and of cultivating the soil, will be understood. Agriculture will flourish, and military discipline will be perfect. If, on the contrary, our defence be solely intrusted to militia, ignorance of arms and negligence of farming will ensue: the former plan is, in every respect, more to the interest of the state. By it we shall have good farmers and soldiers; by the latter we shall have neither.”

• Francis Corbin, June 7, 1788. The Debates in the Several State Conventions, (Virginia), on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 3]

**********

“Will the people reelect the same men to repeat oppressive legislation? Will the people commit suicide against themselves, and discard all those maxims and principles of interest and self-preservation which actuate mankind in all their transactions? Will the ten miles square transform our representatives into brutes and tyrants? I see no grounds to distrust them: but suppose they will be inclined to do us mischief; how can they effect it? If the federal necessities call for the sum of sixty-five thousand pounds, our proportion of that sum is ten thousand pounds. If, instead of this just proportion, they should require a greater sum, a conflict would ensue. What steps could they take to enforce the payment of the unjust and tyrannical demand? They must summon up all the genius of better men; but in case of actual violence, they could not raise the thousandth part of ten thousand pounds. In case of a struggle, sir, the people would be irresistible. If they should be so liable to lapse from virtue, yet would not one man be found, out of a multitude, to guard the interests of the people--not one man to hold up his head to discover the tyrannical projects of a corrupt and depraved majority?”

- Gov. Randolph, June 7, 1788. The Debates in the Several State Conventions, (Virginia), on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 3]

**********

“This seemed to him to demonstrate most clearly the necessity of restraining them, by a bill of rights, from infringing our unalienable rights. It was immaterial whether the bill of rights was by itself, or included in the Constitution. But he contended for it one way or the other. It would be justified by our own example and that of England....”

- John Tyler, June 17, 1788. The Debates in the Several State Conventions, (Virginia), on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 3]

**********

"Resolved, unanimously, that Congress are sincerely desirous of an honorable and permanent peace; that as the only means of obtaining it they will inviolably adhere to the treaty of alliance with his most Christian majesty, and conclude neither a separate peace nor truce with Great Britain; that they will prosecute the war with vigor until, by the blessing of God on the united arms, a peace shall be happily accomplished by which the full and absolute sovereignty and independence of these United States having been duly assured their rights and interests, as well as those of their allies, shall be effectually provided for and secured.""

- The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States, Vol. 5 October 4, 1782.

**********

“On the subject of a bill of rights, the want of which has been complained of, I will observe that it has been sanctified by such reverend authority, that I feel some difficulty in going against It. I shall not, however, be deterred from giving my opinion on this occasion, let the consequence be what it may. At the beginning of the war, we had no certain bill of rights; for our charter cannot be considered as a bill of rights; it is nothing more than an investiture, in the hands of the Virginia citizens, of those rights which belonged to British subjects. When the British thought, proper to infringe our rights, was it not necessary to mention, in our Constitution, those rights which ought to be paramount to the power of the legislature? Why is the bill of rights distinct from the Constitution? I consider bills of rights in this view -- that the government should use them, when there is a departure from its fundamental principles, in order to restore them. . . . .

“. . . . . This is the true sense of a bill of rights. If it be consistent with the Constitution, or contain additional rights, why not put it in the Constitution? If it be repugnant to the Constitution, here will be a perpetual scene of warfare between them. The honorable gentleman has praised the bill of rights of Virginia, and called it his guardian angel, and vilified this Constitution for not having it. Give me leave to make a distinction between the representatives of the people of a particular country, who are appointed as the ordinary legislature, having no limitation to their powers, and another body arising from a compact, and with certain delineated powers. Were a bill of rights necessary in the former, it would not be in the latter; for the best security that can be in the latter is the express enumeration of its powers. But let me ask the gentleman where his favorite rights are violated. They are not violated by the 10th section, which contains restrictions on the states. Are they violated by the enumerated powers? . . . . .

“. . . . . Gentlemen have been misled, to a certain degree, by a general declaration that the trial by jury was gone. We see that, in the most valuable cases, it is reserved. Is it abolished in civil cases? Let him put his finger on the part where it is abolished. The Constitution is silent on it. What expression would you wish the Constitution to use, to establish it? Remember we were not making a constitution for Virginia alone, or we might have taken Virginia for our directory. But we were forming a constitution for thirteen states. . . . .

