HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2012 14:41:58 GMT
Server: Apache/2.0.63 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.0.63 OpenSSL/0.9.7a mod_auth_passthrough/2.1 mod_bwlimited/1.4 FrontPage/5.0.2.2635 PHP/5.2.6
X-Powered-By: PHP/5.2.6
Cache-Control: no-transform, max-age=604800
Vary: Accept
Content-Language: en-us
Content-Script-Type: text/javascript
Content-Style-Type: text/css
imagetoolbar: no
pics-Label: (pics-1.1 "http://www.icra.org/pics/vocabularyv03/" l 
	gen true for "http://philadelphia-reflections.com" r (n 0 s 0 v 0 l 0 oa 0 ob 0 oc 0 od 0 oe 0 of 0 og 0 oh 0 c 0) 
	gen true for "http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com" r (n 0 s 0 v 0 l 0 oa 0 ob 0 oc 0 od 0 oe 0 of 0 og 0 oh 0 c 0) 
	gen true for "http://search.freefind.com" r (n 0 s 0 v 0 l 0 oa 0 ob 0 oc 0 od 0 oe 0 of 0 og 0 oh 0 c 0) 
	gen true for "http://www.search.freefind.com" r (n 0 s 0 v 0 l 0 oa 0 ob 0 oc 0 od 0 oe 0 of 0 og 0 oh 0 c 0) 
	gen true for "http://statcounter.com" r (n 0 s 0! v 0 l 0 oa 0 ob 0 oc 0 od 0 oe 0 of 0 og 0 oh 0 c 0) 
	gen true for "http://www.statcounter.com" r (n 0 s 0 v 0 l 0 oa 0 ob 0 oc 0 od 0 oe 0 of 0 og 0 oh 0 c 0) 
	gen true for "http://c3.statcounter.com" r (n 0 s 0 v 0 l 0 oa 0 ob 0 oc 0 od 0 oe 0 of 0 og 0 oh 0 c 0) 
	gen true for "http://www.c3.statcounter.com" r (n 0 s 0 v 0 l 0 oa 0 ob 0 oc 0 od 0 oe 0 of 0 og 0 oh 0 c 0))
P3P: policyref="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/w3c/p3p.xml", CP="NID DSP NOI COR"
Last-Modified: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 00:03:30 GMT
Expires: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 14:41:58 GMT
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1

<?xml version='1.0' encoding='iso-8859-1' ?>
 <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC '-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN' 'http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd'>
  <html xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml' xml:lang='en'>

 <!-- 
HTTP_USER_AGENT      Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; lemurwebcrawler admin@lemurproject.org; +http://boston.lti.cs.cmu.edu/crawler_12/)
HTTP_ACCEPT_ENCODING 
HTTP_ACCEPT          text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8
 -->

<head>

<!--                                                                     -->
<!-- PHILADELPHIA REFLECTIONS                                            -->
<!-- George R. Fisher III MD                                             -->
<!--                                                                     -->
<!-- (c) George Fisher 2004 - 2012                                       -->
<!--                                                                     -->
<!-- web: http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/                       -->
<!--                                                                     -->

      <title>Philadelphia Reflections: Shaping the Constitution in Philadelphia</title>

<meta name="title"                      content="Philadelphia Reflections: Shaping the Constitution in Philadelphia" />
<meta name="DC.Title"                   content="Philadelphia Reflections: Shaping the Constitution in Philadelphia" />

<!-- FreeFind Map Title="Shaping the Constitution in Philadelphia" -->

<meta name="description"                content="After Independence, the weakness of the Federal government dismayed a band of ardent patriots, so under Washington's leadership a stronger Constitution was written. Almost immediately, comrades discov" />
<meta name="DC.description"             content="After Independence, the weakness of the Federal government dismayed a band of ardent patriots, so under Washington's leadership a stronger Constitution was written. Almost immediately, comrades discov" />

<meta name="keywords"                   content="implied and enumerated powers, manufacture and agriculture, partisans and republicans, Potomac Ambition, Cloaked Personality, Washington's style of governance,boundary of east and west Jersey, proprietorship, Quakers, surveying, model for constitution,American Constitution, utopia, trial by jury, Structure of American Government,enumerated powers, abuse of sovereignty,constitutional amendments, William Penn,assassination, hereditary monarchy, peaceful succession,term limits, patent rights, Article 3, Twenty-second Amendment,Interstate commerce, supreme court packing,Industrial Revolution, republican government, political parties,constitutional rights, Supreme Court, Rights of Man,inflation, debtors and creditors, gold standard, inflation targeting,,non-attending delegates to the Constitutional convention, objectors to the constitution, Republic,gerrymandering, legislative power plays,political parties, Industrial Revolution, Socialism,free trade, protectionism, fair trade, competition,Original Intent, Activist Judges,representation ratio, constituent service, the nation,Constitution, federalism,The American Constitution, infallibility,Legal Tender Act, Land Grant Colleges, Free Soil, Railroad Act, Republican Party,honesty best policy, Parson Weems,Quaker,...Concessions and Agreements, Thomas Jefferson, William Penn,1776,causes of American Revolution,torture, Sixth Amendment, living Constitution,Federal enforcement of individual rights, state enforcement of constitutional rights, civil rights,Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Judges' pay,state think tanks, psychology of republic governance,Susquehanna, Litchfield, Massacre, Anthracite,per se, rule of reason, totality of circumstance,Republican Court, Samuel Powel, Elizabeth Powel,Original intent, political parties, legislative power plays,smuggling gun powder, Articles of Confederation,nepotism, ethnic groups, primary elections, patronage, revenue,Robert Morris, Independence, loyalists,class warfare, inflation, anarchy,Robert Morris, executive department,statutes, common law,Unified Corporate Law, original intent, laws without constitutional basis,Decision of Trenton,Connecticut, Pennsylvania,  Constitutional protections, sanctity of contracts, private takings, Patterson, Armstrong,gentlemen in trade, self-interest in politics, disinterested politicians, aristocrats in politics,machine politics, big city bossism,Banking, free-market banking,debt service, national debts, central flaw of the Articles of Confederation,peace and prosperity, " />

<!-- Last Modified in FreeFind format -->
<meta name="date"                       content="16 Feb 2012 19:03:30 GMT-5" />

<!-- ISO 8601 date format -->
<meta name="created"                    content="2008-11-11T15:54:06-05:00" />
<meta name="modified"                   content="2012-02-16T19:03:30-05:00" />
<meta name="retrieved"                  content="2012-03-04T09:41:58-05:00" />

<meta name="dc.date.created"            content="2008-11-11T15:54:06-05:00" scheme="ISO8601" />
<meta name="dc.date.modified"           content="2012-02-16T19:03:30-05:00" scheme="ISO8601" />
<meta name="distribution"               content="global" />
<meta name="Locale"                     content="EN-US" />
<meta name="language"                   content="EN" />
<meta name="DC.language"                content="en" scheme="RFC1766" />
<meta name="MSSmartTagsPreventParsing"  content="TRUE" />
<meta name="author"                     content="George R. Fisher, III MD" />
<meta name="Designer"                   content="George R. Fisher, IV" />
<meta name="DC.Creator"                 content="Fisher III MD, George" />

<meta name="copyright"                  content="(c) 2004 - 2012 George R. Fisher III, MD. All Rights Reserved." />
<meta name="doc-rights"                 content="Copywritten Work" />
<meta name="DC.rights"                  content="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/copyright.php" />
<meta name="rating"                     content="GENERAL" />
<meta name="resource-type"              content="document" />

<meta name="robots"                     content="all" />
<meta name="revisit-after"              content="5 days" />
<meta name="no-email-collection"        content="No-EmailCollectionTerms.htm" />

<!-- Compressed stylesheets (see http://www.cleancss.com/) are embedded -->
<!-- to reduce the back-and-forth calls produced by the link tags       -->
<style type="text/css">
/*<![CDATA[*/
img{float:none;border-style:none;margin:5px;}img.right{float:right;border-style:none;margin:15px 5px 5px 15px;}img.left{float:left;border-style:none;margin:15px 15px 5px 5px;}img.center{display:block;text-align:center;vertical-align:middle;margin:0 auto;}table.right{float:right;border-style:none;margin:0;padding:0;}table.left{float:left;border-style:none;margin:0;padding:0;}td.caption{vertical-align:bottom;background-color:transparent;color:#000;text-align:center;font-size:9pt;font-family:sans-serif;font-style:normal;font-weight:700;line-height:125%;margin:0 auto;}img.tn-l-w50{float:left;width:50px;border-style:none;margin:5px 5px 0 0;}img.tn-l-h50{float:left;height:50px;border-style:none;margin:5px 5px 0 0;}img.tn-l-w100{float:left;width:100px;border-style:none;margin:5px 5px 0 0;}img.tn-l-h100{float:left;height:100px;border-style:none;margin:5px 5px 0 0;}
body{color:#000;background-color:#ccc;background-image:none;margin:0;padding:0;}p{text-align:justify;}#top{color:#000;background-color:#22007D;margin:0 5px 10px;padding:0;}.topHeadline{color:#ea9f20;background-color:transparent;font-size:32pt;font-family:garamond, times, serif;font-weight:700;}.topByline{color:#fcff53;background-color:transparent;font-size:12pt;font-family:garamond, times, serif;font-weight:700;}#wrapper{margin:0 10px;padding:0;}#left{float:left;width:200px;color:#000;background-color:#ccc;font-weight:bolder;font-family:verdana, arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;line-height:9px;padding-left:.5em;padding-top:1.5em;}form.ff3{font-family:verdana,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:70%;}input.ff2{font-size:x-small;}input.ff1{background-color:#6a9cea;color:red;}a:hover{color:gray;background-color:#FF0;text-decoration:underline;}#right{float:right;width:200px;color:#000;background-color:#ccc;}.returnBox{color:#FFF;background-color:#41627E;width:80%;display:block;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;}.returnBoxHR{width:80%;height:5px;color:#FFF;background-color:gray;}.printButton{text-align:center;margin:0;}#center{margin-left:210px;margin-right:210px;color:#000;background-color:#EEE;font-family:georgia, verdana, arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;line-height:16px;padding-left:1.5em;padding-right:1.5em;padding-top:1.5em;}p.firstDrop:first-letter{float:left;text-transform:uppercase;margin-right:15px;font-size:48px;line-height:40px;color:#777;background-color:transparent;font-family:georgia, times, serif;}.dropcap{float:left;width:49px;font-size:48px;line-height:45px;color:#777;background-color:transparent;font-family:georgia, times, serif;}#welcome{text-align:justify;font-size:120%;border-style:solid;border-width:2px;margin:0 5px;padding:10px 15px 0;}#comment_form{background-color:#FFF;color:#000;width:75%;font-family:arial, sans-serif;font-size:10pt;margin:20px auto 0;}#clear{clear:both;}#footerhandheld{display:none;}#footer{color:#000;background:#ccc;font-family:verdana, arial, sans-serif;font-size:10px;line-height:11px;border-style:none;margin:20px;}.footerImage{float:none;border-style:none;padding:0;}.jumpToComments{text-align:center;font-family:arial, sans-serif;font-size:150%;margin:10px auto 0;}a.jumpToComments:visited{background-color:#ccc;color:#000;text-decoration:none;}a.reflectionsFooterLink:visited{color:#FFF;background-color:#41627E;}.reflectionsFooterHR{background-color:#41627F;color:#41627E;width:730px;height:3px;margin-top:50px;}div > p{margin-top:0;}.contactUs{text-align:center;width:260px;background:transparent;margin:15px auto 0;padding:0;}.contactUs ul{list-style:none outside;background:#DDD;color:#000;font:10px/15px verdana, helvetica, sans-serif;border-color:#BBB;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;margin:0;padding:0;}.contactUs ul li{border:none;margin:0;padding:0;}.contactUs ul li a{display:block;background:#DDD;color:#000;border-bottom:1px #BBB solid;border-top:1px #FFF solid;text-decoration:none;margin:0;padding:4px 6px;}.contactUs ul li a:hover{background:red;color:#FFF;border-bottom:1px #FFF solid;border-top:1px #000 solid;text-decoration:none;font-weight:900;}#comments{width:90%;background-color:#eee;color:#000;border-style:none;margin:10px auto;padding:10px;}.overallFrame{width:85%;background-color:#FFF;color:#000;border-style:none;margin:10px auto 0;padding:5px;}.commentFrame{background-color:#FFF;color:#000;font-family:arial, sans-serif;font-weight:400;font-size:10pt;border-style:none;padding:5px;}.userFrame{margin-top:5px;border-top-style:solid;border-top-width:1px;border-top-color:silver;color:#000;background-color:#FFF;font-family:arial, sans-serif;font-size:7pt;font-weight:lighter;text-align:left;padding:5px;}p.MsoNormal{font-size:10pt;font-family:"Times New Roman";margin:0 0 .0001pt;}p.MsoBodyText{font-size:10pt;font-family:"Times New Roman";margin:0 0 6pt;}.notvisible{visibility:hidden;}a:link,a:visited{text-decoration:none;}a.jumpToComments:link,a.jumpToComments:active{background-color:#ccc;color:#41627E;}a.jumpToComments:hover,a.reflectionsFooterLink:hover{color:red;background-color:#FF0;text-decoration:none;}a.reflectionsFooterLink:link,a.reflectionsFooterLink:active{color:#000;background-color:#41627E;}
.individualColumnTop,.individualColumn,.individualColumnLink{color:#000;line-height:120%;width:185px;background-color:#F0F0F0;font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;}.individualColumnTop,.individualColumn{margin-left:2px;margin-right:4px;padding:6px;}.individualColumnTop{margin-top:0;margin-bottom:5px;font-size:12px;font-weight:700;text-align:center;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;}.individualColumn{margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:5px;min-height:85px;font-size:11px;text-align:left;border-style:none;}.individualColumnLink{font-size:12px;font-weight:700;text-align:left;text-decoration:none;border-style:none;}a.individualColumnLink:visited{color:#b22222;background-color:#F0F0F0;}a.individualColumnLink:hover{color:red;background-color:#FF0;text-decoration:none;}a.individualColumnLink:link,a.individualColumnLink:active{color:#000;background-color:#F0F0F0;}
.topicsColumnTop,.topicsColumn,.topicsColumnLink{color:#000;line-height:120%;width:175px;font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;}.topicsColumnTop,.topicsColumn{margin-left:2px;margin-right:4px;border-color:#900;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;padding:6px;}.topicsColumnTop{margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:5px;font-size:12px;font-weight:700;text-align:center;background-color:#F0F0F0;}.topicsColumn{margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:5px;min-height:85px;font-size:11px;font-weight:400;text-align:left;background-color:#ffdf90;}.topicsColumnLink{font-size:12px;font-weight:700;text-align:left;text-decoration:none;background-color:#ffdf90;border-style:none;}a.topicsColumnLink:visited{color:#b22222;background-color:#ffdf90;}a.topicsColumnLink:hover{color:red;background-color:#FF0;text-decoration:none;}a.topicsColumnLink:link,a.topicsColumnLink:active{color:#000;background-color:#ffdf90;}
.volumeColumnTop,.volumeColumn,.volumeColumnLink{color:#000;line-height:120%;width:171px;text-align:center;min-height:2em;background:#F8F8F8;border:3px ridge #000;font-weight:400;font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;}.volumeColumnTop,.volumeColumn{margin-left:2px;margin-right:4px;border-color:#000;border-style:ridge;border-width:3px;padding:6px;}.volumeColumnTop{margin-top:0;margin-bottom:5px;font-size:12px;font-weight:700;text-align:center;}.volumeColumn{margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:5px;min-height:85px;font-size:11px;text-align:left;}.volumeColumnLink{font-size:12px;font-weight:700;text-align:left;text-decoration:none;border-style:none;}a.volumeColumnLink:visited{color:#b22222;background-color:#F8F8F8;}a.volumeColumnLink:hover{color:red;background-color:#FF0;text-decoration:none;}a.volumeColumnLink:link,a.volumeColumnLink:active{color:#000;background-color:#F8F8F8;}
a.sprite_atom:visited,a.sprite_rss:visited,a.sprite_yahoo:visited,a.sprite_google:visited,a.sprite_geourl:visited,a.sprite_returntohome,a.sprite_getour,a.sprite_comments,a.sprite_audio:visited,a.sprite_video:visited{color:#FFF;background-color:#41627E;}a.sprite_atom:hover,a.sprite_rss:hover,a.sprite_yahoo:hover,a.sprite_google:hover,a.sprite_geourl:hover,a.sprite_returntohome,a.sprite_getour,a.sprite_comments,a.sprite_itunes:hover,a.sprite_audio:hover,a.sprite_video:hover{color:red;background-color:#FF0;text-decoration:none;}a.sprite_atom,.sprite_xml,a.sprite_rss,a.sprite_yahoo,a.sprite_google,a.sprite_geourl,.sprite_pr0,.sprite_pr1,.sprite_pr2,.sprite_pr3,.sprite_pr4,.sprite_pr5,a.sprite_returntohome,a.sprite_getour,a.sprite_comments,a.sprite_itunes,a.sprite_audio,a.sprite_video{background:url(http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/sprite.png) no-repeat;overflow:hidden;float:none;color:#000;background-color:#41627E;display:block;border-style:none;margin:1px;padding:0;}a.sprite_atom,.sprite_xml,a.sprite_rss{width:36px;height:14px;}a.sprite_atom{background-position:-90px -75px;}.sprite_xml{background-position:-170px -75px;margin-left:70px;}a.sprite_rss{background-position:-130px -75px;}a.sprite_yahoo{width:91px;height:17px;background-position:-290px -75px;}a.sprite_google{width:62px;height:17px;background-position:-510px -75px;margin-left:17px;margin-top:5px;}a.sprite_geourl{width:52px;height:14px;background-position:-580px -75px;margin-left:20px;margin-bottom:5px;}.sprite_pr0,.sprite_pr1,.sprite_pr2,.sprite_pr3,.sprite_pr4,.sprite_pr5{width:110px;height:39px;}.sprite_pr0{background-position:-10px -10px;}.sprite_pr1{background-position:-125px -10px;}.sprite_pr2{background-position:-240px -10px;}.sprite_pr3{background-position:-355px -10px;}.sprite_pr4{background-position:-470px -10px;}.sprite_pr5{background-position:-585px -10px;}a.sprite_returntohome{width:109px;height:53px;background-position:-390px -75px;}a.sprite_comments{width:77px;height:16px;background-position:-10px -75px;}a.sprite_getour{width:76px;height:26px;background-position:-210px -75px;}a.sprite_itunes{background-color:transparent;width:105px;height:23px;background-position:-633px -73px;margin:10px 1px 1px 40px;}a.sprite_atom:link,a.sprite_rss:link,a.sprite_yahoo:link,a.sprite_google:link,a.sprite_geourl:link,a.sprite_returntohome,a.sprite_getour,a.sprite_comments,a.sprite_atom:active,a.sprite_rss:active,a.sprite_yahoo:active,a.sprite_google:active,a.sprite_geourl:active,a.sprite_returntohome,a.sprite_getour,a.sprite_comments{color:#000;background-color:#41627E;}a.sprite_audio,a.sprite_video{width:160px;height:31px;}a.sprite_video{background-position:-10px -91px;}a.sprite_audio{background-position:-10px -121px;}
/*]]>*/
</style>

<!-- privacy policy     -->
<link rel="P3Pv1"         href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/w3c/p3p.xml" />

<!-- ICRA Rating        -->
<link rel="meta"          href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/labels.rdf" type="application/rdf+xml" title="ICRA labels" />

<!-- favicon            -->
<link rel="shortcut icon" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/favicon.ico" type="image/x-icon" />
<link rel="icon"          href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/favicon.ico" type="image/x-icon" />

<!-- Site structure     -->
<link rel="copyright"     href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/copyright.php" />
<link rel="author"        href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/address.php" />
<link rel="index"         href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/displayTopicsBlogs.php?order=alpha&amp;table=topics" />
<link rel="up"            href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/index.php" />
<link rel="start"         href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/index.php" />
<link rel="search"        href="http://search.freefind.com/find.html?id=82328757" />
<link rel="contents"      href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/displayTopicsBlogs.php?order=alpha&amp;table=blogs" />
<link rel="help"          href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/index.php?help=yes" />

<!-- Dublin Core    -->
<link rel="schema.DC"     href="http://purl.org/DC/elements/1.0/" />

<!-- Syndication XML    -->
<link rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml"  title="RSS"     href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/rss.xml"  />
<link rel="alternate" type="application/atom+xml" title="Atom"    href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/atom.xml" />
<link rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml"  title="PicLens" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/photos.rss" id="gallery" />

</head>

<body>

	<div id="top" style="-moz-border-radius: 5px;border-radius: 5px;behavior: url(ie-css3.htc);">

	  <p style="margin:0;padding-left:20px;padding-top:10px;padding-bottom:10px;">
<span class="topHeadline">
PHILADELPHIA REFLECTIONS
</span><br />
<span class="topByline">
Musings of a Philadelphia Physician who has served the community for six decades
</span></p>
	</div> <!-- id="top" -->


	<div id="wrapper">

		<div id="left">

			<!-- FreeFind search form START -->
<form class="ff3" action="http://search.freefind.com/find.html"
	method="get" accept-charset="utf-8"
	id="FreeFindForm">
 <p style="text-align:center;margin:0;padding:0">
  <input type="hidden" name="id" value="82328757" />
  <input type="hidden" name="pageid" value="r" />
  <input type="hidden" name="mode" value="ALL" />
  <input type="hidden" name="n" value="0" />
  <input type="hidden" name="_charset_" value="" />
  <input type="hidden" name="bcd" value="�" />
  <input type="text" class="ff1" style="background-color:#a0a0a0" name="query" id="query" size="10" />
  <input type="submit" class="ff2" value="Search" />
 </p>
</form>
<!-- FreeFind search form END -->

<!-- Newsletter Subscription Link START -->
<p style="text-align:center;margin:5px 0 5px 0;padding:0;font-family: arial, sans-serif;">
  <a href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/newsletter_subscription.htm">Subscribe to our newsletter</a>
</p>
<!-- Newsletter Subscription Link END -->

<!-- View In iTunes Button START -->
<p>
  <a class="sprite_itunes" href="http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/philadelphia-reflections/id412503894#ls=1"></a>
</p>
<!-- View In iTunes Button END   -->
		<hr class="returnBoxHR" style="margin-top:35px;width:90%" />

		<p style="text-align:center;margin:0">
		<button style="vertical-align: bottom" onclick="window.location='http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/print.php?table=topic&amp;table_key=121'">Print</button></p>

		<p style="text-align:center;margin-top:10px;"><a title="Take a tour in Google Earth of the places mentioned here" class="sprite_getour" style="margin-left:60px;" accesskey="97" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/google-earth-topics.php?key=121"></a></p>


<p style="margin-top:10px;" class="topicsColumnTop">Volumes</p>

<p class="volumeColumn">
<a accesskey="98" class="volumeColumnLink" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/reflections.php?content=volumes_php/history_of_philadelphia_and.php">History: Philadelphia and the Quaker Colonies</a>
<br />Philadelphia and the Quaker Colonies</p>


		</div> <!-- id="left" -->


		<div id="right">

<!-- "Return To Home" box at the top right -->
<p class="returnBox" style="-moz-border-radius: 15px;border-radius: 15px;">
   <a href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com" style="color:white;margin-left:30px;">Return to Home</a>
</p>
<!-- "Return To Home" box at the top right -->
<!-- link to comments -->
<p style="margin:0 0 10px 55px;">
  <a href="#COMMENTStop" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;" title="Jump up to the beginning of the comments section">Comments</a>
</p>
<!-- link to comments -->


				 <p class="individualColumnTop">
			 Reflections in this Topic</p>

<p class="individualColumn">
<a accesskey="2" class="individualColumnLink" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1538.htm">George Washington Demands a New Constitution</a>
<br />	<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/George%20Washington%201782.jpg" class="tn-l-w50" alt="" />George Washington was an athlete, a soldier, and an adventurous  leader. It is less appreciated that he constructed an aloof  public image of himself, cloaking an activist politician, and a rather ambitious  real estate developer. We got a new Constitution because he wanted a new constitution.<!-- Place this tag in your head or just before your close body tag -->
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script>

<!-- Place this tag where you want the +1 button to render -->
<g:plusone></g:plusone>
	
	<small> (1538)</small></p>

<p class="individualColumn">
<a accesskey="4" class="individualColumnLink" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1511.htm">Line Dividing East from West Jersey</a>
<br />	<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/diveastandwestnj.jpg" class="tn-l-w50" alt="" />Although England had owned New Jersey for 17 years, it was unsettled until  purchased by  Quakers. By 1684 ownership was totally in the hands of two Proprietorships, or corporations, of Quakers. The boundary separating East from West Jersey was a line of 150 boulders from Beach Haven to Trenton. Every land title in the state is based on this survey.<!-- Place this tag in your head or just before your close body tag -->
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script>

<!-- Place this tag where you want the +1 button to render -->
<g:plusone></g:plusone>
	<small> (1511)</small></p>

<p class="individualColumn">
<a accesskey="6" class="individualColumnLink" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1512.htm">Concessions and Agreements</a>
<br />	<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/Concessions125.jpg" class="tn-l-w50" alt=""/>Most 17th Century colonies were proprietorships, requiring agreements for  local autonomy without losing allegiance to the home country. William Penn cleverly expanded the New Jersey document into the intellectual precursor of the U.S. Constitution..<!-- Place this tag in your head or just before your close body tag -->
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script>

<!-- Place this tag where you want the +1 button to render -->
<g:plusone></g:plusone>
	<small> (1512)</small></p>

<p class="individualColumn">
<a accesskey="8" class="individualColumnLink" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1541.htm">Constitution  I : Turning Colonies into States</a>
<br />	<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/TurningColoniesStates.jpg" alt="" class="tn-l-w50" />To understand the original intent of the Constitution, it helps to see it in three parts. The part Washington and Madison devised in 1787 was mostly about structure, the main goal of which was to lay out certain national functions which the federal government could perform without state interference. That's delicate diplomacy, because the states had to ratify it..<!-- Place this tag in your head or just before your close body tag -->
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script>

<!-- Place this tag where you want the +1 button to render -->
<g:plusone></g:plusone>
	<small> (1541)</small></p>

<p class="individualColumn">
<a accesskey="10" class="individualColumnLink" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1544.htm">Enumerated and Implied Powers</a>
<br />	<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/wethepeople.jpg" class="tn-l-w50"  alt="" />Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution contains the enumerated powers of Congress, and Section 9 contains some prohibitions of Congressional power. Taken together, these "powers" constitute the arguments that a Union is superior to a Confederation. In the aggregate they represent the reasons why we created a Union.<!-- Place this tag in your head or just before your close body tag -->
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script>

<!-- Place this tag where you want the +1 button to render -->
<g:plusone></g:plusone>
	<small> (1544)</small></p>

<p class="individualColumn">
<a accesskey="12" class="individualColumnLink" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1546.htm">Constitution III, Amendments, Afterthoughts and Rights</a>
<br />	<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/james-madison.jpg" class="tn-l-w50" alt="" />The concept of an amendable constitution was first devised by William Penn and utilized in his form of government of Pennsylvania. But  Federalists at the 1787 Constitutional convention  feared amendments would weaken the document's power. The alternative, repeat Conventions in which everything would again be on the table,  ultimately seemed even more destabilizing. Amendments are permitted, but discouraged by difficult methodology..<!-- Place this tag in your head or just before your close body tag -->
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script>

<!-- Place this tag where you want the +1 button to render -->
<g:plusone></g:plusone>
	
	<small> (1546)</small></p>

<p class="individualColumn">
<a accesskey="14" class="individualColumnLink" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1540.htm">American Succession </a>
<br />	<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/george_washington.jpg" class="tn-l-w50" alt="George Washington" />The rules for succession are not spelled out in the American Constitution, but what is implicit was revolutionary. Once again, credit George Washington.<!-- Place this tag in your head or just before your close body tag -->
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script>

<!-- Place this tag where you want the +1 button to render -->
<g:plusone></g:plusone>
	
	<small> (1540)</small></p>

<p class="individualColumn">
<a accesskey="16" class="individualColumnLink" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1345.htm">Unwritten Constitution</a>
<br />	<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/frankroosevelt.jpg" class="tn-l-w50" alt="" />The Twenty-second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution   serves an excellent purpose, even though the  80th Congress which proposed it may have had quite different motives.
	<!-- Place this tag in your head or just before your close body tag -->
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script>

<!-- Place this tag where you want the +1 button to render -->
<g:plusone></g:plusone>
	<small> (1345)</small></p>

<p class="individualColumn">
<a accesskey="18" class="individualColumnLink" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/987.htm">Ow</a>
<br />	<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/owenRoberts%202.jpg" class="tn-l-w50" alt="" />His old law firm devotes a reception room to his name, but not everyone is pleased with either his writing the documents establishing the Barnes Foundation, or his capitulation to Franklin Roosevelt<!-- Place this tag in your head or just before your close body tag -->
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script>

<!-- Place this tag where you want the +1 button to render -->
<g:plusone></g:plusone>
	<small> (987)</small></p>

<p class="individualColumn">
<a accesskey="20" class="individualColumnLink" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1548.htm">Madison in Philadelphia</a>
<br />	<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/JamesMadisonBio.jpg" class="tn-l-w50" alt="" />The founding of America produced patriots, heroes, revolutionaries and other idealists. James Madison was our first modern politician.<!-- Place this tag in your head or just before your close body tag -->
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script>

<!-- Place this tag where you want the +1 button to render -->
<g:plusone></g:plusone>
	
	<small> (1548)</small></p>

<p class="individualColumn">
<a accesskey="22" class="individualColumnLink" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1554.htm">Human Rights</a>
<br />	Human rights were mainly a religious issue to the Founding Fathers, demanding a Bill of Rights to signify God's supremacy over legislatures. When John Marshall transformed the Constitution into  capstone of the legal system, constitutionally affirmed rights became a legal trump card for those who feared or opposed the actions of government. With that difference, it's little different, two hundred years later.<!-- Place this tag in your head or just before your close body tag -->
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script>

<!-- Place this tag where you want the +1 button to render -->
<g:plusone></g:plusone>
	<small> (1554)</small></p>

<p class="individualColumn">
<a accesskey="24" class="individualColumnLink" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1557.htm">Constitutionality of the Monetary System</a>
<br />	<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/constitution1.jpg" class="tn-l-w50" alt="" />The Constitution fails us when no one is certain what to do about an important issue.
	<small> (1557)</small></p>

<p class="individualColumn">
<a accesskey="26" class="individualColumnLink" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1561.htm">Signers and Non-Signers of the Constitution</a>
<br />	<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/Scene_at_the_Signing_of_the_Constitution_of_the_United_States.jpg" class="tn-l-w50" alt="" />Seventy four delegates were selected to attend the Constitutional Convention, but only thirty-nine signed it. Considering that Rhode Island refused to attend, that sounds like a closer vote than it really was. But it was definitely not unanimous.<!-- Place this tag in your head or just before your close body tag -->
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script>

<!-- Place this tag where you want the +1 button to render -->
<g:plusone></g:plusone>
	<small> (1561)</small></p>

<p class="individualColumn">
<a accesskey="28" class="individualColumnLink" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1574.htm">Unwritten Features of the Constitution</a>
<br />	Considerable anger is sometimes directed toward Judges who find unintended provisions in the Constitution. On the other hand, James Madison and some other Founding Fathers were careful to design the Constitution to create outcomes that are far from explicit.
	<!-- Place this tag in your head or just before your close body tag -->
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script>

<!-- Place this tag where you want the +1 button to render -->
<g:plusone></g:plusone>
	<small> (1574)</small></p>

<p class="individualColumn">
<a accesskey="30" class="individualColumnLink" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1577.htm">Constitution IV: The Unforseen </a>
<br />	A major strength of the U.S. Constitution is that it comfortably adjusted to consequences it had not foreseen. Equally important is its ability to encompass developments no one could have foreseen..<!-- Place this tag in your head or just before your close body tag -->
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script>

<!-- Place this tag where you want the +1 button to render -->
<g:plusone></g:plusone>
	
	<small> (1577)</small></p>

<p class="individualColumn">
<a accesskey="32" class="individualColumnLink" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1581.htm">Constitution V: The Unforeseeable</a>
<br />	The sturdiness of the American Constitution emerges from surveying the way it copes with huge changes which could not possibly have been foreseen..<!-- Place this tag in your head or just before your close body tag -->
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script>

<!-- Place this tag where you want the +1 button to render -->
<g:plusone></g:plusone>
	<small> (1581)</small></p>

<p class="individualColumn">
<a accesskey="34" class="individualColumnLink" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1660.htm">Globalization</a>
<br />	<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/dubai%20waterfront.jpg" class="tn-l-w50" alt="" />Peter Alois, now retired from a career as an international  economics envoy for the Department of Commerce, discusses free and fair trade, and other issues related to globalization.<!-- Place this tag in your head or just before your close body tag -->
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script>

<!-- Place this tag where you want the +1 button to render -->
<g:plusone></g:plusone>
	
	<small> (1660)</small></p>

<p class="individualColumn">
<a accesskey="36" class="individualColumnLink" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1668.htm">Revising, Amending, and Skirting The Constitution</a>
<br />	If you don't like what The Constitution says, what can you do about it?
	<!-- Place this tag in your head or just before your close body tag -->
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script>

<!-- Place this tag where you want the +1 button to render -->
<g:plusone></g:plusone>
	<small> (1668)</small></p>

<p class="individualColumn">
<a accesskey="38" class="individualColumnLink" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1689.htm">Subtleties of the Constitution</a>
<br />	It makes a big difference how many congressmen there are, and how many constituents they have.
	<!-- Place this tag in your head or just before your close body tag -->
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script>

<!-- Place this tag where you want the +1 button to render -->
<g:plusone></g:plusone>
	<small> (1689)</small></p>

<p class="individualColumn">
<a accesskey="40" class="individualColumnLink" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1737.htm">George Washington on the Federal Union</a>
<br />	<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/President_George_Washingtonblack.jpg" class="tn-l-w50" alt="" />On September 17, 1796, George Washington declined another term for President, taking this occasion to urge the cause of Federalism.<!-- Place this tag in your head or just before your close body tag -->
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script>

<!-- Place this tag where you want the +1 button to render -->
<g:plusone></g:plusone>
	
	<small> (1737)</small></p>

<p class="individualColumn">
<a accesskey="42" class="individualColumnLink" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1739.htm">Franklin Endorses the Constitution</a>
<br />	<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/huge.82.413542.JPG" class="tn-l-w50" alt="" />Benjamin Franklin never revealed his contributions to the formation of the U.S. Constitution, whether victories or defeats. When the final vote had been taken, he urged unanimous support by the delegates, in the following words.<!-- Place this tag in your head or just before your close body tag -->
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script>

<!-- Place this tag where you want the +1 button to render -->
<g:plusone></g:plusone>
	
	<small> (1739)</small></p>

<p class="individualColumn">
<a accesskey="44" class="individualColumnLink" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1740.htm">States Rights Confront Civil War</a>
<br />	<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/Constitution.jpg" class="tn-l-w50" alt="" />The Constitution took certain defined powers from the states and gave them to the Federal Government. Further steady erosion of states rights began, but the Republican Party gave things a big push during the Civil War.<!-- Place this tag in your head or just before your close body tag -->
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script>

<!-- Place this tag where you want the +1 button to render -->
<g:plusone></g:plusone>
	
	<small> (1740)</small></p>

<p class="individualColumn">
<a accesskey="46" class="individualColumnLink" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1742.htm">George Washington's Cherry Tree, Revisited</a>
<br />	<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/washingtonchopcherry.jpg" class="tn-l-w50" alt="Washington and the Cherry Tree" />Everybody knows the story of Washington chopping the cherry tree is bunk. But debunking drowns out a greater truth.<!-- Place this tag in your head or just before your close body tag -->
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script>

<!-- Place this tag where you want the +1 button to render -->
<g:plusone></g:plusone>
	<small> (1742)</small></p>

<p class="individualColumn">
<a accesskey="48" class="individualColumnLink" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1756.htm">Separation of Church and State</a>
<br />	<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/congresshall2.jpg" class="tn-l-w50" alt="" />Eleven of the original thirteen colonies had,"established" religions. The separation of church and state by the First Amendment was not a statement of fact, but a worrisome departure from the past.  For the Pennsylvania Quakers, disestablishment was the most disheartening event in their history.<!-- Place this tag in your head or just before your close body tag -->
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script>

<!-- Place this tag where you want the +1 button to render -->
<g:plusone></g:plusone>
	
	<small> (1756)</small></p>

<p class="individualColumn">
<a accesskey="50" class="individualColumnLink" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1765.htm">WILLIAM BLATHWAYT'S DRAFT OF THE CHARTER OF PENNSYLVANIA</a>
<br />	William Blathwayt was clerk of the British Board of Trade. His draft of Penn's charter for Pennsylvania was essentially a staff proposal for the King to sign. It conforms to the final charter in all but minor wording [,punctuation, and emphasis marks].
	<!-- Place this tag in your head or just before your close body tag -->
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script>

<!-- Place this tag where you want the +1 button to render -->
<g:plusone></g:plusone>
	<small> (1765)</small></p>

<p class="individualColumn">
<a accesskey="52" class="individualColumnLink" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1801.htm">Unalienable Rights Before 1776</a>
<br />	<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/william_penn.jpg" alt="" class="tn-l-w50" />Lawyers commonly say the Declaration of Independence "informs" the Constitution. But prior  informing was performed by William Penn, the Roman Empire, and Hammurabi.
	<!-- Place this tag in your head or just before your close body tag -->
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script>

<!-- Place this tag where you want the +1 button to render -->
<g:plusone></g:plusone>
	<small> (1801)</small></p>

<p class="individualColumn">
<a accesskey="54" class="individualColumnLink" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1803.htm">Three Revolutions at Once, Maybe Four</a>
<br />	<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/FifeDrum.jpg" class="tn-l-w50" alt="" />Asking the cause of the American Revolutionary War may be a little simplistic; civil wars pop up,  all over the place, all the time. The more important question to ask, is why did this American Revolution have such a dramatic effect on the whole world?
	<!-- Place this tag in your head or just before your close body tag -->
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script>

<!-- Place this tag where you want the +1 button to render -->
<g:plusone></g:plusone>
	<small> (1803)</small></p>

<p class="individualColumn">
<a accesskey="56" class="individualColumnLink" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1817.htm">Original Intent and the Miranda Decision</a>
<br />	<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/Ernesto%20Arturo%20Miranda.jpg" class="tn-l-w50" alt="" />Right before our eyes, we can watch the Miranda decision migrate away from original intent.
	<!-- Place this tag in your head or just before your close body tag -->
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script>

<!-- Place this tag where you want the +1 button to render -->
<g:plusone></g:plusone>
	<small> (1817)</small></p>

<p class="individualColumn">
<a accesskey="58" class="individualColumnLink" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1820.htm">Conflict Within the Bill of Rights</a>
<br />	<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/JamesMadisonBio.jpg" class="tn-l-w50" alt="" />James Madison tried to preserve the Union by allowing states some latitude in enforcing civil rights. Eventually, we got a Civil War, a weakening of state legislatures, massive black migration to northern cities, and the Civil Rights Act. It's all about slavery..<!-- Place this tag in your head or just before your close body tag -->
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script>

<!-- Place this tag where you want the +1 button to render -->
<g:plusone></g:plusone>
	

	<small> (1820)</small></p>

<p class="individualColumn">
<a accesskey="60" class="individualColumnLink" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1838.htm">Restoring the Gold Standard by Levering Judges' Salaries</a>
<br />	Advocates of a gold standard may just have found an effective "gotcha".<!-- Place this tag in your head or just before your close body tag -->
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script>

<!-- Place this tag where you want the +1 button to render -->
<g:plusone></g:plusone>
	
	<small> (1838)</small></p>

<p class="individualColumn">
<a accesskey="62" class="individualColumnLink" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1976.htm">Addressing the Flaws of Republics</a>
<br />	<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/BattlePolitician.jpg" alt="" class="tn-l-w50" />We need some local, not national, think tanks. To understand why, it helps to have been elected to something, yourself.<!-- Place this tag in your head or just before your close body tag -->
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script>

<!-- Place this tag where you want the +1 button to render -->
<g:plusone></g:plusone>
	
	<small> (1976)</small></p>

<p class="individualColumn">
<a accesskey="64" class="individualColumnLink" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1999.htm">Wyoming, Fair Wilkes Barre</a>
<br />	<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/wbmountains.jpg" alt="" class="tn-l-w50" />The city of Wilkes Barre pretty well fills up the Wyoming Valley, transforming a  once famous  agricultural paradise into a crowded suburb.
	<!-- Place this tag in your head or just before your close body tag -->
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script>

<!-- Place this tag where you want the +1 button to render -->
<g:plusone></g:plusone>
	<small> (1999)</small></p>

<p class="individualColumn">
<a accesskey="66" class="individualColumnLink" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/2010.htm">Regulation Precision: Not Entirely Good Idea</a>
<br />	<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/lawbooks2.jpg" class="tn-l-w50" alt="" />As regulations get more detailed, they micromanage the law.
	<!-- Place this tag in your head or just before your close body tag -->
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script>

<!-- Place this tag where you want the +1 button to render -->
<g:plusone></g:plusone>
	<small> (2010)</small></p>

<p class="individualColumn">
<a accesskey="68" class="individualColumnLink" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/2037.htm">Powel House, Huzzah!</a>
<br />	<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/powelldoor.jpg" class="tn-l-w50" alt="Front door of Powel House" />On 3rd Street in Philadelphia's Society Hill, stands the finest surviving Georgian House of what Washington and Madison called the Republican Court. A great many traditions of American high society were formed in the second-floor dining room of this house.<!-- Place this tag in your head or just before your close body tag -->
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script>

<!-- Place this tag where you want the +1 button to render -->
<g:plusone></g:plusone>
	<small> (2037)</small></p>

<p class="individualColumn">
<a accesskey="70" class="individualColumnLink" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/2097.htm">Adrift With The Living Constitution</a>
<br />	<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/JoeSestak%20(2).jpg" alt="Sentor Joe Setak" class="tn-l-w50" />With apologies to any political tricks left unmentioned.<!-- Place this tag in your head or just before your close body tag -->
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script>

<!-- Place this tag where you want the +1 button to render -->
<g:plusone></g:plusone>
	<small> (2097)</small></p>

<p class="individualColumn">
<a accesskey="72" class="individualColumnLink" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/2113.htm">Pennsylvania:  Browbeaten Into Joining a War</a>
<br />	<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/battle-of-lexington-concord-1775.jpg" class="tn-l-w50" alt="" />America declared Independence on July 4, 1776, but  England had decided a year earlier to suppress the rebellion by overwhelming force, and announced it six months later. France was then smuggling in gunpowder and guns. But Pacifist Pennsylvania held out until there was a British naval attack in the Delaware River, in May, 1776, and a huge army had arrived at New Brunswick in June. The British wanted to confront us with a choice of surrender or subjugation. We picked a third choice the British never considered, to resist until they treated us better.
	<!-- Place this tag in your head or just before your close body tag -->
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script>

<!-- Place this tag where you want the +1 button to render -->
<g:plusone></g:plusone>
	<small> (2113)</small></p>