“. . . . . Then, sir, the freedom of the press is said to be insecure. God forbid that I should give my voice against the freedom of the press. But I ask, (and with confidence that it cannot be answered,) Where is the page where it is restrained? If there had been any regulation about it, leaving it insecure, then there might have been reason for clamors. But this is not the case. If it be, I again ask for the particular clause which gives liberty to destroy the freedom of the press.

“He has added religion to the objects endangered, in his conception. Is there any power given over it? Let it be pointed out. Will he not be contented with the answer that has been frequently given to that objection? The variety of sects which abounds in the United States is the best security for the freedom of religion. No part of the Constitution, even if strictly construed, will justify a conclusion that the general government can take away or impair the freedom of religion.

“The gentleman asks, with triumph, Shall we be deprived of these valuable rights? Had there been an exception, or an express infringement of those rights, he might object; but I conceive every fair reasoner will agree that there is no just cause to suspect that they will be violated.

“But he objects that the common law is not established by the Constitution. The wisdom of the Convention is displayed by its omission, because the common law ought not to be immutably fixed. Is it established in our own Constitution, or the bill of rights, which has been resounded through the house? It is established only by an act of the legislature, and can therefore be changed as circumstances may require it. Let the honorable gentleman consider what would be the destructive consequences of its establishment in the Constitution. Even in England, where the firmest opposition has been made to encroachments upon it, it has been frequently changed. What would have been our dilemma if it had been established?”

- Gov. Randolph, June 17, 1788. The Debates in the Several State Conventions, (Virginia), on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 3]

The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 5]

APPENDIX TO THE DEBATES IN THE FEDERAL CONVENTION.

Second Note to Speech of Mr. Madison of August 7, 1787.

These observations (see Debates in the Convention of 1787, August 7) do not convey the speaker's more full and matured view of the subject, which is subjoined. He felt too much at the time the example of Virginia.

“The right of suffrage is a fundamental article in republican constitutions. The regulation of it is, at the same time, a task of peculiar delicacy. Allow the right exclusively to property, and the rights of persons may be oppressed. The feudal polity along sufficiently proves it. Extend it equally to all, and the rights of property, or the claims of justice, may be overruled by a majority without property, or interested in measures of injustice. Of this, abundant proof is afforded by other popular governments and is not without examples in our own, particularly in the laws impairing the obligation of contracts.

“In civilized communities, property, as well as personal rights, is an essential object of the laws, which encourage industry by securing the enjoyment of its fruits, that industry from which property results, and that enjoyment which consists, not merely in its immediate use, but in its posthumous destination to objects of choice and of kindred or affection.

“In a just and a free government, therefore, the rights both of property and of persons ought to be effectually guarded. Will the former be so in case of a universal and equal suffrage? Will the latter be so in case of a suffrage confined to the holders of property?

“As the holders of property have at stake all the other rights coalition to those without property, they may be the more restrained from infringing, as well as the less tempted to infringe, the rights of the latter. It is nevertheless certain that there are various ways in which the rich may oppress the poor; in which property may oppress liberty; and that the world is filled with examples. It is necessary that the poor should have a defence against the danger....”

“...If these observations be just, every mind will be able to develop and apply them.”

- James Madison

**********

"...Against the oppressions of Mr. Adams’s hereditary representatives, nations have no remedy but physical strength; against those of temporary representatives, the moral force of opinion suffices. The first remedy can never be legally exerted, because no government will make laws to punish itself; to avoid which, these hereditary representatives invariably disarm the people, and so make the remedy for the coercion of this virtual representation quite nominal. Its use is moreover prohibited by the dreadful avenger of rebellion. Restrained by the dangers which beset it, the physical strength of a nation moves only in the paroxysm inspired by long suffering or extreme peril; and it is to the overthrow of reason, by this paroxysm, that the frequent disappointments of national exertion, to enforce virtual responsibility, are to be ascribed.

"By our policy, actual responsibility is preferred to virtual, or to speak correctly, nominal. Conscious of the danger arising from the physical force of mercenary troops, it insists upon the necessity of securing to the nation the only safe protector of moral or political power, in an armed militia; to prevent responsibility from rebelling against nations, by the same means used by monarchs and orders, to prevent nations from rebelling against them. Under the protection of the physical power of a militia, the moral or political power reserved by our policy to the people, acts legally and peaceably, by opinion and election; and the reason of the nation can have recourse to a degree of reflection and deliberation, unattainable during the confusion, the dangers, and the crimes of civil war. Without a sound militia, all popular rights, including election itself, must become tenants at will, of monarchical or aristocratical landlords...."