<p class="individualColumn">
<a accesskey="74" class="individualColumnLink" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/2114.htm">Anatomy of an Urban Political Machine</a>
<br />	<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/bigfam.jpg" alt="" class="tn-l-w50" />If Philadelphia is typical, here is how urban machine politics works.<!-- Place this tag in your head or just before your close body tag -->
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script>

<!-- Place this tag where you want the +1 button to render -->
<g:plusone></g:plusone>
	<small> (2114)</small></p>

<p class="individualColumn">
<a accesskey="76" class="individualColumnLink" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/2115.htm">Constitutional Liberty</a>
<br />	<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/youngr_morris.jpg" class="tn-l-w50" alt="" />Robert Morris has been called all manner of names for appearing to support both England and its rebellious colonies at the same time. Some of the criticism was overwrought, and some merely seems legitimate to those who oppose parts of the U.S. Constitution. He was pretty much in the middle of a public riot, a poor time to raise sophisticated points..<!-- Place this tag in your head or just before your close body tag -->
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script>

<!-- Place this tag where you want the +1 button to render -->
<g:plusone></g:plusone>
	<small> (2115)</small></p>

<p class="individualColumn">
<a accesskey="78" class="individualColumnLink" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/2144.htm">Fort Wilson</a>
<br />	<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/wilson2.jpg" alt="Pierre Augustin Beaumarchais" class="tn-l-w50" />History was made at 3rd and Walnut, but so far, is unmarked.<!-- Place this tag in your head or just before your close body tag -->
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script>

<!-- Place this tag where you want the +1 button to render -->
<g:plusone></g:plusone>
	<small> (2144)</small></p>

<p class="individualColumn">
<a accesskey="80" class="individualColumnLink" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/2168.htm">Father of the Bureaucracy</a>
<br />	<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/Robert_morris_3.jpg" alt="" class="tn-l-w50" />Only a few days after being appointed Financier, or acting President of the United States before the Constitution, Robert Morris swept away Congressional committees and replaced them with administrative employees.
	<small> (2168)</small></p>

<p class="individualColumn">
<a accesskey="82" class="individualColumnLink" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/2169.htm">Reconsidering All Our Laws</a>
<br />	<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/commonlaw.jpg" class="tn-l-w50" alt="" />The legislatures of America were handed a clean slate for statutes by the 1787 Constitution, and thus given the opportunity to review the entire legal system. It took nearly a century to accomplish, and is still proceeding.
	<small> (2169)</small></p>

<p class="individualColumn">
<a accesskey="84" class="individualColumnLink" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/2170.htm">Corporations: Property, but also Immortal Persons</a>
<br />	<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/Proprietorshouse.jpg" class="tn-l-w50" alt="" />There had been a few stockholder corporations, dating back to the Dutch East India Corporation and the Proprietors of West Jersey. The Industrial Revolution greatly encouraged this business structure, but America got the jump on the rest of the world by some happenstances.
	<small> (2170)</small></p>

<p class="individualColumn">
<a accesskey="86" class="individualColumnLink" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/689.htm">The Third Pennamite War (1784)</a>
<br />	<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/Wyoming_Massacre_Web.jpg" class="tn-l-w50" alt="wyoming masscre" />Connecticut and Pennsylvania stopped fighting during the Revolution, but then promptly resumed hostilities. The Decision of Trenton gave the prize to Pennsylvania, whose legislature promptly abused the helpless remaining Connecticut settlers.
	<!-- Place this tag in your head or just before your close body tag -->
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script>

<!-- Place this tag where you want the +1 button to render -->
<g:plusone></g:plusone>
	<small> (689)</small></p>

<p class="individualColumn">
<a accesskey="88" class="individualColumnLink" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/2178.htm">Morris Quits His Business</a>
<br />	<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/morris.jpg" alt="" class="tn-l-w50" />Although his personal wealth in modern equivalents approached that of Bill Gates, Robert Morris abruptly quit his business after a debate in the Legislature, just to show he had no personal bias. It ruined him, but John Hancock and George Washington did much the same thing. Ben Franklin behaved the same way, but was shrewder about it.<!-- Place this tag in your head or just before your close body tag -->
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script>

<!-- Place this tag where you want the +1 button to render -->
<g:plusone></g:plusone>
	<small> (2178)</small></p>

<p class="individualColumn">
<a accesskey="90" class="individualColumnLink" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/2187.htm">Tammany: Philadelphia's Gift to New York</a>
<br />	<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/Tammany%20Hall.jpg" alt="" class="tn-l-w50" />All the bad things they say about Tammany Hall are somewhat true.  William Penn, George Washington and Aaron Burr can be happy that Tammany Hall is now mostly a New York tradition, its Philadelphia origins long forgotten.<!-- Place this tag in your head or just before your close body tag -->
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script><!-- Place this tag where you want the +1 button to render -->
	<small> (2187)</small></p>

<p class="individualColumn">
<a accesskey="92" class="individualColumnLink" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/2188.htm">Morris Defends Banks From the Bank-Haters</a>
<br />	<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/Robert_morris_jr.jpg" alt="" class="tn-l-w50" />To understand why lots of people today reflexly hate bankers, it's useful to review the courtroom defense of the man who invented America's first bank, facing ruin if he proved unconvincing.
	<small> (2188)</small></p>

<p class="individualColumn">
<a accesskey="94" class="individualColumnLink" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/2226.htm">Two Friends Create the Articles of Confederation</a>
<br />	<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/article_confederation_lg.jpg" alt="" class="tn-l-w50" />John Dickinson and Robert Morris were good friends who pushed the Articles of Confederation through to ratification. Both of them had been active critics of  Great Britain's treatment of the colonies, but both hesitated to sign the Declaration of Independence, and both  later relented and fought for Independence. Dickinson's final position is less clear, but it was Morris who first saw the weakness of the Articles, and pressed on for their replacement by the Constitution.
	<small> (2226)</small></p>

<p class="individualColumn">
<a accesskey="96" class="individualColumnLink" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/2231.htm">What Is the Purpose of a National Constitution?</a>
<br />	<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/The%20Constitutional%20Convention2.jpg" alt="" class="tn-l-w50" />It could be said the framers of any constitution seek  to return future generations to the reasons for founding the nation.
	<small> (2231)</small></p>



		</div> <!-- id="right" -->

		<div id="center"  style="-moz-border-radius: 8px;border-radius: 8px;behavior: url(ie-css3.htc);">

			<div id="content">

			  <p style="text-align:left;color: red;text-transform: uppercase; font-size: 14pt;font-weight:bold">Shaping the Constitution in Philadelphia</p>

<p style="margin:0 auto; margin-bottom:15px;font-size:120%; padding:20px; border-style:solid; border-width:1px">After Independence, the weakness of the Federal government dismayed a band of ardent patriots, so under Washington's leadership a stronger Constitution was written. Almost immediately, comrades discovered they had wanted the same thing for different reasons, so during the formative period they struggled  to reshape future directions . Moving the Capitol from Philadelphia to the Potomac proved curiously central to all this.<!-- Place this tag in your head or just before your close body tag -->
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script>

<!-- Place this tag where you want the +1 button to render -->
<g:plusone></g:plusone></p><p>Two centuries after the narrow ratification of our Constitution, it is finally possible to see its most impressive achievement. Thirteen sovereign states voluntarily gave up their sovereignty peacefully, in order to form a more perfect union. They did it by a narrow margin and only with George Washington's vigorous leadership. We fought a bloody civil war eighty years later to make clear it was permanent. But we did that, and it endures. Meanwhile, many other statelets have tried  to unite and failed. Only the conquering sword achieved unification elsewhere, and most such unifications have since dissolved. No wonder we express such tenacious reluctance to tamper with it. Many of the words of the Constitution are relics, designed to address ancient situations. Much of the language is quaint, hence ambiguous. Much of the original intent is obscure, some of it perhaps reprehensible. But it has endured when every other such attempt has failed; our country has prospered while others have stumbled. Leave it alone. Don't touch it. We don't entirely understand why the Constitution works, so some of it may be accidental. All the more reason to leave it alone.

It is the thesis of this set of articles that many of the founding fathers wanted a stronger central government for conflicting reasons, and struggled to make the wording of the document consistent with their view of what it should mean. As soon as it was implemented under George Washington, the man who had mainly made it happen, the comrades of the <i>Federalist Papers</i> and ratification battles came to realize they had often wanted  quite different outcomes to emerge with time. </p><p>

During the ten years 1790-1800 when the capitol was in Philadelphia, the constitutional battle continued, taking the form of struggles to set precedents, extend inconvenient limitations, and thwart unwelcome initiatives of adversaries. In this way, the Philadelphia-based  national government intentionally tried to insert meanings into the ambiguous phrases of the Constitutional document. They defined the document's original intent with the unassailable fact  that most of the leaders of the new government and congress had been members of the Constitutional Convention, recently held in the same building.</p><p>

In a curious way, bartering the southern re-location  of the capitol in return for tolerating northern aspiration to join the Industrial Revolution was indeed a bitter  betrayal of Philadelphia's pride, but has proved to enshrine that whole ten-year Philadelphia period as temporary capitol  into a dramatization  of original intent. Constitutional historians may argue that certain phrases trace back to the Magna Charta, or the English Civil War, or the machinations of the first King James. Ho hum. What the original intent of the founders truly was can be seen in what they immediately did with it, in Philadelphia.</p>

<div style=""> <!-- start of topic blogs -->



<h3><a accesskey="1" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1538.htm">George Washington Demands a New Constitution</a>   </h3>
	<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/parsonweems.jpg"  width="200" height="150"  alt="{Parson Weems}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Parson Weems

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p class="firstDrop"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington">GEORGE Washington</a> was a far more complex person than most people suppose, and  he wanted it that way. He was born to be a tall imposing athlete, eventually a bold and dashing soldier. On top of that framework, he carefully constructed a public image of himself as aloof, selfless, inflexibly committed to keeping his word. <a href="http://www.parsonweems.com/">Parson Weems</a> may have overdone the image a little, but Washington gave Weems a lot to work with and undoubtedly would have enjoyed the stories of the cherry tree and tossing the coin across an impossibly wide Potomac. Washington had a bad temper, and could remember a grievance for life. He married up, to the richest woman in Virginia.</p>

<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/Potomac%20River%20Small.JPG"  width="250" height="200"  alt="{Potomac River}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Potomac River

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>Growing up along the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potomac_River">wide Potomac River</a>, Washington early conceived a life-long ambition to convert the <a href="http://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/River_detail_id_4534_">Potomac into America's main highway to the Mississippi</a>. He did indeed live to watch the nation's capital start to move to the Potomac swamps across from his <a href="http://www.mountvernon.org/virtual/index.cfm/ss/29/">Mount Vernon mansion,</a> into a city named for him. After he retired from military command with great fanfare and farewells after the Revolution, he returned to private life on this Virginia farm. During the years after the Revolution and before the new Constitution, his attention quickly returned to building canals along the Potomac, deepening it for transportation, and connecting its headwaters over a portage in Pennsylvania to the headwaters of the Monongahela River,  hence the Ohio, then the Mississippi, or up the Allegheny to the Great Lakes. He personally owned 40,000 acres along this path to the center of North America. The opportunity for a national constitutional convention grew out of a meeting with Maryland to reach an agreement about this Potomac vision, which was being blocked by commercial interests in Baltimore. Ultimately, Baltimore won the commercial race. It was the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad which captured the commerce to the west. He made deals, ultimately for Baltimore benefit, with the James River interests, to give them their share of the development of  Chesapeake Bay trade. As a young man, he had acted as a surveyor for most of this region, and as a young soldier, he had explored the Indian trade to Pittsburgh, actually started the French and Indian War along this trail, later marching it again with Braddock. And all the while, Washington dreamed of the day. There were competitors; Philadelphia and New York had similar aspirations for their own rivers.</p>

<p>Washington at age 54 was already richer than most people need to be; a lot of this Potomac dream was  residual of boyhood ambitions enduring into middle age. In a sense, he had an ambition to make his boyhood home the future center of the universe. Although much of his stock in these real estate enterprises did not result in much wealth, he demonstrated his mixture of public spirit combined with ambition by donating the stock in one of the companies to a future national university, which was to be located across the river near Georgetown. Since that didn't work out, he later placed the nation's capital there. His had always been a somewhat bolder dream than merely to be Cincinnatus, citizen soldier returned home to his farm from the wars.</p>

<p>Washington did more or less gave up this Potomac ambition, but for a loftier one. During the Revolution, he suffered the deepest and most infuriating abuse of himself and his soldiers from the state legislatures, whom he grew to hate, as well as the Continental Congress representing state governments in a weak and nearly useless organization that would not feed and pay its own troops. He was a mean man to cross, but somewhere in his complex character Washington possessed the firmest and most sincere belief in the proper subservience of the military to civilian control. These conflicting feelings led to the most earnest and courteous obedience to a group of politicians he surely loathed. This could not have been hypocrisy; he respected their rank even though he suffered from their behavior.  When Congress paid the troops in worthless currency they promised to redeem after the war, it became clear that either their lack of moral fiber or their system of governance led the states and the congress in the direction of dishonoring their debt to the soldiers. This was a dreadful system, which led to death and suffering among the loyal troops, forcing the General into the humiliating position of promising the troops  Congress would stand by them, when he privately doubted any chance of it. Washington did not forgive or forget. This was a paltry result to achieve after eight years of war and suffering; this dishonorable system just had to be improved.</p>

<p>To achieve the change he desired, he went about it in a way which most people would not. He chose a young ambitious agent, James Madison, who had caught his attention in the Virginia legislature, in the Continental Congress, and in the negotiations with Maryland over the development of the Potomac. Washington schemed with Madison for weeks on end about ways and means, opportunities, dangers and potential enemies. A great many people, Patrick Henry in particular, wanted the central government to be as weak and ineffective as possible.  John Jay in New York, by contrast, had argued so fervently for revisions of the Constitution that he deserves some mention for originating the idea. Madison was supposed to win over the Virginia legislature, make alliances with other states in congress, identify friends and enemies, make deals. Meanwhile, Washington felt it was useful to remain above and aloof, publicly wavering whether this was all a good idea. There was to be a Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, but while Washington was invited, he let it be known he was uncertain whether he really should accept the invitation. What he really meant was he would preserve his political credibility for a different approach if this one failed to work out. Meanwhile, young Madison on several occasions came to Mount Vernon for three days at a time to talk strategy and give the General all the scoop.</p>

<p>Madison was a brilliant politician, a dissembler in a different way. To begin with, he was a scholar. Both as an undergraduate at Princeton and a graduate student working directly with the great Witherspoon himself, Madison was deeply learned in the history of classical republics. But he was also innately skilled in the manipulative arts of politics. When votes were needed, he had a way of persuading three or four other members to vote for a measure, while Madison himself would then vote against it to preserve influence with opponents for later skirmishes. In fact, as matters later turned out, it becomes a little uncertain just how convinced Madison really was that Washington's powerful central government was a totally good idea. Twenty years younger than the General. he prospered in the image of being personally close to the titan, and he certainly enjoyed the game of politics. The new Constitution was going to be an improvement over the Articles of Confederation,  but Madison did not burn with any indignation about injustice to the troops, or any disdain for nasty little politicians in the state legislatures. The new Constitution was a project where he could advance his career, skillfully demonstrating his prowess at negotiation and manipulation. This is not to say he did not believe in his project, but rather to suspect that he was a blank slate on which he allowed Washington to write, and later allowed others to over-write.  He was eventually to modify his opinions as a result of new associations and partners, and since he followed Jefferson as President, it became personally useful to modify his viewpoint. What would never change was that he was an artful politician, while Washington by contrast hated, absolutely hated, partisan politics.</p>

<p>This division is not just a difference between two Virginia plantation owners, but an enduring thread running through all elective politics. Washington set the style for generations of citizen leaders in America. In essence, a person of honor distinguishes himself in some way before he enters public office, and on the basis of that reputation plus the radiation of an honorable image, presents himself to voters for public office,  is therefore elected to represent their interests. He is expected to compromise where compromise is honorable and publicly acknowledged, in order to achieve one desirable outcome in concert with other outcomes, in some ways inconsistent but still honorable in combination. He reliably will not vote for either issues or candidates in return for some personal consideration other than the worth of the issue or the candidate, with the possible exception of yielding to the clear preferences of his local district.   Such a person is not a member of a political organization very long before he encounters another group of colleagues -- who regularly swap votes for personal advantage, or follow a party line, or join a group who agree to vote as a unit no matter what the merits, and acknowledge the frequent necessity to talk one way and secretly vote another. The first sort of politician is usually an amateur, the second type is typically a professional politician. Although it seems a violation of ethics and common public welfare, the fact is the professional vote-swapper will almost always beat the sappy amateur.  The response during the Eighteenth Century was for idealists to condemn and attempt to abolish partisanship and political parties. The American Constitution does not  make provision for political parties and other forms of vote-swapping or even anticipate their emergence. Although Madison started the process, Jefferson organized it and every politician except Adlai Stevenson has openly participated in a version of it.  That the Constitution has not been amended to provide for parties seems to reflect a persisting nostalgic hope that somehow we can return to Washington's stance.</p>

<p>Washington's conception of representative politics was not entirely perfect, either. In order to maintain an image of impartiality, Washington and his imitators isolate themselves in a cloak, holding back their true opinions in a sphinx-like way that hampers negotiation. Unwillingness to be seen swapping votes can lead to unwillingness to compromise, and in the final analysis the difference is one of degree. However,  the over-riding issue is that each representative or Senator is equal to every other one. When vote-swapping gets started, it leads to placing power over supposed equals  in the hands of  more powerful manipulators, masquerading as political leaders. Ultimately, it leads to the adoption of house rules on the very first day of a session which force lesser members to surrender their votes to a speaker or minority leader or committee chairman, when the theory is that there is no such thing as a lesser member.  The final reality is that most legislatures must now deal with ten or twenty thousand bills per session, leading to the necessity of appointing someone to set priorities, which in turn leads to the power of party leaders over their grudging  servants. These various subversions of the equal rights of elected representatives can lead to such discrediting of the system that honorable people may refuse to stand for office, leaving no one but professional foxes in charge of the hen house. Benjamin Franklin, who was to play an invisibly controlling role in the impending Constitutional Convention, had his own way of coping with the political environment. "Never ask, never refuse, and never resign."</p>
	

<p><a rel="bookmark" title="George Washington Demands a New Constitution" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1538.htm">http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1538.htm</a></p>
<hr />


<h3><a accesskey="3" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1511.htm">Line Dividing East from West Jersey</a>   </h3>
	<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/kcharlesii.jpg"  width="150" height="250"  alt="{King Charles II}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

King Charles II

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p class="firstDrop">Because we  focus  here on  title to land in real estate transactions, a three-paragraph historical synopsis is necessary.  If you've wondered why you need to buy title insurance when you buy a house, read on.</p>

<p>Four years after his restoration to the throne in 1660, King Charles II got his brother the Duke of York to conquer New Netherlands  by first granting him the land. New Netherlands extended from the Connecticut River to the Delaware River. He added that it was up to  the brother to conquer it from the Dutch, who had been in disputed possession since 1614. By much the same pass-the-buck process, the Duke of York then conditionally subdivided that part of it which is now called New Jersey, jointly to Sir George Carteret and John, Lord Berkeley -- who promptly delegated the actual fighting to one Colonel Nicholls. The Jersey name derives from an  island in the British Channel, where Carteret had once provided haven from Cromwell for the exiled Charles and James. Nicholls defeated the Dutch on February 10, 1665, although later Dutch attempts at reconquest caused royal clouding of the Berkeley/Carteret  titles, with the ultimate result that Berkeley sold his share to a Quaker Edmund Byllinge, and Carteret lost his right to govern but not his right to own, his half of the land.</p>

<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/Sir%20%20William%20Penn.jpg"  width="150" height="200"  alt="{William Penn}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

William Penn

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>At this point William Penn entered the picture as one of three Quaker trustees for Byllinge, who had gambling debts. A tenth of this share was given to John Fenwick, the 1675 settler of Salem, to settle his part of the disputes with Byllinge; the rest of it constituted what was to become the oldest American stockholder corporation, <i>The Proprietors of West Jersey</i>. The arrangement up to this point was firmly settled for the southern half of New Jersey by a <i>Quintipartite Deed of July 12, 1676</i>, signed by the three Quaker trustees plus Byllinge and Fenwick. Aside from establishing the Proprietorship, the main point of this deed was the separation of West Jersey from  East Jersey (the Carteret part) by a North-South line which still persists as the upper border of Burlington County. The right to govern this land was fully restored in 1680 by a <i>Confirmatory Grant</i> from James, probably after considerable lobbying in London by William Penn.</p>

<p>Presumably in pursuit of this final confirmation, Penn had negotiated a hundred-page agreement with prospective settlers which outlined his plans for governing, called the <i>Concessions and Agreements of March 14, 1677</i>. Although its original purpose was mainly a real estate marketing tool, this landmark document seems not only to have persuaded the Duke of York, but so shaped the thinking of the English colonies that many of its features are readily recognized in the American Constitution of 1787.</p>

<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/Line%20DividingEastWestJersey.jpg"  width="200" height="180"  alt="{ West and East New Jersey}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Line dividing West and East NJ