- John Taylor, An Inquiry into the Principles and Policy of the Government of the United States - Section the Sixth, THE GOOD MORAL PRINCIPLES OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, (1814).

**********

“...How long these blessings are to be enjoyed by us, and secured to our children, must depend upon the virtue and intelligence of the People; the preservation of our Union; and the virtuous, liberal, and enlightened administration of our free institutions.

“That our confederated republic can only exist by the ties of common interest and brotherly attachment; by mutual forbearance and moderation (collectively and individually,) and by cherishing a devotion to liberty and union, must be apparent to every candid mind; and as our fathers united their counsels and their arms, poured out their blood and treasure in support of their common rights, and, by the exertions of all, succeeded in defending the liberties of each, so must we, if we intend to continue a free, united, and happy People, profit by their counsels and emulate their illustrious example.

“How much will depend upon the conduct and deliberations of the National Legislature, and especially of this House, it is not needful that I should admonish you. I need not, I am sure, remind you, Gentlemen, that we are here the guardians and representatives of our entire country, and not the advocates of local and partial interests; that national legislation, to be permanently useful, must be just, liberal, enlightened, and impartial; that ours is the high duty of protecting all, and not a part; of maintaining, inviolably, the public faith; of elevating the public credit and resources of the nation; of expending the public treasure with the same care and economy that we would our own; of limiting ourselves within the pale of our constitutional powers, and regulating our measures by the great principles contained in that sacred charter; and cherishing in our hearts the sentiment that the Union of the States cannot be too highly valued, or too watchfully cherished.

“These are some of the great landmarks which suggest themselves to my mind, as proper to guide us in our Legislative career. By these means, Gentlemen, we shall not only render ourselves worthy of the high trust confided to us, but shall endear to our People the principles of their Constitution and free institutions, and promote a sentiment of union and action, auspicious to the safety, glory, and happiness, of our beloved and common country."

- Andrew Stevenson, U.S. Representative from Virginia, “Monday, the seventh day of December, in the year of our Lord 1829”. Speech upon being elected Speaker of the House. [Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, 1829-1830]

**********

“...In our efforts to preserve "the unity of government which constitutes us one people," by restoring the States to the condition which they held prior to the rebellion, we should be cautious, lest, having rescued our nation from perils of threatened disintegration, we resort to consolidation, and in the end absolute despotism, as a remedy for the recurrence of similar troubles. The war having terminated, and with it all occasion for the exercise of powers of doubtful constitutionality, we should hasten to bring legislation within the boundaries prescribed by the Constitution, and to return to the ancient landmarks established by our fathers for the guidance of succeeding generations. "The Constitution which at any time exists, until changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all." "If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be, in any particular, wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way in which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for" "it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." Washington spoke these words to his countrymen, when, followed by their love and gratitude, he voluntarily retired from the cares of public life. "To keep in all things within the pale of our constitutional powers, and cherish the federal Union as the only rock of safety," were prescribed by Jefferson as rules of action to endear to his "countrymen the true principles of their Constitution, and promote a union of sentiment and action equally auspicious to their happiness and safety." Jackson held that the action of the general government should always be strictly confined to the sphere of its appropriate duties, and justly and forcibly urged that our government is not to be maintained nor our Union preserved "by invasions of the rights and powers of the several States. In thus attempting to make our general government strong, we make it weak. Its true strength consists in leaving individuals and States as much as possible to themselves; in making itself felt, not in its power, but in its beneficence; not in its control, but in its protection; not in binding the States more closely to the centre, but leaving each to move unobstructed in its proper constitutional orbit." These are the teachings of men whose deeds and services have made them illustrious, and who, long since withdrawn from the scenes of life, have left to their country the rich legacy of their example, their wisdom, and their patriotism Drawing fresh inspiration from their lessons, let us emulate them in love of country and respect for the Constitution and the laws.”

• President Andrew Johnson, Washington, Dec. 3, 1866. [Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, 1789-1873]

**********

"To argue against the use of a thing from the abuse of it, had long since been exploded by all sensible people."

• John Rutledge, Jan. 16, 1788. The Debates in the Several State Conventions, (South Carolina), on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 4]

“...And the Serious attention of Every friend to American Liberty is Employed in giving that manly opposition to those Vile Invaders of their Just Rights, privaledges and property, Whether it would be prudent to hold out to the World Such numbers of Internal Enemies-Especially as by the manly and determined Spirit prevailing in the Congress their wings must and will be Clipped. The Declaration has laid the foundation-and will be followed by Laws fixing the degree of Offence, and punishment Suitable. Some people have done things, which if done in future nothing less than life will be Sufficient to Attone for. These Enemies to our Righteous Cause will (I apprehend) be Less on their Guard if they are not held up in that public way, than if they are-and Will undoubtedly meet their due Reward, provided you persue Steadily your line of Patriotism, and at the Same time keep a Watchfull Eye toward their Conduct in the pollitics of your County. These things Must and Will be Enquired into. But Sir, now is the time and Season that our open and avowed Enemies are pressing hard. They Call forth the attention and Utmost Vigilence of the Congress to that Point. They well know they have internal Enemies in disguise, And Whenever, by the blessing of God, their Virtuous Efforts Shall be Crowned with Success, They will imediately turn their thoughts toward those Sapper's of the Rights of Mankind. It is also the business of every Government so Soon as formed to take in hand that business. South Carolina has already Set them a Good Example.
I have sent you a pamphlet Called Observations on the Nature of Civil Liberty &c. wrote by Doctr. Price in England. It is an Excellent Peice and don't Doubt (properly used) will tend to Strengthen Your Patriotic or in other words Independent party. I have also directed one to Doctr. McCall as present.
The Militia of Pensylvania are beginning their March this day toward New York, and I do Suppose that by the last of this Week Generl. Washington will be Thirty Thousand Strong at Least. Coll. Haslet's Battalion (Except one Company Which [is] to Stay at Lewis) is ordered up to Wilmington, as a Security to Philadelphia,(1) in the Absence of their Militia as well as to the Lower Counties, And hopes for this Reason the Committee of Safety will permitted them to retain (while thus Employed) the Militia Arms belonging to the public.”

• Caesar Rodney, July 10, 1776, letter to Thomas Rodney. [Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 4 May 16, 1776 - August 15, 1776. Library of Congress]

**********

“Assuring myself, that, under every vicissitude, the determined spirit and united councils of the nation will be safeguards to its honor and its essential interests, I repair to the post assigned me with no other discouragement than what springs from my own inadequacy to its high duties. If I do not sink under the weight of this deep conviction, it is because I find some support in a consciousness of the purposes, and a confidence in the principles, which I bring with me into this arduous service.

“To cherish peace and friendly intercourse with all nations having correspondent dispositions; to maintain sincere neutrality towards belligerent nations; to prefer, in all cases, amicable discussion and reasonable accommodation of differences, to a decision of them by an appeal to arms; to exclude foreign intrigues and foreign partialities, so degrading to all countries, and so baneful to free ones; to foster a spirit of independence, too just to invade the rights of others, too proud to surrender our own, too liberal to indulge unworthy prejudices ourselves, and too elevated not to look down upon them in others; to hold the union of the states as the basis of their peace and happiness; to support the constitution, which is the cement of the union, as well in its limitations as in its authorities; to respect the rights and authorities reserved to the states and to the people, as equally incorporated with, and essential to the success of, the general system; to avoid the slightest interference with the rights of conscience or the functions of religion, so wisely exempted from civil jurisdiction; to preserve, in their full energy, the other salutary provisions in behalf of private and personal rights, and of the freedom of the press; to observe economy in public expenditures; to liberate the public resources by an honorable discharge of the public debts; to keep within the requisite limits a standing military force, always remembering that an armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark of republics; that without standing armies their liberty can never be in danger, nor with large ones safe; to promote, by authorized means, improvements friendly to agriculture, to manufactures, and to external as well as internal commerce; to favor, in like manner, the advancement of science and the diffusion of information, as the best aliment to true liberty....”

- President Thomas Jefferson, March 4, 1809 Inaugural speech. [Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, 1789-1873.]

**********

“...I have taken great pains to explain the principles of Liberty & to shew how the Confederation will secure it to us, & I can assure you that great Charter of our Liberties is lately more frequently quoted & growing into that sacred veneration to which it is entitled. When I first came here, Genl. Cornell called it a rope of Sand & I found he had catched the expression from others. The States are not to be held together by the strength of penal laws & coercion, but by their mutual intrest--And if a wise & just policy is adopted it will continue in future the intrest of the States to remain confederated as much as it now is, or has been. Every measure which tends to greive one member of the Union, tends to a Dissolution; for nature teaches to seek redress: And Self preservation, among Laws, is Lord paramount....”