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>The land mass between the North and South Rivers (Hudson and Delaware) only came completely and legally into the hands of Quakers in 1681. At that time Carteret&#39;s widow, Lady Elizabeth, sold the  northern half (East Jersey) to twelve Quaker proprietors, while the southern half (West Jersey) was already held by thirty-two other Quaker proprietors under the effective leadership of William Penn. It is somewhat uncertain who orchestrated this final consolidation, but there is a strong presumption that it was Penn.  Since the main purpose of these business proprietorships was to sell land to immigrants, it was vital to minimize land disputes with accurate records and accurate surveying. With a history behind them of fifteen years of bickering, everybody concerned was surely ready for some peaceful organization. Both groups of proprietors, East and West,  found it useful to delegate authority to a council of nine executive proprietors, whose main agent under the circumstances was logically  the<b> Surveyor General</b>. For the next three hundred years, the surveyor generals were the men running things in New Jersey. The right of the Proprietors to govern was revoked by Queen Anne in 1702, but their land rights remain undisturbed to the present day, notwithstanding the intervening transfer of national power to the United States of America in 1776-83. Underneath all of this hustling and arranging, with exquisite attention to details, seems to be found the hand of William Penn. Almost immediately after New Jersey was packaged and delivered, King Charles paid off his family debt by turning over the far larger combined land mass of Pennsylvania and Delaware to William Penn, urging him to make himself a vassal king in the process. The Quaker instantly declined such a thing, but the power continues to reside in the final Royal Charter. It's only a conjecture, but it might help explain the strange acquaintance between a dissolute king and an abstemious Quaker to notice that the New Jersey <i>tour de force</i> astoundingly demonstrates how Penn was a man who really could be trusted to get complicated things done with dispatch.</p>

<p>Today, for practical purposes it all  amounts to a company named Taylor, Wiseman and Taylor; but we are getting a little ahead of ourselves. To go back to 1684  a surveyed line was clearly needed  between the two proprietorships, as declared by the following resolution:</p>

<p><i><b>"Award we do hereby declare, that [the line] shall runn from ye north side of ye mouth or Inlet of ye beach of little Egg Harbor north north west and fifty minutes more westerly according to naturall position and not according to ye magnet whose variation is nine degrees westward."</b></i></p>

<p>To clarify those quaint words, the survey was not to make the mistake made in the layout of Philadelphia, whose streets had intended to be true north and south but by using Magnetic North are actually twelve degrees off from that.  Another important point is probably unclear to modern readers, who know the town of Egg Harbor on the mainland of Barnegat Bay, but are largely unaware  that the "beach of Egg Harbor" was what we now call Long Beach Island, on the east side of Barnegat Bay. The southern anchor of The Line was in what we now call Beach Haven, on the north side of the inlet, although beach erosion has put the southern anchor about two miles out to sea, locating a temporary marker in Beach Haven.  Hardly anyone seems to be aware of it, but reread the sentence and observe the meaning is actually quite clear. The intent of the northern end of The Line  (? the Delaware Water Gap ?) is buried in the obscurity of compass markings,  but comes out slightly above Trenton on the Delaware River, extending beyond the river into Pennsylvania until it reached the river again in a crook on the far side of the Delaware Water Gap. Word of mouth has it that William Penn wanted to have both sides of the river although this triangle of Pennsylvania was eventually surrendered. It seems fair to say,  the line was roughly intended to run from the Beach Haven ocean inlet to the Delaware Water Gap.</p>

<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/1stLordBerkeley.jpg"  width="120" height="200"  alt="{Lord Berkeley}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

John, Lord Berkeley

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>For its time, the survey of The Line was also a significant engineering achievement. The general plan was to lay out the course of the line in the wilderness until it hit a big boulder, or anything else that was large and heavy. This became a marker along a line of 150 markers which could be used for local surveys and boundaries. After several less accurate attempts, the West/East line was surveyed by John Lawrence in 1743 and stands as the <b>Official Province Division Line</b>. A few years ago, a group of volunteers tried to locate all of the original markers and found 55 of them. The historical project took ten years.</p>

<p>All of the deeds of property in the State of New Jersey still depend on the original survey and the meticulous notes  kept by the Surveyors General of these two Quaker organizations, without whose private records every title to every property would be clouded. With the passage of time, and especially the warfare of the Revolution, other copies of the surveys have disappeared. So, without the need to get ugly about it, these soft-spoken courteous folks retain a form of power it would be hard to match with sticks and stones, guns, threats or legalisms -- the only surviving record of everyone's title to his land. There is little reason to inquire further why these Proprietorships durably survived the revolution which overthrew King George III,  and why no one has seen fit to enter serious challenge to their claim of owning the whole state except for what they had already specifically sold.</p>

<p>Let&#39;s go back to a point made earlier. In all the complexities of the English Royal Court and uncertainties of an uncharted wilderness, how did a little band of  Quakers find themselves with uncontested ownership of a whole American colony? Some of the chaos of the age probably helped. King Charles unleashed his brother&#39;s armies in 1664. Also in 1664, Parliament passed the <i>Second Conventicle Act</i>, which provided that not more than five persons were permitted to worship together otherwise than according to the established ritual of the Anglican Church of England. This act might be described as an improvement on the <i>First Conventicle Act of Queen Elizabeth</i>, which provided that no one at all could so worship. However, this prohibition was so extreme it was ignored, whereas the Second Conventicle probably had some popular support. It  thus can be imagined why Quakers were suddenly interested in leaving England, and not hard to understand how young William Penn was propelled into leadership by successfully <i>overturning that Act in the Haymarket Case</i>. Penn was both the defendant in the case and the defense lawyer, inventing the common law principle of <b>jury nullification</b> that has so confounded tyranny ever since. To go on with events current at the time, the Great Plague  took place in 1665, making London an undesirable place for anybody to live. And finally, George Fox, the founder of Quakerism, took a journey to the new world in 1672, noting that the place now called Burlington, New Jersey was "a most brave country".  Taken altogether, it is not hard to suspect this group of fairly wealthy, fairly well educated people developed a collective resolve to buy up the pieces, assemble the parcel, and go away to live on it. Their organization into monthly local meetings, quarterly regional meetings, and annual national meetings was surely a great assistance. From what we know of the broader vision of William Penn, it is fair to speculate his enthusiasm for this communications network first suggested by George Fox, or at least his having a pretty quick recognition how it would assist the emigration venture.</p>

<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/SirGeorgeCarteret.jpg"  width="100" height="179"  alt="{George Carteret}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

George Carteret

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>George Carteret&#39;s widow was the last to sell out her land parcel to the East Jersey Proprietors, presumably drawn from the 1400 immigrants who had arrived in Burlington on five or six ships between 1678 and 1681. In particular, the ship <i>Kent</i> sailed from the Thames in 1677, bearing 230 Quakers, half from Yorkshire, the other half from London settling further south in West Jersey. Before that, Lord Berkeley had sold his half for a thousand pounds  to John Fenwick and Edward Billynge, who arrived in Salem on the ship <i>Griffin</i> in 1674. These two soon fell out, with Fenwick taking a tenth of the land and settling around Salem. Billynge got into unspecified difficulties, probably gambling, and  turned his property over to his three main creditors, William Penn, Gawen Lawrie, and Nicholas Lucas, who assembled the Proprietorship of West Jersey. Penn&#39;s remarkable talent for leadership again emerged in his statement of "Concessions and Agreements" with the Indians and new inhabitants. In another place, we discuss the reasons for thinking this document created the effective basis of the U.S. Constitution.  By infusing it with the unspoken word of compromise, Penn created the main model explaining why the ratification of the Constitution remains the only time in history when thirteen independent nations voluntarily gave up sovereignty for the purpose of creating a larger vision -- which then held together for two centuries. But the voluntary union of East and West Jersey certainly has a claim to being earlier, although its claim to sovereignty is weaker.</p>

<p>Perhaps so, but since their interest in  power was weaker, their achievement in peaceful negotiation with a secretly Catholic King was surely much greater. If some small group of religious dissidents should today emerge as having quietly and systematically bought up an entire state, however legally, the word conspiracy would be on every tongue. In this case, however, the reaction was peaceful consensus.</p>
	

<p><a rel="bookmark" title="Line Dividing East from West Jersey" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1511.htm">http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1511.htm</a></p>
<hr />


<h3><a accesskey="5" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1512.htm">Concessions and Agreements</a>   </h3>
	<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/Concessions125.jpg"  width="194" height="273"  alt="{Concessions and Agreements}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Concessions and Agreements

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p class="firstDrop">The United States Constitution is a unique achievement, but it had precursors with  influence on the thinking of the Founding Fathers. In the days of difficult ocean travel, almost all colonies were bound by some sort of agreement about how they were to maintain loyalty to their European owners in spite of receiving some latitude to govern themselves. Charters and documents defining these roles were generally written by the owners, and the colonists could take them or leave them, that's the way it was going to be. In the case of New Jersey in 1664, however, a very formidable lawyer and friend of the King named William Penn was agreeing to his own conditions of sale, taking care that the grant of governing authority he received was favorable. Penn's relationship to the King was unusually good to say the least; he had to be more wary of nit-pickers in the King's administration, trying to anticipate every conceivable disappointment of some successor King.</p>

<p>For his part, Penn wanted to be able to make colonial land attractive  to resell to religious groups who had experienced harsh recent government oppression; he wanted no obstacles to his announcing there would be none of that in New Jersey. Although he hastily rejected any such title, he had been offered the role of sub-king, and needed to repeat the formalities of the Charter to define his role and reassure his settlers. Furthermore, he was dealing with the heirs of Carteret and Berkeley, active participants in North and South Carolina. So Penn's method of achieving basic rights was influenced by prior thinking in the Carolinas, where the thinking of John Locke secondarily influenced matters in Delaware and Pennsylvania. These ideas were incorporated in a New Jersey document called <a href="http://www.njstatelib.org/Research_Guides/Historical_Documents/nj/NJDOC7.html">"Concessions and Agreements."</a> The concepts were not wholly the ideas of William Penn, but he did write it, and it does contain many ideas that were uniquely his. Understandings about limits were set down, argued about, and agreed to. The owner risked money, the colonist risked his life. Neither would agree unless a reasonable bargain was struck in advance of any dispute. Furthermore, the main value of a colony was beginning to shift from trading rights to real estate rights.  Carteret and Berkeley had not only been principals in both the Carolinas and the Jerseys, but had been involved in a number of such investments in Africa and the West Indies; New Jersey was just another business deal. It was conventional for documents of this type to define the method of selection of a governor, the establishment of an assembly of colonists, and some sort of council to attend to day to day affairs. In that era, few colonists would cross the ocean without a guarantee of religious freedom, at least for their own brand of religion. Standard clauses which may sound strange in today&#39;s real estate world, were then necessary because it was a transfer of not merely land, but also the terms of government. In the case of the Quaker colonies, many of these stipulations were included in the earlier charter from the King. It seems very likely that Penn hovered around and negotiated these points which he wished to have the King agree to; and then once the land was safely his, Penn repeated and expanded these stipulations with the colonists in the his <i>Concessions and Agreements </i>.</p>

<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/Proprietors125.jpg"  width="300" height="271"  alt="{Proprietors House}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Proprietors House

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>Quakers had suffered persecution and imprisonment, and knew exactly what they feared; on the other side, it seems likely Carteret and Berkeley were less interested. So this real estate transfer document conceded almost anything the colonists wanted and the King would stand for, couched in conciliatory phrases. For example,  no settler was to be molested for his conscience, and liberty was to be for all time, and for all men and Christians. Elections, by the way, must be annual, and by secret ballot. While law and order must prevail, nevertheless no man is to be imprisoned or molested except by the agreement of twelve men of the neighborhood. On the matter of slavery, no man was to be brought to the colony in bondage, save by his own consent (that is, indentured servants were to be permitted). And in what proved to be a final irony for William Penn, there was to be no imprisonment for debt. Almost all of these innovative ideas survived into the U.S. Constitution a century later, but the most innovative idea of all was to set them all down in a freely-made agreement in writing. This was not merely how a government was organized, it defined the set of conditions under which both sides agreed it would operate.</p>

<p>It was of course, more than that. It was a set of reassurances to settlers who had been in New Jersey before the English arrived that they also would be treated as equals. It was a real estate advertisement to the fearful religious dissenters back in England that it was safe to live here. And it was a reminder to future Kings and Parliaments that this is what they had been promised.</p>

<p>The pity and a warning, is that the larger vision of a whole continent governed fairly by common consent may have been too grandiose for a little band of New Jersey Quakers, surrounded as they were by an uncomprehending world. All utopias are helpless when stronger neighbors reject the basic premise. It was the expansion of the pacifist concept to the much larger neighboring  territory of Pennsylvania that proved to be just too much for such a small group of friends to manage by consensus, particularly when unbelieving immigrants began to outnumber them. But the essential parts of 
it certainly remained in the minds of delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1787.</p>
	

<p><a rel="bookmark" title="Concessions and Agreements" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1512.htm">http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1512.htm</a></p>
<hr />


<h3><a accesskey="7" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1541.htm">Constitution  I : Turning Colonies into States</a>   </h3>
	<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/TurningColoniesStates.jpg"  width="250" height="210"  alt="{Turning Colonies into States}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Turning Colonies into States

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p class="firstDrop">The prevailing notion of the Constitutional Convention once depicted James Madison, seized with merging the former colonies into a nation, selling that concept to George Washington. The General, by this account, was known to be humiliated by the way the Continental Congress  mistreated his troops with worthless pay. But recent scholarship emphasizes that many other patriots were disappointed with the government they had sacrificed to create. Madison had led protests within Congress itself. A generation younger than the General and not at all charismatic, Madison's political effectiveness  first came before  Washington's attention as a skillful leader of committees and legislatures.  Washington was particularly upset by Shay's Rebellion in western Massachusetts, which actually threatened to topple the Massachusetts government, but Shay's frontier disorder was merely an extreme example of more general restlessness. There was a long background of repeated Indian rebellions in the southern region between Tennessee and Florida, coupled with uneasiness about what France and England were still planning to do to each other in  North America.  It  looked to Washington as though the Articles of Confederation had left the new nation unable to maintain order along thousands of miles of western frontier. The British clearly seemed reluctant to give up their frontier forts as agreed by the Treaty of Paris, and very likely the British  were both arming the Indians and agitating them. The innately rebellious Scotch-Irish, the main settlers of the frontier, were threatening to set up their own government if the American one was too feeble to defend them. The Indians for their part were coming to recognize that the former colonies were too weak to keep their promises. With our Army scattered and nursing its own grievances, the sacrifices of eight years of war looked to be in peril. Even Washington's loyal friends were getting out of hand. Not too much earlier, Alexander Hamilton and Robert Morris had cooked up the Newburgh cabal in the hope of provoking a military coup -- and a monarchy. It alarmed Washington that republican government itself was being discredited, leaving only a choice between a King and anarchy. Particularly when he reviewed the shabby behavior seemingly characteristic of state legislatures, something had to be done. Washington decided to set this right, using Madison as his right-hand man. Madison had been to college and could fill in some of the details; Washington only knew he wanted stable government and he did not, he did not, want a king.</p>

<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/articlesconf.jpg"  width="200" height="300"  alt="{Articles of Confederation}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Articles of Confederation

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>Madison was young, vigorous and effective; he had the right  perception about the Articles of Confederation as the source of the difficulty; and he was a reasonably close neighbor. After some protracted conversations at Mount Vernon, a plan was devised and put into action. Washington knew he wanted a stronger central government, strong enough to brush aside the quarreling state legislatures and stabilize the new nation, but not so strong as a monarchy or a military dictatorship. There were obviously many other things to be expected from a good central government, but it was not initially useful to pick quarrels about minor things. Madison had read a lot of books, knew about details. These two friendly schemers eventually convinced the country to go along. As things turned out, after a few years several of the issues  set aside for later  would indeed become seriously troublesome and eventually destroy the friendship between Washington and Madison. Worse still, in seventy years some even deeper issues would provoke a civil war. Even for a century after that, trouble continued to erupt, requiring periodic reconsideration of what powers needed to belong to the states, and what needed to migrate to the federal government.</p>

<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/continental-congress.jpg"  width="300" height="200"  alt="{Constitutional Convention}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Constitutional Convention

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>For immediate purposes, the central problem for the Virginia collaborators was to persuade thirteen state legislatures to give up power for the common good. For this, it would be useful to follow the strategy of convening a Constitutional Convention of newly-selected but eminent delegates, rather than to follow the route of amending the Articles. The amendment approach would directly involve the legislatures in all the preliminary debates and compromises, thus likely failing to surrender enough state power to make a strong nation. The chosen approach was to assemble eminent leaders without political ambitions which would make them unwilling to consent to the loss of local power. Eventual ratification of the final result by the legislatures was unavoidable, but to seek their consent at the end of the process was far preferable. The divided and quarrelsome states would be positioned at a disadvantage in resisting a finished document which had already anticipated and negotiated the main objections, and was the handiwork of a blue-ribbon convention of prominent citizens and heroes. In modern parlance, that is known as framing the debate. In fact, although he had mainly initiated the movement, Washington refused to participate or endorse it publicly until he was confident the convention would be composed of the most prominent men of the nation. This venture had to be successful, or else he would save his prestige for something with more promise. Seeing to it that this was going to work was a task for Madison and Hamilton.</p>

<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/Dickinson-John.jpg"  width="175" height="220"  alt="{John Dickinson}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

John Dickinson

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>While many details were better left hazy, the broad outline of a new proposal had to appeal to almost everyone. Since the new Constitution was intended to shift power from the states to the national government, it was vital for voting power in the national legislature to reflect population districts of equal size, selected directly by popular elections. No appointments by state legislatures, please. However in the convention, it became evident that small states would fear being controlled by large ones through almost any arrangement, but on the other hand small states were particularly anxious to be defended by a strong national army and navy. England, France and Spain were stated to be the main fear, but small states feared big ones, too. Since the Constitutional convention itself voted as states, small states were already in the strongest voting position they could ever expect, and the Federalists at the convention needed their votes. Eventually, agreement was found for the bicameral compromise suggested by John Dickinson of Delaware, which consisted of a Senate selected and voting as states, and a House of Representatives elected in proportion to population, with all bills requiring the concurrence of both houses. From the perspective of two centuries later, we can retrospectively see that accidentally allowing state legislatures to redraw congressional districts gives them the power to "Gerrymander" election outcomes, and hence restores to the states some of the power Washington and Madison were trying to take away from them.  In the 21st Century, New Jersey is an example of a number of states where it can fairly be said that the decennial redistricting of congressional borders accurately predicts the congressional elections for the next ten years. However, the historical irony emerges that Gerrymandering is impossible in the Senate, and hence legislative control over Senators has been weak ever since the 17th Amendment established senatorial election by popular vote. That's eventually the opposite of the result conceded by the Convention, but in accord with the almost certain wishes of the Federalists who dominated it.</p>

<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/1800.jpg"  width="320" height="300"  alt="{Electoral College method for election of the President}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Electoral College method for election of the President

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>This evolving arrangement of the national legislative bodies seemed an improvement over the system for state legislatures, because the Federalists believed  corruption was automatically lessened by increasing the size of the legislative body. There were skeptics then as now, and something more was desired to weaken the potential tyranny of  the majority always so evident at the state level and in the British parliament. To satisfy this anxiety, some  power was redistributed to the executive and judicial branches of government, which were in turn intentionally selected differently. Here is the source of the Electoral College method for election of the President, giving greater weight to the votes of small states (and provoking a ruckus whenever the national popular vote is a close one), while according lifetime appointments to the Judiciary, following selection by the President with the concurrence of the Senate. Without anticipating its emergence, an unexpectedly large bureaucracy has thus come under the control of the executive branch without much of the republicanism so fervently sought by the founders. This may be in general harmony with the Federalist goal of removing patronage from legislature control, but appropriations committee chairmen have since found unofficial ways of asserting power over the bureaucracy. Only in the case of the Defense Department is the will of the constitutional convention made clear: the President is commander in chief, only Congress can declare war. Although this difficult process was meant to discourage wars, it had other features. From placing the command under an elected President, emerges a more explicit emphasis on civilian control of the military, further extended by legislative approval of initiating warfare. Unfortunately, there have been many more armed conflicts than "declarations" of war.</p>

<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/wethepeople2.jpg"  width="300" height="200"  alt="{Constitution}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Constitution

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>And that's about it for what we might call the first phase of the Constitution. There was a prevalent feeling that national laws should pre-empt state laws.  In view of the need to get state legislatures to ratify the document however, this was withdrawn.  Phase I of the Constitution was designed to take as much power away from the states as could be taken without provoking them into refusing to ratify it. Since ratification did barely squeak through after huge exertions by the Federalists, the Constitution must come very close to the tolerable limit, and cannot be criticized for going no further. Since no other voluntary federation has gone even this far in the subsequent two hundred years, the margin between what is workable and what is achievable must be very narrow.</p>

<p>The details of this government structure were spelled out in detail in Sections I through IV. However, just to be sure, Section VI sums it all up in trenchant prose:</p>

<blockquote style="font-style:italic">This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. </blockquote>

<p>Except for some housekeeping details, the Constitution ends here and can still be admired as sparse and concise. That final phrase about religious tests for office sounds like a strange afterthought, but in fact its position and lack of any possible ambiguity serve to remind the nation of  grim experience that only religion has caused more problems than factionalism. There are no details; religion is not to have any part of government power or policy. By tradition, symbolism has not been prohibited. But government as an extension of religion is just as emphatically excluded, as is religion as an agent of government. Many failures of governments, past and present, can be traced to irresolution to summon up this degree of emphasis about a principle too absolute to need elaboration.</p>
	

<p><a rel="bookmark" title="Constitution  I : Turning Colonies into States" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1541.htm">http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1541.htm</a></p>
<hr />


<h3><a accesskey="9" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1544.htm">Enumerated and Implied Powers</a>   </h3>
	<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/washingtontakingoath.jpg"  width="250" height="300"  alt="{George Washington taking oath}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

George Washington taking oath

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p class="firstDrop">GEORGE Washington  wanted a stronger central government  to protect the country from enemies foreign and domestic, and he wanted it to be effective and workable; either way, he wanted a country he could be proud of. Eight years of war had taught him that to impose taxes and sacrifices in the national interest, state disunity simply had to be controlled. Following the Revolution, disorganization proved just as hurtful as in times of peace, and unfortunately even more prevalent. But  by 1787 Washington also concluded the states would not surrender power unless the people insisted on it. It was up to prominent men in the Constitutional Convention to suggest a list of other advantages of Union. Tell us what good it will do to upset the Confederation. Having proposed the general shape of a  central government, tell us what it can do better than the states. And then help  rally public support to make the states agree to it. In this sense, blazoning "We , the People" on Philadelphia's Constitution Center is exactly right. But repeating that slogan too emphatically can suggest that the people were encouraged to  modify or re-interpret the Constitution  whenever they pleased. Here was a bargain that everyone involved was expected to keep. Amendment was provided for, but it was difficult. As would be said in another context, amendment was to be safe, legal, and rare.</p>