- David Howell, Oct. 30, 1782 letter to Nicholas Brown. [Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 19 August 1, 1782 - March 11, 1783.]

**********

“...Indeed the rights of Mankind, the priviledges of the people, and the true principles of liberty, seem to have been more generally discussed and better understood throughout Europe since the American revolution than they were at any former period....”

- George Washington to Senate, February 18, 1791. [The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799. John C. Fitzpatrick, Editor.]

**********

"I know your anxiety to be informed what is doing in Congress, and wish I was at liberty to gratify it, but the secrecy enjoined the members puts it out of my power to give you any information worth your attention. You will see by the papers which I send to Mr. Smith, the advice that is given to the people of New York relative to their city; to those papers I must beg leave to refer you for news; you will find by them the New Yorkers have taken an active share in the opposition; a tory dare not show his head amongst them; the cry of liberty is irresistible in most of the colonies; a military spirit has seized all orders of people; this city is full of armed men; they have now 28 companies of foot and two of horse; each company consists of 68 men including officers; they are called out twice every day to learn the military discipline, and I can assure you some of the companies perform it equal to any regular troops."

- Joseph Hewes, May 23, 1775 letter to James Iredell. [Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 1]

**********

Journals of the Continental Congress,
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1775

...One of the Delegates for Rhode Island laid before the Congress a part of the Instructions given them by the House of Magistrates, Aug.26,1775, in these words, viz:--

Whereas notwithstanding the humble and dutiful petition of the last Congress to the King, and other wise and pacific measures taken for obtaining a happy reconciliation between Great Britain and the Colonies, the ministry lost to every sentiment of justice, liberty and humanity continue to send troops and ships of war into America, which destroy our trade, plunder and burn our towns and murder the good people of these colonies. Resolved, That this Colony most ardently wishes to see the former friendship, harmony and intercourse between Britain and these Colonies restored, and a happy and lasting connection established between both countries upon terms of just and equal liberty and will concur with the other colonies in all proper measures for obtaining those desirable blessings; and as every principle divine and human requires us to obey that great and fundamental law of nature, self preservation, until peace shall be restored upon constitutional principles; this colony will most heartily exert the whole power of government in conjunction with the other colonies for carrying on this just and necessary war, and bringing the same to a happy issue, and amongst other measures for obtaining this most desirable purpose, this Assembly is persunded, that the building and equipping an American fleet, as soon as possible, would greatly and essentially conduce to the preservation of the lives, liberty and property of the good people of these Colonies and therefore instruct their delegates to use their whole influence at the ensuing congress for building at the Continental expence a fleet of sufficient force for the protection of these colonies, and for employing them in such manner and places as will most effectually annoy our enemies, and contribute to the common defence of these colonies, and they are also instructed to use all their influence for carrying on the war in the most vigorous manner, until peace, liberty and safety are restored and secured to these Colonies upon an equitable and permanent basis.

Upon motion, Resolved, That the Congress will on Friday next take the above into consideration.¹

[Note 1: 1 These words in the "corrected Journal" are in the writing of Samuel Adams.]....

**********

“...You will observe that distrust is the mother of Security. You think we have had too much of this at home & too little abroad. A virtuous jealousy even over our own rulers is proper; when it rises too high it is injurious; where it is extinct, liberty expires. In this, as in most things there is a medium, and happy are that people who discover it. As to our enemies, we have every thing to fear from their arts, & their intrigue; but nothing from their arms at present....”

- David Howell, Oct. 18, 1782 Letter to Nathanael Greene. [Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 19 August 1, 1782 - March 11, 1783.]

**********

Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 20 March 12, 1783 - September 30, 1783
Elias Boudinot to Elisha Boudinot

**********

"Mr. Davis, of Mississippi, from the Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred the resolution (S. R. 56) authorizing the Secretary of War to furnish arms and ammunition to persons emigrating to the Territories of Oregon, California, and New Mexico, reported it without amendment."

- Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, February 15, 1849. [A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774-1875.]

“The power to declare war, to raise and support armies, to provide and maintain a navy, and to call forth the militia to execute the laws, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions, was conferred upon Congress, as means to provide for the common defence and to protect a territory and a population now wide-spread and vastly multiplied. As incidental to and indispensable for the exercise of this power, it must sometimes be necessary to construct military roads and protect harbors of refuge. To appropriations by Congress for such objects no sound objection can be raised. Happily for our country, its peaceful policy and rapidly increasing population impose upon us no urgent necessity for preparation, and leave but few trackless deserts between assailable points and a patriotic people ever ready and generally able to protect them....”

- President Franklin Pierce, Dec. 6, 1853 message to the U.S. House and Senate. [Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, 1789-1873.]

**********

“...It is impossible to misapprehend the great principles, which, by their recent political action, the people of the United States have sanctioned and announced.

“They have asserted the constitutional equality of each and all of the States of the Union as States; they have affirmed the constitutional equality of each and all of the citizens of the United States as citizens, whatever their religion, wherever their birth, or their residence; they have maintained the inviolability of the constitutional rights of the different sections of the Union; and they have proclaimed their devoted and unalterable attachment to the Union and to the Constitution, as objects of interest superior to all subjects of local or sectional controversy, as the safeguard of the rights of all, as the spirit and the essence of the liberty, peace, and greatness of the Republic....”

- President Franklin Pierce, Dec. 8, 1853 message to the U.S. House and Senate. [Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States of America, 1789-1873.]

**********

“...In organizing governments over these territories, fraught with such vast advantages to every portion of our Union, I invoke that spirit of concession, conciliation, and compromise in your deliberations, in which the constitution was framed, in which it should be administered, and which is so indispensable to preserve and perpetuate the harmony and union of the States. We should never forget that this union of confederated States was established and cemented by kindred blood, and by the common toils, sufferings, dangers, and triumphs of all its parts, and has been the ever augmenting source of our national greatness and of all our blessings.”

“There has, perhaps, been no period, since the warning so impressively given to his countrymen by Washington, to guard against geographical divisions and sectional parties, which appeals with greater force than the present, to the patriotic, sober minded, and reflecting of all parties, and of all sections of our country. Who can calculate the value of our glorious Union? It is a model and example of free government to all the world, and is the star of hope and haven of rest to the oppressed of every clime. By its preservation we have been rapidly advanced, as a nation, to a height of strength, power, and happiness, without a parallel in the history of the world. As we extend its blessings over new regions, shall we be so unwise as to endanger its existence by geographical divisions and dissentions? ...”

“...While the people of other countries, who live under forms of government less free than our own, have been for ages oppressed by taxation, to support large standing armies in periods of peace, our experience has shown that such establishments are unnecessary in a republic. Our standing army is to be found in the bosom of society. It is composed of free citizens, who are ever ready to take up arms in the service of their country when an emergency requires it. Our experience in the war just closed fully confirms the opinion that such an army may be raised upon a few week's notice, and that Our citizen soldiers are equal to any troops in the world. No reason, therefore, is perceived why we should enlarge our land forces and thereby subject the treasury to an annual increased charge. Sound policy requires that we should avoid the creation of a large standing army in a period of peace. No public exigency requires it. Such armies are not only expensive and unnecessary, but may become dangerous to liberty....”

- President James K. Polk, July 6, 1848 message to the U.S. House and Senate. [Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, 1789-1873.]

**********

“The effective operation of such motives would have prevented the adoption of the Constitution under which we have so long lived, and under the benign influence of which our beloved country has so signally prospered. The framers of that sacred instrument had greater difficulties to overcome; and they did overcome them. The patriotism of he people, directed by a deep conviction of the importance of the Union, produced mutual concession and reciprocal forbearance. Strict right was merged in a spirit of compromise, and the result has consecrated their disinterested devotion to the general weal. Unless the American people have degenerated, the same result can be again effected, whenever experience points out the necessity of a resort to the same means to uphold the fabric which their fathers have reared. It is beyond the power of man to make a system of government like ours, or any other, operate with precise equality upon States situated like those which compose this confederacy; nor is inequality always injustice. Every State cannot expect to shape the measures of the General Government to suit its own particular interests. The causes which prevent it are seated in the nature of things, and cannot be entirely counteracted by human means. Mutual forbearance becomes, therefore, a duty obligatory upon all; and we may, I am confident, count upon a cheerful compliance with this high injunction, on the part of our constituents. It is not to be supposed, that they will object to make such comparatively inconsiderable sacrifices for the preservation of rights and privileges, which other less favored portions of the world have in vain waded through seas of blood to acquire....”