<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/wethepeople.jpg"  width="300" height="200"  alt="{We The People}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

We The People

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>Two small sections, Eight and Nine of Article One, list the separations of state and national sovereignties in very sparing language. The states must avoid using their sovereignty to gain advantage over each other. Defense of the coasts against piracy, and a general postal system are a Federal responsibility. As are open borders between the states, both physical and economic, promoting trade to the advantage of everyone. Uniformity of weights and measures, patents and copyrights, currency and coinage, bankruptcy and naturalization rules permit everyone to aspire to wider and easier markets. Uniform rights unite the various subcultures, so a general prohibition was declared of <i>ex post facto </i>laws and suspension of <i>habeas corpus</i>, degrading the currency, injuring the sanctity of contracts (or by implication injuring all the centuries of legal consensus known as the common law). Everyone knew state legislatures had either ignored or flouted these principles; state interference in these particulars was therefore expressly prohibited.  Desirable federal powers were stated in a positive way, and limited to what was stated. However, because there remained doubters even after the Constitution was put into action, the Tenth Amendment was soon added to restate the point:</p>

<blockquote style="font-style:italic"><p><i>The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.</i></p></blockquote>

<p>There were plenty of other negative ways to put all this, but the Constitution said no more than absolutely necessary.  Certain powers were essential for a functioning national government, while some few powers would be destructive if the component states exercised them. The framers might have said but did not say:  Look at what has happened among the little countries of Europe; that might also happen to us. As Adam Smith had recently warned, avoid economic discriminations against foreigners which are lumped under the heading of Mercantilism; in other words, avoid the use of government power to favor local businesses against competitors outside the political boundaries who therefore have no local influence. Let the several states avoid the expense and nuisance of different coinages, tariffs, licenses and cartels. The inability to assemble parts of manufactures in different jurisdictions, using different rules and regulations, mainly designed to increase prices for the general mass of consumers for the benefit of a few politically well-placed producers, who should enjoy such advantages only if they earn them. In some ways these negative arguments had the greatest persuasive force, because almost everyone could think of some injury inflicted by similar laws. In 1787 it was only recently that our whole nation had suffered from the mercantile rules of Great Britain, who was supposedly a partner with the colonies. Exhortations with this sort of specificity were excluded from the document. Private publications like the <i>Federalist Papers</i> could be more explicit because they were not official parts of the agreement, and thus could be more easily reshaped by the courts.  Those who today confine Original Intent to specifics are treading on soft ground.</p>

<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_America.jpg"  width="436" height="292"  alt="{the Constitutional Convention}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

the Constitutional Convention

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>It was hard to know where to stop with these arguments. A promise was being made that the nation would prosper with expansions of scale, and in fact it soon did. It was also foreseen that expansion of the right of the federal government to tax would automatically constrict the ability of the states to do so, and in time the state legislatures have been reduced to begging for federal funds. [At the same time, it seems inconceivable that the Constitutional Convention would have condoned the present discordance between the several states in what federal taxes they pay compared with what federal benefits they receive.] The states' inability to levy troops and declare wars has indeed reduced local power to intervene to block hostilities not of local concern. There have been occasions  to fear that plebiscites for personal freedom may have sometimes impaired the nation's ability to defend itself. Local gasoline and cigarette tax wars occasionally spring up to exploit differences in state taxation, but in general there remains comparatively little mercantilism at a state level. But regional differences have correspondingly grown, along with the sense of local powerlessness to resist it. The Civil War is only the largest example of a general trend of shifting conflicts into those gaps of jurisdiction unimagined by the framers.  Section Eight arguments all rode on the rising tide of the Industrial Revolution; they proved in general to depict correct predictions. But they also persuaded 600,000 young men to die, for or against the Union itself.</p>
	

<p><a rel="bookmark" title="Enumerated and Implied Powers" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1544.htm">http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1544.htm</a></p>
<hr />


<h3><a accesskey="11" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1546.htm">Constitution III, Amendments, Afterthoughts and Rights</a>   </h3>
	<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/james-madison.jpg"  width="220" height="300"  alt="{Signers}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

James Madison

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p class="firstDrop">Out of nearly 12,000 proposed, there have only been 27 successful <a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html">amendments to the Constitution</a> in two centuries; it's intentionally hard to get one passed. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Party">The Federalists</a> wanted no amendment process at all; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Federalism">the anti Federalists</a> wanted repeat conventions in which everything would be on the table for reconsideration. The original document was probably better because of this tension; if it will be hard to change, you had better get it right the first time. And it had better be short and spare. Try to avoid bees in your bonnet.</p>

<p>There will of course have to be some mid-course adjustments,  most notoriously the XII Amendment correction of a drafting oversight which had created the appearance of a tie vote in the <a href="http://archive.fairvote.org/e_college/controversial.htm#1800">1800 Electoral College</a> between <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/thomasjefferson">Jefferson</a> and Burr. Since the election campaign had been conducted with the clear intention that Burr would be the vice president on a combined ticket, what was really overlooked was the possibility that ambition would so overwhelm a candidate that he would niggle and cavil about a technicality, essentially trying to steal an election from a running-mate. When Burr later killed Jefferson's enemy <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burr%E2%80%93Hamilton_duel">Hamilton in a duel</a>, not only was Burr twice disgraced, but the whole episode terminated  expectation that gentlemen in high office are depended on to do the right thing. Although philosophical  debate continues whether mankind is inherently good or inherently evil,  American law  assumes  that while innocence is  presumed, frailty is universal.</p>

<p>Sometimes the amendment process has been brushed aside. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Henry_Harrison">William Henry Harrison</a> was the first president to die in office, making <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyler">John Tyler</a> the first vice-president to face certain ambiguities of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution">the Constitution</a> on what had been intended. By that time, the tradition had grown that the vice-presidential candidate was usually a member of the second strongest faction within the winning party; combining the two makes  a stronger ticket but a secretly jealous one. When the contingency of presidential death in office actually happened, therefore, there were voices  that the vice-president was intended to remain vice-president but assume the extra powers and duties of the president. Rather than have a debate or a <a href="http://www.supremecourtus.gov/">Supreme Court</a> wrangle, Tyler settled any such question by simply making himself president, thus establishing an enduring tradition. This solution raised the difficulty that no succession plan had been provided for the vacant vice-presidential post.</p>

<p>Somewhat similar corrective themes continue through <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution">Amendments XXII</a> (two term Presidential limit), <a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/twenty-fifth-amendment-to-the-united-states-constitution">XXV</a> (Presidential succession), <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution">XXVII</a> (Congressional compensation). At least when dealing with politicians, it is better to be too specific than too trusting.</p>

<p><a href="http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv">The Fourteenth Amendment</a> is clear enough in its many sentences, and noble in intent. But that intention to reverse <a href="http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/constitution/">the original Constitutional</a> <a href="http://civilwar.bluegrass.net/secessioncrisis/constitutiononslavery.html">tolerance of slavery</a> and the later injustices of <a href="http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&amp;d=99229367">Reconstruction</a> is couched in broader language than necessary for that purpose alone. It thus  weakens itself by hinting sanctimony, the inclusion of soaring principles. As the grievous wounds of <a href="http://www.civil-war.net/">the Civil War</a> have gradually healed, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism">Abolitionists</a> as well as slavers now seem  often to have acted with excess, and malice toward some. Others may honorably disagree with this view. Nevertheless, it is quite right to emphasize that just as undue deference should not be accorded to some, undue suspicion should not be inflicted on others.</p>

<p>By a series of amendments, the right to vote has been extended gradually over the centuries. <a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/amendment-xxiv-to-the-u-s-constitution">Amendment XXIV</a> (Abolition of poll taxes) probably  had other motivations but has the effect of removing a restraint on the vote of poor people, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution">Amendment XIX</a> (Women's suffrage), <a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/amendment-xiii-to-the-u-s-constitution">XXIII</a> (Presidential electors for the District of Columbia), and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution">XXVI</a> (Reducing the voting age to 18) can be characterized as removing discrimination, but also can be seen as a gradual extension of suffrage by those who already have it, to others they have mistrusted for reasons defensible and indefensible. The common goal is to achieve sufficient trust and education to make any restrictions seem unnecessary to everyone, while recognizing that continuing immigration of other cultures creates restlessness at the margins. Furthermore, poor people will outnumber rich ones for a long time to come and hence could potentially mistreat the minority. As long as only a minority of the enfranchised population at any level troubles to exercise its right to vote, the level of discomfort with this  issue is enough to stimulate progress toward universal suffrage, while satisfaction with gradualism allows time to adjust to it.</p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution">Amendment XVI</a> (Income tax) may cause dissatisfaction because America has traditionally . But it really is just a mid-course adjustment in the legal system, since a court had declared <a href="http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxation/">income taxation</a> to be unconstitutional, and the Constitution was simply amended to remedy that misapprehension. An implicit point, however, is that as the federal government preempts the sources of taxation for itself, the states are weakened by the need to appeal for revenue. The <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS288&amp;q=XVII+Amendment+&amp;btnG=Search&amp;aq=f&amp;aqi=&amp;aql=&amp;oq=&amp;gs_rfai=">XVII Amendment</a> (Direct election of Senators) rather severely curtailed the control of the states over the central government, but the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution">XI Amendment</a> strengthened the states by forcing the citizen of a different state to sue a state in its own court. The issue of state and federal control, so central to the original Constitution, nowadays seems to be fading in the public mind.</p>

<p>And finally, we are left to consider the first ten amendments, the so-called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights">Bill of Rights</a>. While <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Madison">Madison</a> always inclined somewhat in that direction, and grew more defiantly libertarian as he got older, the situation he faced when <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_United_States_Congress">the first Congress</a> convened was daunting. Between final ratification and actual convening of much the same people into the first congress, the states  submitted over two hundred petitions for rights to be included in the Constitution by amendment. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson">Thomas Jefferson</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Henry">Patrick Henry</a> had been tireless in stirring up the demand for rights to protect the individual from the government. Much of this reflected <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution">the French Revolution</a> which went on for ten years during this period, and drew on affection for France for its assistance to the struggling colonies during their rebellion against Great Britain.  Others, of course, only needed to look toward George Washington, who had once heard the screams of Braddock's soldiers as they were tortured to death by the French and their Indian allies at <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Duquesne">Fort Duquesne</a>. Washington had earlier and personally started <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_and_Indian_War">the French and Indian War</a>. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Adams">John Adams</a> was not pleased by torch lit mobs breaking windows in Philadelphia in sympathy with France. So, as the main leader in the new congress, Madison had the task of satisfying everybody about the Bill of Rights he had promised. It must be acknowledged that he did a masterful  job. Not everybody was convinced it was a natural right of mankind to give everyone everything it might seem desirable to have. Somewhere in this arose the accepted definition of a right as  something everyone would give to others, in order to have for himself. Madison was forced to search for common denominators, the maximum -- and minimum -- number of rights which everyone would agree to. It offended his constitutional craftsmanship to see Congress drowned in a rush to confer  greater force than a law by saying the same thing in an amendment. Indeed, when some advocates strove to make a dubious right into a constitutional right, almost by definition it was not something  everyone would agree to in order to have for himself. Madison did things in his life that may be questioned, but his achievement of condensing this hotch-potch of proposals into ten simple declarations,  and then getting a raucous inexperienced congress to pass it -- is a political achievement to be marveled at. Even two centuries later, anyone who proposed opening up the Bill of Rights and recasting it in conformity with more modern understanding, would be hooted out of the room. May that ever remain the case.</p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution">Amendments IX</a> (Non-enumerated rights) and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution">X</a> (Rights reserved to the states)  deserve a different emphasis. Here lay the promise that the federal government had been proposed to achieve only those things a central government could achieve better; the states could do everything else. For this to be workable, the enumerated rights had to be comprehensive enough to satisfy the Federalists, and not include anything the anti-Federalists thought was improper. The anti Federalists knew very well this included everything the Federalists could possibly get the states to agree to, so the border was inevitably contentious. They got it wrong with slavery, and some of the amendments made mid-course adjustments. Boundary warfare would continue indefinitely in congress, and sometimes wars and depressions cause proponents to change positions. But the document, freely agreed to by formerly sovereign states, has endured as nothing even remotely comparable has endured.</p>
	

<p><a rel="bookmark" title="Constitution III, Amendments, Afterthoughts and Rights" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1546.htm">http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1546.htm</a></p>
<hr />


<h3><a accesskey="13" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1540.htm">American Succession </a>   </h3>
	<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/president_george_washington.jpg"  width="220" height="300"  alt="{George Washington}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

George Washington

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p class="firstDrop">It may seem a startling focus for a famous war hero, but one of the most important precedents <a href="http://sc94.ameslab.gov/TOUR/gwash.html">George Washington</a> wanted to establish as <a href="http://millercenter.org/academic/americanpresident/washington">America's first president</a>, was that he was determined not to die while in office. His original intention was to serve only one four-year term as president, only accepting a second term with considerable concern that it would increase his chances of dying in office. His reasons are perhaps not totally clear, since he repeatedly stated his concern that he had promised the American public that he would retire from public office when he resigned his commission as General, and was determined to seem a man of his word. While this sounds a little off-key to modern ears, it must be remembered his resignation as General had caused an international stir, even prompting <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_III_of_the_United_Kingdom">King George III</a> to exclaim that this must be the greatest man who ever lived. Washington may have sincerely thought he was following the pattern of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnatus">Cincinnatus, the Roman citizen soldier</a> who declined further public life in order to return to his farm. But in retrospect we can see that for a thousand years before Washington's military resignation it was essentially unheard of for a leader with major power to be removed by any means except death. Regardless of where he might have got the idea, Washington was consciously trying to establish a tradition of public service by those who were natural leaders, dutifully responding to the need of the nation, and stepping down when the service was completed. It was an important day for him and for the nation, when he stood before <a href="http://www.presidentsusa.net/jadams.html">John Adams in 1796</a>, honorably and humbly turning over supreme power to a successor who had been chosen, by others,  in a lawful way. Peaceful succession is part of the original intent of the founder of the <a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html">Constitution</a>, if anything is.</p>

<p>Some have written that Washington was not our first president, but our eleventh if one counts those  elected the presiding officers of the <a href="http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h650.html">Continental Congress</a>, under <a href="http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/ArtConfed.html">the Articles of Confederation</a>. But none of them could be said to be the head of state, and absolutely none of them could be confident  the public would re-elect them indefinitely. Washington was not so much aiming for a two-term limit as he was setting a pattern for returning the choice to the people after a stated term, and deploring anyone who sought unlimited power for its own sake. The office should seek the man, not the man seek the office, and even if the public got carried away by adulation, the man should in good time step aside. For over a century the two-term tradition was later unchallenged, until <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/franklindroosevelt">Franklin Roosevelt</a> succumbed to exactly the temptations that Washington foresaw. We have seldom amended the Constitution, but after Roosevelt it was soon amended to emphasize what so many had previously considered it unnecessary to state.</p>

<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/johnadams.jpg"  width="200" height="243"  alt="{John Adams}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

John Adams

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>The idea of a fixed term of office has had an unexpected calming effect on <a href="http://www.democrats.com/pre-partisan-america-1789-1801">partisanship in America</a>. In <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_system">parliamentary systems</a> like the British, a prime minister answers weekly questions from his opposition, with full realization that he can be dismissed from office at any moment he angers a majority into a vote of no-confidence. Under <a href="http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html">the American Constitution</a>, a recent election mandate eats into the stated time in office, making it progressively less rewarding to evict the officer for the residual time before another election does it automatically. America does indeed have an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment">impeachment process</a>, but in fact it has been rarely employed. In America, if someone is elected for a specific term, it is almost certain he will serve out the full term. There are times when partisanship seems unlimited, but in fact we probably have less of it than if we encouraged partisan outcry to go on to evicting an incumbent from office.</p>

<p>Washington was not so successful in promoting another component of his ideal statesman. In his view, a district would naturally select the most prominent citizen available to represent the district, since that person would do it more ably than anyone else and give up the office when duty was completed; that was behind the stated ideal of <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/v1ch4.html">republican government</a>. <a href="http://millercenter.org/academic/americanpresident/madison">Madison</a> was for a time persuaded that such choices should be filtered a second time, with the <a href="http://www.house.gov/">House of Representatives</a> electing Senators from its midst, but that failed to win approval. In the Eighteenth century the concept of professional bureaucrats and <a href="http://padre-island.us/padre-island.us/publicfolder/phase4/conservatives/democracybysurrogates.htm">professional politicians</a> had not yet taken hold. In its place was the fear of "ambitious" leaders, who would be held in check by a tradition of underpaying elected representatives,  or even of gentlemen of means who would refuse to accept any pay for doing their duty. It proved unanswerable when ambitious men assailed this republican concept by protesting the establishment of aristocracies, oligarchies and failure of the upper class to understand the needs and anxieties of the common man. This viewpoint eventually replaced the "natural"  local leaders with those who had experienced life in a log cabin, or endured the purifying experiences of other hardships. The original idea of the founders was to elect leaders who could not be bought; ambitious men could be bought. When political parties made their appearance, a new thought appeared; perhaps ambitious men could be controlled.</p>

<p>As the practical realities of politics in action began to surface, members of elected bodies with varying degrees of ambition and altruism sought refuge from pressures being applied to them. After all, one of the undeniable implications of the Constitution was that every single member of an elected body had just as much power and rights as every other one. Out of this tension emerged the seniority system, another unwritten rule with the power of reality forging it into an implicit rule. In time, everyone would achieve seniority at the same point in his career, and hence the procedural powers necessary to running the place could be assigned with lessened fear of improper pressure. Newcomers regularly complain about the seniority system but eventually yield  to it as the least worst accommodation to necessity. But even minor imperfections will be exploited if a system endures long enough. In this case, political parties in the home states are persuaded that the fruits of seniority might be disproportionately available to them if they elect young candidates and keep them in office indefinitely. Eventually such stalwarts can rise to positions that allow them to reward the home district. This has the interesting consequence of creating political families, whose senior representative  acquires the power to select his son or grandson to take his place in the rising chain of command. That's not as bad as an inherited aristocracy, perhaps, but it has several  similarities.</p>
	

<p><a rel="bookmark" title="American Succession " href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1540.htm">http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1540.htm</a></p>
<hr />


<h3><a accesskey="15" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1345.htm">Unwritten Constitution</a>   </h3>
	<p class="firstDrop">After <a href="http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USArooseveltF.htm">Franklin Roosevelt</a> was elected to the Presidency four  times, the 80th Congress reacted by proposing what is now the Twenty-second Amendment of the Constitution, that two terms are all that will be permitted in the future. The supporters of Roosevelt have continued to argue that the Amendment was a mean-spirited insult to a man who was no longer able to defend himself. In their view, the Amendment implies that Roosevelt wished to be a dictator, in the pattern of most dictators from Julius Caesar or even earlier. That would seem an unfairness to a man who apparently had sufficient popularity to be re-elected for as many decades as he lived. Dictators, by contrast, characteristically have a succession problem  leading  them to believe realistically a blood-bath might ensue in the aftermath of relaxation of iron rule during a transition. That is indeed the usual case; if there were nothing more to it, this Amendment would not have much justification. That is not all there is to it.</p>

<p>It might well be said that George Washington started an unwritten rule by voluntarily stepping down after two terms, since he too could have been re-elected  as many times as he pleased. Furthermore, political parties as we know them had not then been invented, so he could not have been motivated by the reasons I now wish to explore. He apparently just felt in his bones that a limited period was best, and the nation came to agree with his opinion. Ullyses Grant and Theodore Roosevelt both seem to have toyed with the idea of longer presidency, but retreated in the face of public hostility. Just why the public felt that way is not clear; much was said about Washington&#39;s wise words, but that seems unconvincing.</p>

<p>As the country has grown in size, the man we elect to leadership is mainly elected for symbolizing the attitudes of the network of acquaintances he brings along to power. What we know as political parties only partly represent that power network. It is composed of those who seek an agenda that is not currently being addressed, plus those who oppose the agenda that is being pursued. When the combined numbers become a majority, the incumbents are replaced, and the cycle then goes on to repeat itself indefinitely. In that sense, the terms of office state a minimum. It is disruptive to replace governance too soon and too often. The Constitution is silent on the other side of it, of how long is too long, probably because there were no useful models to follow in this first democracy of modern times. We have to surmise that Washington reflected on this question for a period of time before he announced his answer with his own example. Eight years is long enough.</p>

<p>Washington surely had ample opportunity to observe the gradual assumption of power by the network of people who actually carried out public  policy, to the point where they bitterly resist the loss of their power which is inevitably the consequence of losing their leader. He may have lost his taste for glory but they have not. Indeed, when you can see signs of their rebellion, you know it is time for the whole lot, to go. It is really pretty hard to see the frail, sick, disabled Roosevelt hungering for more power; it was his cronies who did. That he could be persuaded to make the effort is as good as sign as you can find, that it was well past time for him  to retire.</p>

<p>We live in an age of aphorisms, called bites of sound. The argument might well be reduced to saying that since power corrupts, there does come a time to throw the rascals out. When the new reforming heroes take over, power will similarly corrupt them in time, so we must throw them out, in turn. It&#39;s a system we sort of eased our way into, and after a while we came to feel that eight years is about long enough to get your reforms reformed, not quite long enough for corruption to become entrenched. And after two hundred years, we finally got around to making it official. Instead of talking about plumbing inspectors taking bribes, or lobbyists paying for Vicuna coats, or drunken congressmen cavorting in fountains with women of light repute, let&#39;s go right to the central figure in the controversy, the man who was indispensable even when he was uremic. The example has to do with patent protection, deemed important enough to write into the third Article of the Constitution, even though term limits were left vague.</p>

<p>Franklin Roosevelt hated monopoly, as do most of the rest of us. He carried this antipathy to the point of opposition to all patent protection for inventions, which Benjamin Franklin felt promoted innovation, but which FDR saw as creating monopoly. Both tradition and the Third Article stood in the way of his doing much about it, at least overtly. However, he did control the appointment of federal  judges, who controlled the enforcement of patents. We are told that all judicial nominees were interviewed privately on their views about patents, and one by one the judiciary was filled with patent-hating judges. Roosevelt as mentioned was elected four times, and it reached the point where it was effectively impossible to enforce any patent. The Eighth Judicial Circuit in Minneapolis did not sustain a single patent until 1969, since Roosevelt appointees continued on the bench long after new presidents, even new political parties, had  come and gone. Regardless of how we may feel about trial lawyers and Bleak House lawyers, and litigation -- and even ridiculous assertions of patent protection for the human genome or patents for business methods -- the state of patent protection is most readily demonstrated by the number of patent lawyers. In 1950, there were only ten patent lawyers in Philadelphia, 4000 in the whole country. In 2007, there are four thousand patent lawyers in Philadelphia and over a million nationwide. Whether the instinct is to see this as a good thing or a bad thing, it is certainly proof that the Constitutionally protected right of patent protection was snuffed out by a process entirely contrary to Constitutional intent. And that process, whether saintly or utterly corrupt, was only made possible by flouting the traditional limitation on terms of office.</p>
	

<p><a rel="bookmark" title="Unwritten Constitution" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1345.htm">http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1345.htm</a></p>
<hr />


<h3><a accesskey="17" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/987.htm">Ow</a>   </h3>
	<p class="firstDrop">To this day, no one knows quite what to make of <a href="http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USArobertsO.htm">Owen J. Roberts</a>, founder of one of Philadelphia's largest law firms, Prosecutor of the <a href="http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAteapot.htm">Teapot Dome scandal</a>, <a href="http://www.fact-index.com/u/un/university_of_pennsylvania_law_school.html">Dean of the University of Pennsylvania Law School</a>, Republican appointee to the <a href="http://www.west.net/%7Esmith/supcrt.jpg">U.S. Supreme Court</a>. But then-- the source of one of the most radical revisions of our system of government since the <a href="http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/">Declaration of Independence</a>. Little in Roberts' earlier career seemed to lead up to this action, and nothing in his subsequent civic-minded retirement from the Court seemed to indicate any particularly radical turn of character had taken place. He has been compared with a famous baseball pitcher who threw right-handed or left-handed at will, and unexpectedly, capriciously, who knows why.</p>

<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/955pres10.gif" alt="{http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/955pres10.gif}" width="200" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Franklin Roosevelt

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>The issue went far beyond one clause in the <a href="http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html">Constitution</a>, but the commerce clause was the focus point. Under the limited and enumerated powers allowed to <a href="http://www.trimonline.org/congress/articles/cong_const.htm">Congress by the Constitution</a> was :</p>

<p><i>The Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes. </i></p>

<p>That used to be called the " Interstate Commerce clause" until the Supreme Court announced its decision in the case of <a href="http://www.agh-attorneys.com/4_wickard_v_filburn.htm">Wickard v. Filburn</a>. When linked with the <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment10/">Tenth Amendment</a>, granting to the States the power to regulate everything not specifically granted to the Federal government, this clause in the Constitution was universally taken to mean that the States had control of commerce within their borders, while Congress would control interstate commerce. Wickard v. Filburn took all that power from the states and gave it to Congress, which henceforth would regulate commerce. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Marshall">John Marshall</a> had triumphed again over the hated state legislatures, but the Supreme Court had suddenly lost much of its power to overrule Congress, too. One side had won the argument, by threatening the umpire. The umpire came away less powerful, too. No wonder the jaunty Franklin Roosevelt started annual celebrations called Jefferson-Jackson Day dinners. All three presidents disliked  the Supreme Court intensely.</p>

<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/CENTURY-DEPRES.jpg" alt="{http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/CENTURY-DEPRES.jpg}" width="200" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Depression of the 1930s

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>To describe the background, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929">1929</a> stock market crash was quickly followed by the economic Depression of the 1930s. No financial panic of this magnitude had been seen before, and there was a political stampede to try new and untested solutions. Even government action which actually worsened economic conditions was felt justified if it conveyed to the frightened public the image that its leaders were taking firm action. Since Socialism and Communism were among the solutions being toyed with by the public, many unfortunate actions were felt justified as a way to control the Bolshevik threat, by pre-empting its promises. Many such New Deal actions were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, since they involved sweeping federal revisions in the way all commerce, internal to the States as well as interstate, was conducted.</p>

<p>The Depression and financial panic continued through the 1936 Presidential election, which <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Delano_Roosevelt">Roosevelt</a> won "in a landslide".  He took this election to mean the public would support him in anything. Immediately after the start of his new term, Roosevelt announced a plan to increase the number of Justices on the Supreme Court, appointing new ones more to his liking until he achieved a majority. He was at pains to point out that seven of the nine life incumbents had been appointed by Republican Presidents. This was of course the restraint intended by the Constitutional Convention, almost immediately faced by Thomas Jefferson in John Marshall's court.  The idea of packing the Court with new appointees was exactly what Jefferson and Jackson had tried to do. In the meantime, the <a href="http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/wickard.html">case of Filburn</a>, a dairy farmer, came up. One of the "New Deal" agencies had assigned him a quota of 200 bushels of wheat he could grow on the side, as part of an effort to raise wheat prices by reducing the supply of it. Filburn had raised 400 bushels, but consumed the extra wheat for his own personal use, hardly a matter of interstate commerce. The Court had repeatedly declared laws like this to exceed the interstate commerce limitation, and were thus unconstitutional for the Congress to enact.</p>

<p>Well, <a href="http://www.oyez.org/oyez/support/justices/portraits/roberts_owen_j.jpg">Owen Roberts</a> changed his position, and Filburn lost his case. But public outcry was resounding, so Congress overwhelmingly defeated Rosevelt's court-packing proposal. Although the Court would thus have won its struggle with the Executive branch if it had remained steadfast, Interstate commerce became All-commerce by the declaration of its most dedicated opponent.  Forever afterward, this change of position was referred to as "the switch in time, that saved nine." and the cuteness of that cartoon caption obscured that Roosevelt had been dealt a public slap in the face. Nevertheless, since that time, the Court has rarely had the courage to rule any action of Congress unconstitutional.

Furthermore, the power of the state legislatures has shriveled because all commerce (except insurance and real estate) is regulated out of the <a href="http://www.dc.gov/">District of Columbia</a>, with a corresponding vast increase in the size of the Federal bureaucracy, as Congress relentlessly pushed to intervene in commerce. One important footnote to this uproar was that the insurance industry was intensely displeased with the prospect of federal regulation, and within six weeks lobbied through the McCarran Ferguson Act, restoring the "business of insurance" to state regulation. This act skirted the confrontation between Congress and the Supreme Court by prohibiting federal agencies from engaging in insurance regulation, although the pretense was maintained that the executive branch  was free to regulate if it could invent a way to do it.</p>

<p>A few weeks before he died, Owen Roberts had all his papers burned, So, we will never know whether all this uproar was the result he had in mind.</p>
	

<p><a rel="bookmark" title="Ow" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/987.htm">http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/987.htm</a></p>
<hr />


<h3><a accesskey="19" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1548.htm">Madison in Philadelphia</a>   </h3>
	<p class="firstDrop">There is a phrase much used in diplomacy and politics, sometimes attributed to <a href="http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRpalmerston.htm">Lord Palmerston</a>, sometimes to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cicero">Cicero</a>.</p>

<p><i> In politics, there are no permanent friends, no permanent enemies, only accommodations.</i></p>

<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/lordpalmerston.jpg"  width="100" height="150"  alt="{Lord Palmerston}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Lord Palmerston

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>Regardless of who coined the adage, it is difficult to imagine stone-faced <a href="http://www.earlyamerica.com/lives/gwlife/">George Washington</a> listening with approval. It is nevertheless generally held to be the central truth of modern politics, and <a href="http://www.leftjustified.com/leftjust/lib/sc/ht/fed/mbio.html">James Madison</a> was our first modern politician. The only American scholar of politics and political history available to Washington who therefore depended on him for advice,  Madison eventually evolved into a practicing politician. An evolution in the core beliefs of both these men, based on their new political experiences seems to explain  the slow transformation of the original  friendship  of these two allied <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantation_economy">Virginia plantation owners</a>, into coolness bordering on hostility. On one level, their disagreements may be seen as responses to their new roles: Washington was in absolute charge of the executive department, while Madison constantly needed to mould his personal views to accommodate the collective viewpoint of the legislative body. It seems possible neither man realized this would become a common experience.  On another level it seems possible to view the two of them  as having  differing reactions to the Industrial Revolution.  Although they were both Virginia plantation owners, Washington's wartime experience had carried him into the far corners of the new nation, his role as Chief Executive put him into a cosmopolitan circle with a wider appreciation of new transformative economic forces. Of the two, he was better able to understand what Hamilton was talking about, better able to appreciate that the strength of a nation has an economic base rather than a military one. The mythology of the era has  Alexander Hamilton in combat with James Madison, with Washington in the middle but eventually siding with Hamilton. That's true enough, but the greater truth is that these individuals were cast as the symbols of the changing beliefs of the country.  It must be conjectured the high adventure of creating a new form of government held the two together, even as many things turned out to be unanticipated.   Washington seems more dismayed by gradually perceiving some unwelcome imperatives of <a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html">the Constitution</a>, while Madison simply set about to make the most of them.  Washington believed in character, a personality based on steadfastness, courage and determination. Adaptability, yes, flexibility, no.</p>

<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/JamesMadisonBio.jpg"  width="178" height="262"  alt="{James Madison}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

James Madison

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>The organizing principle of every legislature, congress, or parliament is that each member has one vote and therefore is the equal of every other member. Washington understood leaders would emerge, able to persuade others. What he did not anticipate was that some would acquire the power to compel obedience. Unofficial ways to acquire power over colleagues differ among legislatures, but have certain recurring features.</p>

<table class="right" width="175" summary="inline quote box"
    style="background-color:#ffffcc; margin:10px;" cellspacing="7" border="1" cellpadding="5">
    <tr><td style="padding:5">
    <img style="float:left;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:top;border-style:none"
    src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/startquote.gif" alt="{top quote}" /><br />

 Vote-swapping.
    <img style="float:left;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:bottom;border-style:none"
    src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/endquote.gif" alt="{bottom quote}" />
    <br style="clear: both" /></td></tr><tr><td style="padding:5;background-color:#cccc99;text-align:center">

    </td></tr>
</table> <!-- inline quote box --> 

<p>The press of business usually requires a division of labor into committees, who soon acquire special expertise. A chairman is selected to handle routine matters, and to negotiate compromises with overlapping committees; the chairman acquires power. Members differ in their degree of interest in a topic; those who have little interest in any particular outcome have an opportunity  to trade their vote for assistance in another matter of much greater concern to them; why not?  From this evolves the strategy of striving to discover what each voter wants most of all; offering assistance on that favorite topic is the first step in enlisting later  support on some other issue. If he wants your help badly enough, he may even vote against something he really favors. If he wants to be chairman of a committee important to his interest, it may even be possible to force him to vote for something he privately hates. Vote-swapping is the fundamental currency of legislative trading, and it is sometimes a loathsome business. But just try to imagine George Washington swapping votes to become chairman of a committee, or to enact an appropriation; it couldn't happen.</p>

<p>One suspects it did happen, at least once. Washington badly wanted the nation's capitol to be across the Potomac river from his plantation. Indeed, he wanted the Potomac River to be the main commercial highway of the nation to the Great Lakes and the Mississippi. He never said he wanted the nation's capital to be named after him, but he did not dissent a great deal, either. When there was quibbling about the location of the White House, the old surveyor went there himself and laid it out with a surveyor's transit. Washington wanted Virginia to be the biggest most important state in the union; three of the first four presidents were Virginians. And so, when Hamilton and Jefferson negotiated the Compromise of 1790, everyone knew what Washington's feelings were. The revolutionary debts of Virginia became federally assumed, in return for relocating the capital from the banks of the Delaware to the banks of the Potomac. Robert Morris was fit to be tied. Washington stood aloof and uninvolved. Anyone who has ever been involved in one of these compromises knows that some participants see nothing wrong with it, while others hate themselves for having anything to do with it. In fact, the legislators who are most offended by vote-swapping are the ones who once somehow got unwillingly dragged into it, and never entirely forgave themselves. Natural politicians like Madison, however, are irked by those who criticize such a natural and effective process, whose successes are everywhere to be noted. While no one can read the minds of these two founding fathers, there seems little doubt they were on different sides of this enduring division in the personality types of people in public office, and therefore heading for a collision when a sufficiently major issue arose.</p>

<table class="right" width="175" summary="inline quote box"
    style="background-color:#ffffcc; margin:10px;" cellspacing="7" border="1" cellpadding="5">
    <tr><td style="padding:5">
    <img style="float:left;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:top;border-style:none"
    src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/startquote.gif" alt="{top quote}" /><br />

The genius of the evolving American form of government was to leave land ownership in private hands, while creating a new power center in banking and finance.
    <img style="float:left;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:bottom;border-style:none"
    src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/endquote.gif" alt="{bottom quote}" />
    <br style="clear: both" /></td></tr><tr><td style="padding:5;background-color:#cccc99;text-align:center">
<!-- no ilq caption provided -->
    </td></tr>
</table> <!-- inline quote box --> 

<p>The issue was major, all right. It was the question of whether this proud new nation was going to join the Industrial Revolution, for all its smoke and crowding, greed and striving. Or whether it was going to sweep majestically along with the romantic movement of the day, the happy farmer and the noble savage, spreading out on a bountiful endless continent. To some extent, this was an echo of the French Revolution which so enthralled Madison's best friend Thomas Jefferson, drawing on the conflict between England and France in our own rather recent revolution. Great Britain was a century ahead of France in the Industrial Revolution, which originated north of Manchester where William Penn's Quakers came from. Yes, factories were sort of polluting and crowded, certainly enough to get Marx and Engels excited. But there was another undeniable truth: England was richer, was acquiring a world empire, had a bigger navy, and was soon to beat Napoleon at Waterloo. It was rather easy to prove to George Washington that an economically strong nation was likely to be militarily strong as well. Eventually, the point would be brought home to Robert E. Lee. American tourists in Europe today echo the sentiment when they chose an itinerary: no churches, and no museums, please.</p>

<p>Still another historical curiosity emerges from this ten years of Philadelphia as the nation's capital, which is really our national epic poem, waiting for its Homer to write it. Just about everybody at the Convention agreed the national government had to be strengthened; the state legislatures were going to ruin us. Madison, representing the views of the landowner aristocracy, was also afraid the national government could get too strong and ruin them by disturbing private property ownership. Hamilton didn't care about land, he cared about money; he wouldn't mind a King if one was necessary to get things done. It should be remembered that feudalism was largely based on the king's right to reassign land ownership in return for military support. The genius of the evolving American form of government was to leave land ownership in private hands, while creating a new power center in banking and finance. So it eventually evolved that Madison and his friends from Appalachia wanted to limit the powers of the national government strictly to those few areas where we needed them strong; enumerated powers were the result. The Federalists following Hamilton, stretched enumerated power as far as it would reach with extra "implied" powers. If you were to defend the nation, you needed a navy; eventually, it would be implied you needed an air force, maybe atom bombs. Increasing Federalism was the driving force of the Republican Party down to the time of Franklin Roosevelt, indeed down to the moment when the Philadelphian Owen Roberts tipped the Supreme Court majority in favor of eliminating the commerce clause. Since that time, the Republican descendants of Alexander Hamilton have sought to shrink and restrain the federal powers and bureaucracy, while the political descendants of James Madison have sought to populate Virginia with civil servants up to and beyond the Piedmont. Both Madison and Hamilton must be turning in the grave about the way this topic evolved. But the power being struggled for is all commercial power; ownership control of land remains off the political table. Perhaps the day will come when fresh land stops seeming unlimited, making monopoly control of it seem more threatening. More likely, the agricultural economy will nearly vanish, taking its power struggles along with it.</p>
	

<p><a rel="bookmark" title="Madison in Philadelphia" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1548.htm">http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1548.htm</a></p>
<hr />


<h3><a accesskey="21" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1554.htm">Human Rights</a>   </h3>
	<p class="firstDrop">THE Founding Fathers, mindful of Cromwell and the English Civil War, were strongly concerned that majority rule might turn into a tyranny over minorities, and searched for some way to protect minorities. Since everyone could imagine being in a minority on some dispute, it was a universal concern. In those strongly religious days, it seemed self-evident that minorities had certain "divine" rights, conferred by God, which mere legislatures must not violate. As dissenting minorities became increasingly secular, the language shifted to "natural" rights, enshrined by purely logical analysis: there exist some rights anyone would give to others in order to preserve them for himself. In more contemporary language, the demand is now for "human" rights, whose source and authority lie mostly in the intensity with which they are demanded, to a point where some believers actually  devote their lives to achieving them. Underneath all this semantic wrestling, one essential of any right is universally demanded: no government, whether by king or elected majority, may overrule it.</p>

<p>The founders of the American republic arrived at a formulation: strengthen central majority-rule government to a point where it can be effective, but keep it  too weak for the majority to tyrannize a minority. This effort grew out of general perception that the Articles of Confederation were too weak to be effective, so the federal government must be made supreme over the states. But having achieved that, a new concern would immediately arise. Since slaves and poor people would probably always outnumber rich ones, how can a democracy be prevented from becoming a vehicle for slaves to free themselves, and poor people to vote themselves the property of rich ones? This concern was surely heightened by the earlier maneuvering of Madison and Washington to  have the Convention delegates made up of the most prominent people in the colonies. The plan was to ensure the new Constitution would be adopted by the little legislatures making way before a Convention of celebrities. It probably did  not occur to the two Virginia plantation owners that this selection process would result in heightened concern for the best interests of rich people, but it probably would not have bothered them much. Except for perhaps Gouvernor Morris, Convention delegates were not aristocrats, but self-made men, and with few exceptions successful ones. It is still hard to argue with their instinctive reaction that if the laws made it impossible to be a self-made success, then it is impossible to see how anyone would achieve success fairly. Eighty years later the slave component of this issue was finally settled, so then perhaps the wariness could be relaxed somewhat. And that certainly did happen.</p>

<p>The approach the Constitutional Convention adopted was to weaken the ability of the new government to be misused by a popular majority. They designed a separation of its powers, hoping that a balance of power would develop among the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches, each selected in a different way. As the matter was finally adopted and ratified, it seemed a little inadequate. James Madison in particular rebelled against the final step of giving the Supreme Court the power to review the laws passed by Congress and signed by the President, for constitutionality. It remained for the fourth Chief Justice, John Marshall, to assert the judicial review principle successfully in 1803, sixteen years after the Constitutional Convention. In the greatest of ironies, he did so in a case called <i> Marbury v. Madison</i>.</p>

<p>This case, strengthened and amplified by later cases with the same effect, was to enshrine the Constitution as the capstone of the legal system in the United States, with all lesser laws consistent with and dependent on constitutional  powers enumerated, powers implied, and powers forbidden. This capstone structure, rather than American provincialism so noticed by Europeans, explains why American law has drifted from common law to  statutory law, while references in Supreme Court opinions to tendencies in foreign law are greeted with derision. Foreigners were not given a vote in our system, and our system is grimly determined to recirculate the opinions of the voters through the system, especially through the choke-point of the Constitution. In biochemical terms, the Constitution is the rate limiting factor. It is far too late to try to make it easier to amend the Constitution, just as it is surely too late to eliminate the Electoral College for selecting the President. Too  many balance-wheels have been hooked to these fundamentals.  Blame it on interest groups if you please, but seriously disturbing these fundamentals will surely prove unsettling enough to undermine the interest groups that assail them.</p>

<p>With the blocking of other avenues to overturn majority rule, the system itself has possibly provided a new one, which may some day be named after James Wilson of Pennsylvania. Wilson lived at the corner of 3rd and Walnut, making it convenient to sign both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Although he spoke 168 times at the Constitutional Convention, his name is most often associated with the idea that basic legal principles should be part of the general background of all educated citizens. Sometimes referred to as the founding professor of the first law school, the University of Pennsylvania, Wilson recognized that the actual practice of the law soon drifts away from legal principles and settles on legal  mechanics. Law students eventually come to learn that what matters most is what some judge recently handed down as an important opinion which sets a new precedent. Step by step the law moves from principles to precedents, and from early precedents to recent precedents. The system is said to be a variant on the scientific method -- hypothesis,  tests of the hypothesis, modified hypothesis and then tests of it -- first created by Sir Francis Bacon. The law, in short, drifts away from Original Intent but does so  proudly, not as a subversion of original principles but as a reasoned response to actual experience.  Perhaps, in this enlightened process, new human rights can be discovered. Such as a right to abortion, based on a right to privacy, based on something or other you will have to read the original opinion to recall. It is not necessary to be a fundamentalist Christian to be alarmed by this process when it travels so far from the choke point of the Constitution, overturning dozens of state laws as it  goes. Entirely too many plain non-lawyers who have no serious objection to abortion have read the Constitution and are now mistrustful of the reasonings of Justice Blackmun, the profession which acquiesced to  his action, and the intellectual migration process which is being defended. Whether they know it or not, these are followers of James Wilson, of 3rd and Walnut, Philadelphia.</p>