- President Andrew Jackson, December 4th, 1832. [Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States.]

“For I agree with you that there is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents. Formerly, bodily powers gave place among the aristoi. But since the invention of gunpowder has armed the weak as well as the strong with missile death, bodily strength, like beauty, good humor, politeness and other accomplishments, has become but an auxiliary ground for distinction.”

• Thomas Jefferson, October 28, 1813 letter to John Adams. [The Works of Thomas Jefferson in Twelve Volumes. Federal Edition. Collected and Edited by Paul Leicester Ford. Library of Congress.]

**********

“But we, this age, and in this country especially are advanced beyond those notions of natural law. We acknowledge that our children are born free; that that freedom is the gift of nature, and not of him who begot them; that though under our care during infancy, and therefore of necessity under a duly tempered authority, that care is confided to us to be exercised for the preservation and good of the child only; and his labors during youth are given as a retribution for the charges of infancy. As he was never the property of his father, so when adult he is sui juris, entitled himself to the use of his own limbs and the fruits of his own exertions: so far we are advanced, without mind enough, it seems, to take the whole step. We believe, or we act as if we believed, that although an individual father cannot alienate the labor of his son, the aggregate body of fathers may alienate the labor of all their sons, of their posterity, in the aggregate, and oblige them to pay for all the enterprises, just or unjust, profitable or ruinous, into which our vices, our passions, or our personal interests may lead us. But I trust that this proposition needs only to be looked at by an American to be seen in its true point of view, and that we shall all consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts, and morally bound to pay them ourselves; and consequently within what may be deemed the period of a generation, or the life of the majority. . . . . Ought not then the right of each successive generation to be guarantied against the dissipations and corruptions of those preceding, by a fundamental provision in our constitution? And, if that has not been made, does it exist the less; there being between generation and generation, as Between nation and nation, no other law than that of nature? And is it the less dishonest to do what is wrong, because not expressly prohibited by written law? Let us hope our moral principles are not yet in that stage of degeneracy, and that in instituting the system of finance to be hereafter pursued, we shall adopt the only safe, the only lawful and honest one, of borrowing on such short terms of reimbursement of interest and principal as will fall within the accomplishment of our own lives.”

• Thomas Jefferson, Sept. 11, 1813 letter to John Wayles Eppes.

**********

“...Resolved, That the Congress of the United States should, by positive and effective legislation and in accordance with the true theory of our republican form of government, guarantee and secure equality of civil rights and privileges to all classes of persons residing within the District of Columbia and the Territories, and wherever else the government of the United States possesses sole and exclusive jurisdiction, who are required and made liable, under the Constitution and the laws, to contribute to the support and maintenance of the government by taxation and military service, and in like manner to protect, secure, and defend all persons in life, liberty, and lawful pursuits, throughout the length and breadth of the republic....”

- Mr. John H. Rice, Resolution(s) submitted March 14^th, 1864 to the U.S. House of Representatives. [Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, 1863-1864.]

**********

“...The power of the purse is the touch-stone of freedom in all States. If the people command their own money they are free; but if their Sovereign commands it they are slaves. All other strings in government take their tone from the mode of raising money. An alteration therefore in the mode of raising money is an alteration of the Constitution. It is an essential & radical change. A change that, on experience, will be felt most sensibly. It cannot be an indifferent thing, or a matter of small moment. It is like altering the center of gravity. It is like transferring the fee simple of an estate. It is like putting your weapon of defence into another man's hand....”

- Rhode Island Delegates to William Greene, Sept. 8th. 1783 letter. [Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 20 March 12, 1783 - September 30, 1783.]

**********

“Prudential and equitable considerations ought always to curb licentious invasions of private right, but in the breast of the legislature resides the application of the property within its jurisdiction. An injured citizen must acquiesce in the dispensations of the sovereign* authority, or seek redress from remonstrances, or the last expedient of oppressed freemen. . . . . Let the supreme power be modified as it may, as the society remains the same, so do its rights.”

- Report of a Committee, (Mr. [Daniel] Carroll, Mr. [Edmund] Randolph and Mr. [Joseph] Montgomery), Aug. 20, 1782. [Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789.]
[* - And just whom is the Sovereign Authority? We The People, with Our U.S. Constitution, are the “Legitimate”, “Supreme” and “Ultimate” Authority, that's whom.)

2006 GunShowOnTheNet.com