<p>Jennifer Nedelsky is a Canadian lawyer who has been active in promoting an alternative to our system of using a constitutional right as a legal "trump card for displeasing laws.", as well as the failed European attempt to invent  dozens of new  human rights as a way of limiting government power. In Canadian law, a feature is called the "time limited notwithstanding clause." The legislative branch in Canada is permitted to  pass laws which violate a constitutional right, "not withstanding that right for five years". It is possible to understand the appeal  of this legal safety valve, to wait out the popular appeal of a mere fad, or to provide emergency relief in the face of unexpected circumstances. Some of the enduring problems with the legislation passed during the Roosevelt court-packing era might have been more generally acceptable with this clause attached. And it might address the temptation recently voiced by Rahn Emanuel, that no crisis should ever be wasted; it is true that some appalling legislation does occasionally turn out to be useful.</p>

<p>Ultimately, however, we are likely to fall back on the comfort that our Constitution more or less as originally created, has lasted over two hundred years while no other constitution can match that claim. Others have their proposed systems and we have our proven one.</p>
	

<p><a rel="bookmark" title="Human Rights" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1554.htm">http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1554.htm</a></p>
<hr />


<h3><a accesskey="23" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1557.htm">Constitutionality of the Monetary System</a>   </h3>
	<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/constitution_quill_pen.jpg"  width="150" height="100"  alt="{The Constitution}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

The Constitution

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p class="firstDrop">In noting that our <a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html">Constitution</a> has lasted for over two centuries, we assert that this simple short document has largely anticipated everything important to anticipate, including <a href="http://mars.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/wc2/lectures/industrialrev.html">the Industrial Revolution</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_warfare">atomic warfare</a>, and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_age">the Information Age</a>, to name a few. When an occasional issue arises that is not only unmentioned in the Constitution but where no one is certain what to do, our system leaves us spiritually adrift. Such an issue is found in o0ur <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetary_system">monetary system</a>, where we have been wandering for two hundred years.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.foundingfathers.info/">The founding fathers</a> worried a great deal that <a href="http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/onprin/v2n4/teti.html">popular majorities</a> would abuse minorities, particularly in the case of the majority poor people voting themselves the property of minority rich ones, or that debtors in the majority might dishonor the rights of creditors. Although we have developed a welter of laws about <a href="http://www.legalzoom.com/legal-articles/article5997.html">debt and creditors</a>, <a href="http://www.daveramsey.com/the_truth_about/bankruptcy_3018.html.cfm">bankruptcy</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax">taxation</a>, they are if anything too specific. What is lacking is a few general words in the Constitution about the principles of credit and money. The problem now is the same as it was in 1787; we don't know what to say.</p>

<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/GALLATIN.jpg"  width="100" height="150"  alt="{Albert Gallatin}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Albert Gallatin

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>For a very long time, some very well educated people were strongly opposed to the creation of a bank, later to mean a banking system. <a href="http://americanrevwar.homestead.com/files/hamilt.htm">Alexander Hamilton's</a> proposition that a <a href="http://www.sparknotes.com/history/american/statebuilding/section9.rhtml">"national debt is a national treasure"</a> was greeted with horror by several Presidents, as well as by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Gallatin">Albert Gallatin</a>, one of the most sophisticated financial thinkers of the time. Underlying this perplexing reaction to the simple proposal to create a bank was surely the perception that making <a href="http://www.usa.gov/">the Federal Government</a> into a substantial debtor creates a powerful ally to all debtors in their eternal struggle with all creditors; the outcome of such an unequal struggle would inevitably be to the disadvantage of creditors. In common parlance the word capitalist seems to imply a creditor. It took a very long time for it to become understandable that debtors, too, were essential beneficiaries of a capitalist system, but that idea still often meets with dissent. However, when millions of the world population belong to religions which prohibit the payment of interest, it should not be surprising to find many Americans who cannot get their heads around the idea that debtors and creditors need each other to an equal degree.</p>

<p>In the case of inflation, governments have always been somewhat favorable to debauching the currency. Naturally, a major debtor hopes to repay its debt with cheaper money. Since it has more or less always been necessary to use police powers to maintain a common currency, Kings and governments have long been in control of money, whether that means gold bars or beaded wampum. And for the same length of time, governments have been discovered bending the rules in favor of themselves. Bronze has been substituted for gold, the edges of coins have been shaved, the printing presses print paper money unrestrainedly, and the consumer price index has been manipulated to encourage inflation. Political parties have sought votes from debtors by promising to regulate banks, promote silver as a substitute for gold, disadvantage foreign competitors, inhibit or manipulate the value of currency on foreign exchanges.</p>

<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/Greenspan.jpg"  width="100" height="151"  alt="{Alan Greenspan}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Alan Greenspan

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>For forty years we have operated without any fixed standard for money. Money for all that time has lacked any physical representation, or discipline. Money has become a computer notation. At first it was based on calculations of monetary aggregates, a bewildering concept promoted by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman">Milton Friedman</a>. More recently, it is entirely based on inflation targeting as promoted by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Greenspan">Alan Greenspan</a>. With a target of maintaining steady prices, an inflation rate of 2% is set as a specific target for the Federal Reserve. If inflation falls below that target, more money is created; if it rises above that level, less money is created. How much there is of it does not matter; it's beyond calculation. Although this simplified description fills almost any listener with doubts, it seemed vindicated by seventeen years without a notable recession. Even though events beginning in 2007 raise pretty serious doubts, it may still prove to be the best possible monetary system.</p>

<p>Even though  this most fundamental of all commercial issues cries out for a simple principle to be stated in the Constitution  so that neither populist congressmen not rapacious financiers can ruin us, it is not presently possible even to imagine what a <a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/constamprop.html">new Constitutional amendment</a> would, should or even could say. Meanwhile, some immense power rests in the hands of shadowy figures whom  we blindly trust, for lack of a better idea about how we should select them or what we should  instruct them to do.</p>
	

<p><a rel="bookmark" title="Constitutionality of the Monetary System" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1557.htm">http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1557.htm</a></p>
<hr />


<h3><a accesskey="25" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1561.htm">Signers and Non-Signers of the Constitution</a>   </h3>
	<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/Scene_at_the_Signing_of_the_Constitution_of_the_United_States.jpg"  width="400" height="250"  alt="{Signers of The Constitution}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Signers of The Constitution

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>John Dickinson was an active participant in designing both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, but he signed neither one of them. His position on the Declaration was that England had certainly behaved in an offensive way;  but the situation was getting better and it was still possible to patch things up, even with a British fleet in New York harbor displaying hostile intent. His later position on the Constitution is less clear. Dickinson asked George Read to sign his name, because he was sick. Whether this was a real illness or a diplomatic illness is not readily known.</p>

<p>Three active delegates made no bones about their opposition to the final product: John Randolph and George Mason of Virginia were not mollified by private assurances that a Bill of Rights was necessary but could be added later; they refused to sign a constitution that did not currently include this most passionate of their demands. There is little doubt of their sincerity, but any politician today would recognize that they also needed to protect their flank from Patrick Henry who smelled a rat and stayed at home denouncing the whole enterprise. Henry was a powerful speaker, representing the Scotch-Irish Virginia piedmont area. In Scotland, Ireland and America, that group had been abused by perfidious English kings three times, and wanted iron-clad protection against any backsliding to English rule or English government models. It's quite possible that Virginia's George Wythe and James McClurg left the convention early in order to avoid the local political consequences of signing the document, or the equally uncomfortable stance of opposing the clear leadership of George Washington. Some idea of the feelings of Virginia can be gained by noticing that of the seven delegates sent by Virginia, only John Blair joined the two instigators, George Washington and James Madison, in signing public approval. A majority of the Virginia delegation thus ducked enthusiastic endorsement of their local iconic hero, and in the long run Virginia held back on ratification until only one last  vote was needed for enactment. Without George Washington, there can be little doubt the whole effort would have failed. Indeed, a case could be made that the location of the District of Columbia and the election of Virginians as four of the first five presidents had some of the characteristics of trying to persuade the six hundred pound Virginia gorilla to play nice.</p>

<p>Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts similarly refused to sign a constitution which did not  include a Bill of Rights. However, Gerry is the politician responsible for inventing the technique of packing his opposition into one voting district (by shifting its borders) so his own party could win narrow majorities in several other districts. This sleazy manipulation of loopholes in the system has forever after been known as Gerrymandering, and raises a question perhaps unfairly, of where Gerry actually stood on every other issue in the Constitutional Convention. By contrast, it is impossible to imagine George Washington doing such a thing, and quite possible to imagine he would never again speak to someone who did.</p>

<p>In addition to the three delegates who stayed to the end but refused to sign, an additional four left early to demonstrate their  protest: John Lansing and Robert Yates of New York; and Luther Martin and John Mercer of Maryland.</p>

<p>We are left less clear about the opinions of seven more who simply left the convention early (Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut, William Houstoun and William Pierce of Georgia, Caleb Strong of Massachusetts, William Houston of New Jersey, and William Davie and Alexander Martin of North Carolina.)  The same uncertainty extends to the eighteen delegates who were invited to attend but either refused or regretted their inability to attend: (Erastus Wolcott of Connecticut, Nathaniel Pendleton and George Walton of Georgia, Charles Carroll, Gabriel Duvall, Robert Hanson Harrison, Thomas Sim Lee, and Thomas Stone of Maryland, Francis Dana of Massachusetts, John Pickering and Benjamin West of New Hampshire, Abraham Clark and John Neilson of New Jersey, Richard Caswell and Willie Jones of North Carolina, Henry Laurens of South Carolina, and Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, and Thomas Nelson of Virginia). These men were originally selected because of their local eminence, so some of them may not have been able to spend several months in a City that took days to reach on horseback. On the other hand, we certainly know where Patrick Henry stood and the large number of other abstentions from certain states suggests more than personal inconvenience was involved. After all, Rhode Island refused even to nominate anyone. In this last case, a political issue was highlighted. The Articles of Confederation which were being replaced not only  required unanimous consent to change them, but they  affirmed the Articles to be permanent. Under  ordinary contract law, that would be dispositive.  But George Washington was hell-bent on replacing the Articles of Confederation, so anything they said would no longer matter.</p>

<p>There remains a need for someone, perhaps in a doctoral thesis, to examine the voluminous correspondence and recollections of the large group of non-signers to assess the true nature of their failure to attend or sign. There was plenty of room for honest disagreement, personal business back at home, illness, or feelings of inadequacy. On the other hand, plenty of other subsequent politicians have exhibited an unwillingness to offend anyone, a hope to seek advantage from both sides,  a habitual tendency toward waiting to see who would win before stating their own opinion. Politics would be better without such personal inadequacies, but politics would not be politics without them. In fairness to their quandaries, the voting on the Constitution was by states, requiring nine to adopt it. If the vote of their state was a foregone conclusion, some delegates probably had a right to go home and let it happen in their absence. In the case of Alexander Hamilton, here stood  the single New York delegate in attendance at the final signing. Since he had been agitating for this sort of reform for seven years before Madison and Washington convinced each other, it seems possible that others withdrew to let him have the lime light. There is little doubt the single remaining responsibility of the signers was to go home and "deliver" their state for ratification, and Hamilton went at that with a vengeance. Although the moment of final signing appears on portraits and in sculpture, it was only the beginning of the battle for adoption, not the final victory. Indeed the Constitution as we now perceive it did not take more or less final form until the early government shaped its actual operation. Most of that shaping process also took place in Philadelphia, during the first ten years while the seat of government was still located there. Many if not most of the elected members of the First Congress had been members of the Constitutional Convention, returning to Philadelphia to finish the job by making a good beginning to the country.</p>
	
<b>Signers of the Constitution.</b>

<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/GeorgeWashington.jpg"  width="282" height="345"  alt="{George Washington}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

George Washington

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->



<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/georgeRead.jpg"  width="250" height="345"  alt="{George Reed, Delaware}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

George Reed, Delaware

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->



<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/GunningBedfordJr.jpg"  width="264" height="345"  alt="{Gunning Bedford, Jr., Delaware}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Gunning Bedford, Jr., Delaware

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->



<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/john_dickinson.jpg"  width="259" height="345"  alt="{John Dickinson, Delaware}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

John Dickinson, Delaware

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->



<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/RichardBassett.jpg"  width="241" height="345"  alt="{Richard Bassett, Delaware}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Richard Bassett, Delaware

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->



<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/jamesbroomy.jpg"  width="220" height="345"  alt="{Jacob Broom, Delaware}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Jacob Broom, Delaware

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->



<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/jamesmchenry1.jpg"  width="265" height="345"  alt="{James McHenry, Maryland}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

James McHenry, Maryland

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->



<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/DanielofStThomasJenifer.jpg"  width="277" height="345"  alt="{Daniel of St. Tomas Jenifer, Maryland}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Daniel of St. Tomas Jenifer, Maryland

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->



<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/DanielCarroll1.jpg"  width="280" height="345"  alt="{Daniel Carroll, Maryland}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Daniel Carroll, Maryland

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->



<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/john_blair.jpg"  width="280" height="345"  alt="{John Blair, Virginia}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

John Blair, Virginia

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->



<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/jamesMadison.jpg"  width="279" height="345"  alt="{James Madison, Jr., Virginia}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

James Madison, Jr., Virginia

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->



<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/william_blount.jpg"  width="330" height="390"  alt="{William Blount, North Carolina}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

William Blount, North Carolina

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->



<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/richard_dobbs_spaight_sr.jpg"  width="309" height="390"  alt="{Richard Dobbs Spaight, North Carolina}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Richard Dobbs Spaight, North Carolina

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->



<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/hughwilliamson.jpg"  width="322" height="345"  alt="{Hugh Williamson, North Carolina}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Hugh Williamson, North Carolina

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->



<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/jrutledge.jpg"  width="245" height="345"  alt="{John Rutledge, South Carolina}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

John Rutledge, South Carolina

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->



<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/charles_cotesworth_pinckney.jpg"  width="280" height="345"  alt="{Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, South Carolina}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, South Carolina

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->



<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/charles_pinckney.jpg"  width="286" height="345"  alt="{Charles Pinckney, South Carolina}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Charles Pinckney, South Carolina

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->



<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/pierce_butler.jpg"  width="200" height="286"  alt="{Pierce Butler, South Carolina}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Pierce Butler, South Carolina

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->



<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/william_few.jpg"  width="324" height="390"  alt="{William Few, Georgia}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

William Few, Georgia

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->



<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/abraham_baldwin.jpg"  width="283" height="345"  alt="{Abraham Baldwin, Georgia}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Abraham Baldwin, Georgia

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->



<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/John_langdon.jpg"  width="284" height="345"  alt="{John Langdon, New Hampshire}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

John Langdon, New Hampshire

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->



<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/Nicholasgilman.jpg"  width="253" height="345"  alt="{Nicholas Gilman, New Hampshire}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Nicholas Gilman, New Hampshire

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->



<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/NathanielGorham.jpg"  width="310" height="345"  alt="{Nathaniel Gorham, Massachusetts}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Nathaniel Gorham, Massachusetts

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->



<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/RufusKing.jpg"  width="248" height="345"  alt="{Rufus King, Massachusetts}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Rufus King, Massachusetts

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->



<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/william_samuel_johnson.jpg"  width="311" height="390"  alt="{William Samuel Johnson, Connecticut}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

William Samuel Johnson, Connecticut

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->



<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/RogerSherman.jpg"  width="300" height="300"  alt="{Roger Sherman, Connecticut}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Roger Sherman, Connecticut

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->



<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/alexander-hamilton.jpg"  width="263" height="345"  alt="{Alexander Hamilton, New York}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Alexander Hamilton, New York

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->



<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/william_livingston.jpg"  width="336" height="390"  alt="{William Livingston, New Jersey}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

William Livingston, New Jersey

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->



<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/David_Brearly.jpg"  width="253" height="345"  alt="{David Brearly, New Jersey}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

David Brearly, New Jersey

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->



<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/will_paterson.jpg"  width="200" height="258"  alt="{William Paterson, New Jersey}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

William Paterson, New Jersey

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->



<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/JonathanDayton.jpg"  width="279" height="345"  alt="{Jonathan Dayton, New Jersey}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Jonathan Dayton, New Jersey

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->



<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/benjaminfranklinsign.jpg"  width="272" height="345"  alt="{Benjamin Franklin, Pennsylvania}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Benjamin Franklin, Pennsylvania

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->



<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/thomasmifflin.jpg"  width="301" height="390"  alt="{Thomas Mifflin, Pennsylvania}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Thomas Mifflin, Pennsylvania

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->



<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/Robert_morris_portrait.jpg"  width="287" height="345"  alt="{Robert Morris, Pennsylvania}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Robert Morris, Pennsylvania

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->



<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/georgeclymer.jpg"  width="289" height="345"  alt="{George Clymer, Pennsylvania}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

George Clymer, Pennsylvania

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->



<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/Thomas_Fitzsimons.jpg"  width="180" height="218"  alt="{Thomas Fitzsimons, Pennsylvania}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Thomas Fitzsimons, Pennsylvania

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->



<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/jaredingersoll.jpg"  width="230" height="345"  alt="{Jared Ingersoll, Pennsylvania}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Jared Ingersoll, Pennsylvania

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->



<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/james_wilson.jpg"  width="263" height="345"  alt="{James Wilson, Pennsylvania}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

James Wilson, Pennsylvania

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->



<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/gourvernor-morris.jpg"  width="262" height="345"  alt="{Gourvernor Morris, Pennsylvania}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Gourvernor Morris, Pennsylvania

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p><b>Non-Signers of the Constitution</b></p>

<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/oliverellsworth.jpg"  width="302" height="390"  alt="{Oliver Ellsworth, Connecticut}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Oliver Ellsworth, Connecticut

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->



<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/WHoustoun.jpg"  width="252" height="345"  alt="{William Houstoun, Georgia}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

William Houstoun, Georgia

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->



<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/caleb_strong.jpg"  width="251" height="345"  alt="{Caleb Strong, Massachusetts}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Caleb Strong, Massachusetts

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->



<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/WilliamR_Davie.jpg"  width="270" height="345"  alt="{William Davie, North Carolina}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

William Davie, North Carolina

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->



<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/AlexanderMartin.jpg"  width="243" height="345"  alt="{Alexander Martin, North Carolina}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Alexander Martin, North Carolina

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->



<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/georgewalton.jpg"  width="257" height="345"  alt="{George Walton, Georgia}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

George Walton, Georgia

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->



<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/Charles%20Carroll.jpg"  width="230" height="345"  alt="{Charles Carroll, Maryland}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Charles Carroll, Maryland

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->



<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/GabrielDuvall.jpg"  width="275" height="345"  alt="{Gabriel Duvall, Maryland}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Gabriel Duvall, Maryland

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->



<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/Thomas_Stone.jpg"  width="252" height="345"  alt="{Thomas Stone, Maryland}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Thomas Stone, Maryland

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->



<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/FrancisDana.jpg"  width="239" height="345"  alt="{Francis Dana, Massachusetts}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Francis Dana, Massachusetts

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->



<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/BenjaminWest.jpg"  width="286" height="345"  alt="{Benjamin West, New Hampshire}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Benjamin West, New Hampshire

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->



<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/abrahamclark.jpg"  width="261" height="345"  alt="{Abraham Clark, New Jersey}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Abraham Clark, New Jersey

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->



<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/RichardCaswell.jpg"  width="244" height="345"  alt="{Richard Caswell, North Carolina}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Richard Caswell, North Carolina

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->



<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/WillieJonesNC.jpg"  width="293" height="345"  alt="{Willie Jones, North Carolina}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Willie Jones, North Carolina

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->



<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/Henry_laurens.jpg"  width="319" height="345"  alt="{Henry Laurens, South Carolina}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Henry Laurens, South Carolina

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->



<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/Patrick_henry.JPG"  width="286" height="345"  alt="{Patrick Henry, Virginia}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Patrick Henry, Virginia

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->



<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/richard%20henry%20lee.jpg"  width="295" height="372"  alt="{Richard Henry Lee, Virginia}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Richard Henry Lee, Virginia

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->



<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/thomasnelson2.jpg"  width="289" height="328"  alt="{Thomas Nelson, Virginia}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Thomas Nelson, Virginia

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->
	

<p><a rel="bookmark" title="Signers and Non-Signers of the Constitution" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1561.htm">http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1561.htm</a></p>
<hr />


<h3><a accesskey="27" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1574.htm">Unwritten Features of the Constitution</a>   </h3>
	<p class="firstDrop">In their early writings, James Madison and the Federalists who participated in drafting the Constitution repeatedly emphasized their allegiance to republican ideals, republicanism, and a republican form of government. This sounds a little odd today, since obviously they were not alluding to the present Republican and Democratic parties, which had not been created. It seems natural to us to regard a republican form of government as a gradual extension of a democratic one, when the size of the electorate grows so large it cannot be readily  managed by voice votes in a town meeting, when therefore it becomes  necessary to select proxies, or representatives. That description greatly underestimates the subtlety of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States">the Founding Fathers</a>.</p>

<p>Two centrally important members of the Convention, James Madison and Gouverneur Morris, felt especially strongly about a feature that does not occur to many others. When the voters in a particular district pick a representative, they are generally trying to choose one who will not only reflect issues of local importance, but one who will be able to persuade representatives of other districts to vote favorably. In this way,  representatives tend to be selected who are taller, handsomer, more intelligent, richer, and more famous than the average person in the district being represented. Not by much, perhaps, and sometimes not at all. But as a general thing, the election of representatives tends to create a House of Representatives who are superior in certain ways to the average person being represented. When candidates and political parties engage in public combat, an impression is given that "politicians" are low characters, but that is in fact not usually true. Many factors will discourage the best candidates from participating in disagreeable contests, and many stratagems are employed in an attempt to elect the worse of two candidates. But it is seldom the case that a successful candidate is less attractive or talented than the average person in his district. Republican governments almost always are composed of more distinguished persons than average, exposed to greater temptations perhaps and subject to more detailed scrutiny.</p>

<p>Madison was so taken with this idea that he proposed the Senate should be made up of people drawn from the House of Representatives in a second round of voting, thereby further purifying the result. For various reasons this approach was not adopted by the Convention, but it does have a logic to it, and it clearly illustrates that Madison was looking for results  not always explicitly stated. Gouverneur Morris, on the other hand, was openly enthusiastic for this outcome, because he perceived that the government would be largely concerned with the rules of commerce and therefore the selection process would likely lead to a Congress that was richer and more able in those qualities of importance to commerce. On the one hand,  America would gain  national advantage in the Industrial Revolution then under way, and it would anyway  be highly desirable to select richer people. In his later years, Morris was given to blunt and open preference for the smart set, and is often described as a covert aristocrat. At the time of the Convention however it seems likely he was making a perfectly valid point which had escaped many of his colleagues.</p>

<p>Both Madison and Morris were seriously concerned about a flaw in the republican form of government. They thought it obvious there would always be more poor people than rich ones. Without some effort to rebalance things, the poor would inevitably destroy the common good by using their numerical strength to redistribute wealth from rich to poor. In doing so, everyone would be worse off, even the poor. The poor were more likely to be uneducated and thus more likely to put their own enrichment ahead of almost any other issue, using their own grievances as a justification. There was almost universal agreement among other members of the Convention, because it was well recognized that the main need for a new constitution had grown out of the egregious conduct of state legislatures under the Articles of Confederation, particularly in watering the currency with paper money, and profligate use of debt forgiveness. It would be impossible to have a prosperous country if it suffered from instability, destruction of merit incentives  and respect for the property of others. If debts were capriciously forgiven, no one would lend. With paper currency printed indiscriminately, savings would be impossible.</p>

<p>Accordingly, the Convention set about balancing these innate tendencies as well as it could. There was general agreement that election districts with larger population size tended to produce better candidates. Not only employing the reasoning that in a larger district it would be harder to elect an unknown, insignificant person, they felt they could also see examples justifying faith that a larger number of competing internal interests would hold each other in check within the person of their elected representative. An indirect way of accomplishing this was to limit the total number of districts while also providing they be of equal population.  Political parties were soon to come forward as a way of raising campaign funds, but nevertheless a person of greater means would have an advantage in a larger district, and persons of greater means could be expected to have greater talents, or would in any event be more likely to resist the pressures for redistributing the wealth of the rich. Members of the Senate were selected by the state governments (at least, as long as state assent was necessary for ratification of the Constitution), but the 17th Amendment changed that to popular election, with a clear resulting decrease of state influence and power. On the other hand, a heavy majority of Senators in the 21st Century continue to be independently wealthy, thereby still accomplishing two original objectives of the founding fathers at one stroke.</p>

<p>The original working concept of the Federalists was that the skills and prestige of the rich and powerful would promote the owners of property into elective office, and their power would be joined to that of judges, presidents, cabinet officers, and military officers to form an effective counterbalance to the majority voting power of the poor or others who lacked property to protect. The Federalists differed with the anti-Federalists on the source of danger to be guarded against; one group feared impetuous and ignorant greed inciting the multitude, while the other group mainly feared  corruption and power-hunger among the powerful few. But both political parties acknowledged that each potential danger was realistic to some degree, and hence there was reason to hope  both sides could agree to a balance of power as a sensible check on each other. True, the Fifth Amendment's "takings" clause did specifically provide for just compensation for private property seized by government under Eminent Domain, and the Eleventh Amendment protected state governments against private lawsuits in Federal court, but these seem rather feeble additions to the protections against potential tyrannies of the unpropertied majority, as soon to be seen in the revolutionaries of France. Thus an initial assessment would have to be that protection of the minority with property against legislative assault by the unpropertied majority, was only strong in the short run. But it was likely to succumb in the long run to majoritarian tyranny, as the less educated gradually learned how to use their voting power. To strengthen the balance, therefore, resort was made to limiting the voting franchise to owners of property, and specifically to freehold property, without debt. There was shrewdness to this idea, since it hints at a perception that future class divisions might not lie between rich and poor, but between creditors and debtors. The voting exclusion of females, children and slaves was surely irrelevant to the main issue, based on the 18th Century assumption that any votes from those excluded would anyway be passive, dominated by the male head of household. In any event, the limitation of voting power to freehold property owners was apparently a step too far, and did not last long.</p>

<p>It is not certain how consciously another important feature was considered. State legislatures prior to the Constitution were held in such disdain, that stripping them of the power to corrupt truly important issues was almost a universal goal. Awkwardly, a peaceful transfer of state power over the military and the currency could not be accomplished without securing the agreement of the states who had to ratify the Constitution. This was accomplished by specifying the strictly limited powers of the new Federal government, and ceding control of everything not specifically mentioned, back to the states. One by one, the functions which were vitally important were debated and defended in detail; the list was short. Everything else remained under state control. To go about things in this way had one significant advantage over complete federal control, and Madison specifically anticipated it. If a state government abused its power, the victims of that abuse could escape by relocating to a neighboring state. The potential abuse easiest to understand was a burdensome tax rate. But all of the commercial rules of the new entities called corporations were even more to the point, since rich people could move whole factories and businesses if they perceived enough grievance at home. Powerful people had ways of getting the attention of state governments, their U.S. Congressmen and Senators, and the constituents who voted for them. In New Jersey at present, 4% of the taxpayers pay 76% of state taxes; it is easy to demonstrate that the 4% are moving to other states about as fast as they can. Whether by industry or individually, the residents of a state know very well what their alternatives are in other states, and corporations can negotiate them directly. Whether to bluffing or actually moving, state politicians respond to the threat and which has considerable indirect effect at a national level. The system of checks and balances extends far beyond the words of the Constitution, and well beyond the rules of the Federal government. Its unwritten power extends beyond the control of a handful of Supreme Court justices, spatting over original intent. Its potential weakness, of course, lies in the Court's relative inability to protect what is not stated to be any of its business.</p>

<p>One final point about the unspoken cleverness of our Constitution. Some of its most important powers were either unrecognized or intentionally unmentioned by its originators, to whom we look for original intent. After two centuries, we can see as they could not, that it was not merely the first time thirteen sovereign states gave up their power voluntarily and more or less cooperatively. In two hundred or more years, it begins to look as though  nobody else can even imitate it successfully. One therefore hesitates to suggest changes of any sort, for fear some unrecognized balance will become unbalanced. Madison believed that increasing size leads to better government and better candidates for office; few would dispute that our Federal government generally does a better and more professional job than the fifty states which make it up. But stop to consider the United Nations. Invested with as much enthusiasm and much more idealism than our 1787 founders, the U.N. flounders and fumbles, and after fifty years must still be assessed to be a failure. Madison would seemingly have predicted that a bigger organization would be even stronger, even electing an assembly of giants. It hasn't worked out that way, and it is impossible to define what it lacks that the American Constitution has in abundance. By itself, this is the strongest possible argument for what is called original intent, but is really just a fearful plea to -- leave it alone.</p>
	

<p><a rel="bookmark" title="Unwritten Features of the Constitution" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1574.htm">http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1574.htm</a></p>
<hr />


<h3><a accesskey="29" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1577.htm">Constitution IV: The Unforseen </a>   </h3>
	<p class="firstDrop">A flexible and adaptable Constitution is not exactly the same as a "Living" Constitution, which has come to imply the courts can amend it without following prescribed procedure for amendment.</p>

<p><b>Manipulation of the Legislature.</b></p>

<p>The founding fathers spent much time and energy wrangling about the size of electoral districts, generally agreeing that larger districts produced a better representative. James Madison was persuasive  that poor people would always greatly outnumber rich ones and would follow the example of the French Revolution in stripping rich people of their property, with disruptive consequences. Possibly because the Industrial Revolution made a much larger proportion of the population prosperous, or possibly for other reasons, the much-predicted outcome did not significantly occur. Rather, we have seen progressive waves of new immigrants start at the bottom of the economic ladder and work upward in a generation or two. At the present time, the argument about the relative sizes of the economic classes has devolved into a debate about the optimum size of the immigrant class, which in turn depends mostly on our ability to assimilate them. Nevertheless, Hannah Arrendt and others have taken Madison at his word, and searched the Constitution for clever ways in which that notorious schemer might have had his way. Somehow, the provable fact that affluent classes exercise their right to vote more vigorously than indigents do is taken to be proof of the Madisonian outcome. President Barrack Obama apparently sees some sort of political opportunity in the statistics, and we are therefore likely to hear more about this.</p>

<p>It can be predicted that Americans will continue to prefer the approach of achieving equality by making poor people richer to the alternative of making rich people more poor. But it can also be safely predicted that grumbling about republican (representative) government will continue, because of certain features of human nature that were poorly anticipated by the founding fathers.
Although it should be obvious we have long outgrown any plausible alternative, the representatives of the people immediately turn their backs to their elective constituencies after the election, and begin to address their new main concern, which is how to deal with their new colleagues. If they are fortunate enough to represent a "safe" district, they may not even pause to reflect much on the electorate at election time. They are not to be blamed for this; influencing elected colleagues is their life; elections are periodic threats to that career. It should thus be immediately clear that voters can most readily increase their influence on legislative bodies by maintaining an even balance of political parties within their districts. In a word, gerrymandering has become a far more important obstacle to voter influence than race and social class will ever be. Gerrymandering in the house of representatives, that is, because the Senate and other districts with immovable boundaries cannot be gerrymandered. Our system requires boundaries to react to population changes; therefore the control of legislative boundaries must somehow be removed from political control. The simplest approach would seem to be to avoid all mention of techniques and specifics, except one. The election should be voided unless it produces a reasonably balanced outcome; one that approximates the vote split of the entire state. Another measurement objective might be to reduce protracted incumbency in cases where boundary adjustments prove impractical.</p>

<p>Once elected, the representative of the people often finds his worst enemies are the leadership of his own party, seeking to control his vote. The methods employed to gain power over the freedom of a representative to vote his conscience are numerous, devious and highly effective. The consequence of this game is that experience is so much the master over the uninitiated that families pass these secrets around within the political class, and we become more of an aristocracy than we imagine. No doubt the rules of the chamber evolve over decades or even centuries, and respond to realities which most outsiders cannot appreciate. In all probability, the key to making reasonable rule changes is to transform the rules committee into a committee of the whole for a longer time, perhaps a whole week, at the beginning of each session. It is the nature of politicians to scheme in an elaborate game of chess, and it would be unwise to create the chaos of protracted rule modification as part of some larger contraption. But limiting rule changes to a single voice vote at the beginning of a whole legislative season is also unwise.</p>

<p>What might help is drawing  the attention of think tanks and colleges to this clandestine issue. In rural state capitols, the first need is for the creation and funding of think tanks, now largely absent. As the newspaper industry experiences relentless shrinkage, philanthropic attention may well be necessary. The assiduous attention of lawmakers to these mundane issues is such that the publication of a few books on the topic might achieve enormous benefit.</p>

<p><b>Manipulation of the Courts.</p></b><p>The Constitution does not directly mention English Common Law, and strictly read could be held to limit the federal court system to disputes under the statutes and treaties created by the legislative and executive branches. Since the nation began to function without any statutes passed by the Congress at all, and until the time of the Civil War had less shelf space devoted to all of the accumulated statutes than to the volumes of Common Law, it would have to be assumed it was intended by the Constitutional convention to let the courts themselves decide how much weight to give to the laws of our former masters. In any event, that is about what happened. One by one, as cases came before it, the Supreme Court made references to particular points of common law that became binding on the lower jurisdictions. This unspoken and somewhat obscure process gave rise to a rather questionable concept known as The Law, and therefore sometimes to conflicts between statutes and The Law. The early courts were careful to avoid open conflicts as much as they could, and tended to search for technical and procedural flaws upon which to base their determinations. John Marshall, who did most to forge new concepts of the role of the courts, was particularly careful to avoid open conflicts with clearly specified statutes until he was ready to declare the Supreme Court's right to "review" them. Step by step, the common law was restated to originate with the Court. In time, the findings of the Court became an extension of the Constitution. Americans scoff at the interminable volumes of the proposed European constitution, contrasting them with the few short statements of our own. But if the accumulated findings of the U.S. Supreme Court were appended to the brief preamble we call the Constitution, ours would be far larger. It might claim to be far more flexible but it is also more arbitrary. Flexible or arbitrary, its main weakness is to be so hidden from public view that one bad mistake would cripple its effectiveness. <i>Roe v. Wade</i> came pretty close.</p>

<p>A question has to be raised whether the Supreme Court missed an opportunity to organize and proclaim the organizing principle of Common Law, which in its present form was created by Lord Chancellor Sir Francis Bacon. Picking up on Galileo and other early 16th Century thinkers, Bacon's common law follows the principles of science. Hypothesis is offered, then it is tested and revised hypothesis is offered. Then the new hypothesis is tested, and revised. It is called the scientific method, but might just as well be called the legal method. No principle endures unless it withstands continuing testing. Hypothesis from  any source is given a respectful hearing, but it is not allowed to stand unless it be lawful. That is, unless repeated testing confirms its validity. Statutes, on the other hand, are created by the opinion of half the voters, plus one. We thus have created half the system of scientific method by passing laws and sending them to the courts for the accumulation of experience. The life of the law, said Holmes, has not been logic, it has been experience. What our system lacks is for some way to recirculate the experience of the courts back to the legislators, for reconsideration.</p>

<p><b> System Overload</b></p>

<p>We may be a nation of laws but not of men, but that does not mean the more laws we have, the better. The United States Congress currently considers about 25,000 bills each year, but at least they have a fairly adequate staff to help them, and they work full time, year round. By comparison, it is more appalling to learn that the New Jersey Legislature considers 10-12,000 bills a year, since you have to multiply that by fifty on the assumption other states act the same way. And almost more disconcerting to learn that New Jersey passes 300 laws a year, meeting thirty times a year in three-hour sessions. It must then be reflected that new laws are then sent to the executive branch for implementing regulations. The regulatory process ordinarily results in a notice of proposed rule-making, a comment period, evaluation of public comments, and then finally the issuance of final rule-making. The <i>Federal Register</i> publishes all this activity, and runs to more than a hundred thousand pages a year. Periodically, the whole business is restated in the Consolidated Code. Even though each enacted law only goes through this process once, quite a large industry is created just to disseminate new laws. In the process we make a travesty of the ancient doctrine that <i> ignorance of the law is no excuse </i>. No one at all knows what the law is. The legal profession has been driven to specialization and subspecialization, just so one lawyer can claim a comprehensive grasp of a tiny portion of this stuff. Consequently, we see law firms of a thousand or more lawyers emerge in an effort to cover the entire field and keep up with it. Law firms thus are driven into the communication system employed by ant hills and beehives, rising administrative and communication costs. The public is terrified of involvement in a system which was designed to protect their rights and promote their interest, but with charges of $600  per hour can easily bankrupt anyone who has a serious issue. The country watched Richard Nixon and William Clinton accumulate millions of dollars in legal costs; when the President of the United States, himself a lawyer, cannot afford to defend himself, things are reaching some sort of limit.</p>

<p>A few years ago, overcrowding in the Philadelphia prisons got to the point where a Judge Shapiro ordered Mayor Ed Rendell to stop sending any more prisoners to jail until conditions improved. That was fine for convicted felons, but enthusiasm in the rest of the community was restrained. The overloaded judiciary tends to respond to the avalanche of litigation by almost forcing litigants to settle rather than go to trial, and if a trial is unavoidable, to seek a lighter sentence by foregoing a right to trial by jury. Plea-bargaining is routine. Finally, a whole section of this legislative torrent has been moved away from challenge by the concept of "standing". Using the principle that someone may not use the courts to settle a grievance unless he can show some harm to himself has been caused, or some advantage to him would result from winning the case, the concept of standing has been driven by court overload to be ever more strictly applied. I cannot sue my town for having too few school crossing guards, since I am too old to need them, and personally no better off if we have lots of them. It thus is inevitable that concerned citizens are driven away from the courts for relief from high-handed behavior by government, or inefficiency, or unnecessary cost. Directed by the courts to further their goals in the legislature, the citizen finds that legislatures can do little except pass laws. And passing too many laws is the underlying problem. The political parties have lately chosen to take sides on de-regulation and re-regulation, but this formulation is really intended to influence the relative size of the private and public sectors of the economy. That's quite a different issue from excessive particularization of instructions and warnings, and excessive use of the legal system in both the private and public sectors. There's a concept known as "capricious abuse of judicial process", for which citizens can be punished, but legislatures somehow cannot. Those who designed and sanctified limited government in 1787 when we started with no statutes at all, do not seem to have anticipated the danger of excessive growth.
	

<p><a rel="bookmark" title="Constitution IV: The Unforseen " href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1577.htm">http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1577.htm</a></p>
<hr />


<h3><a accesskey="31" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1581.htm">Constitution V: The Unforeseeable</a>   </h3>
	<p class="firstDrop">At the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, the Framers had pride in their accomplishment, but great anxieties about how long it would survive. Few of them would have predicted it would survive for several centuries, unmatched in durability by any of its imitators. A dozen wars and unimaginable changes in the nature of American society have not shaken it. It survived two particularly ominous threats, the Civil War, and the 1937 Roosevelt Court-Packing episode, but more remarkably it survived momentous, unpredictable, changes in our political, social and economic environment.</p>

<p><b>The Invention of Political Parties.</b></p>

<p>It emerges in retrospect that the founding of the American republic took place during The Enlightenment, a comparatively brief interlude of general allegiance to  rational behavior. Almost all efforts at representative government for thousands of years had previously developed many political parties, and vicious ones at that. The Framers expected that elected representatives would disagree about policy and decisions, but would refuse to win political arguments by personally attacking the political opponents who expressed disagreement. The Enlightenment was world-wide, but the American version had strong doses of Virginia Cavalier courtesty and Pennsylvania Quaker humility of speech. Scarcely anyone in the former colonies was truly to the manner born, and so almost everyone was both self-conscious and a little unrealistic about the mannerisms of gentlemen. Mix that with an aversion to the aristocracy recently rejected, and there emerged a hesitation to declare a true gentleman would want to be elected public representative for any reason except sincere desire to serve the public as a duty, and certainly not to seek raw power itself. George Washington was the particular exemplar of this model. Renouncing personal power at the moment of his greatest military acclaim, Washington was outspoken about his hatred of partisanship. Resigning as the victorious leader of the armed forces, his return to private life was an act that exited notice and admiration from the whole world, which had fully expected him to create a throne and sit on it firmly. He soon refused to come out of retirement to accept the Presidency unless it was offered unanimously, and agreed to only one term of office. After he was persuaded to accept a second term, he adamantly refused a third because he wanted to establish a tradition of voluntary transfers of power. Along that line, he was seriously concerned that he might die in office, preventing him from establishing a tradition of peaceful transfer of power.  No one dared suggest political parties in Washington's presence, but the moment John Adams became President, partisan ugliness began. And it was Thomas Jefferson who was itching to begin it. Jefferson never considered waiting patiently for Adams to complete two terms, but began attacking him during the first one. However much Washington wanted to establish an enduring tradition of courtliness, his administration during the Philadelphia years now sticks out as a quaint aberration.</p>

<p>So the republic was started and established for at least Washington's term, with the proclamation that partisan politics of the sort universally seen before and afterwards was only to be deplored. This period was the ten-year temporary period when Philadelphia was the nation's capital, so the concept persisted in Philadelphia as the dominant local standard for another fifty years. Meanwhile the rest of the country degenerated into the deplorable politics of the frontier, the ignoble, and well, the gutter. Even after Philadelphia evolved into a serious player of machine and state politics, enough guilt about naked ambition remained to restrain the Quaker State from its normal role as a national political power. James Buchanan was indeed elected president, but is believed to have been a failure. Since then he serves as an example of why politics are inherently dirty, not suitable for the ambition of authentic Philadelphians. Digby Baltzell blames much of this on Quakerism; that's a partial possibility, but ignores its lack of application to non-Philadelphia Quakers like Herbert Hoover and Richard Nixon, and its visible watermarks stamped on Philadelphians of all religions.</p>

<p>Not mentioning parties, the Constitution says nothing about their number or management. Since the original language contemplated the election of individuals, it leans toward all-or-none victories, thereby sparing us a debate about proportional representation. We expect a two-party system, although we do not forbid more than two. The purpose of a party is to help people get elected, so <i>can he win?</i> is the decisive question in the selection of a party candidate. Extremists in both parties disqualify themselves by this test, so when the election finally arrives, comparatively little difference separates the two candidates, and losers can accept the winner. Our elections are unlikely to be followed by civil war, are more likely to be followed by legislative cooperation. Consider the situation with proportional representation among a dozen parties spread over the political spectrum: in nations that try it, one party seldom wins a majority, and must form coalitions after the election results are known in order to achieve that governing majority. A succinct summary of the difference is that Americans make their deals before the election; countries with proportional representation have the election first and make deals later, after the electorate is excluded. In the rare circumstance when the public wants the wrong thing, proportional representation is a way to do the right thing against the wishes of the public. While it is possible to envision a good outcome from such a situation, it is not easy to imagine public approval of it.</p>

<p><b>

The Mysteries of Property</b></p>

<p>Everyone was once a nomad. When vast unoccupied land stretched in all directions, ownership  meant very little; everyone moved at will. A particular water hole had importance, perhaps, but ownership of it merely meant fighting off others who came near; tribal ownership was a matter of having enough friends to help exclude intruders. If the tribe moved away and came back, intruders again had to be thrown out. This was essentially the situation of native American Indians when the Europeans arrived.</p>

<p>Conventions of land ownership existed under English common law in 1787 but were only a step better organized than the Indian conventions. All land belonged to the king, who might cede large estates to loyal nobles, but could also take it back if the vassal proved disloyal. The Magna Carta and the English Civil War could be viewed as steps in the disruptive process of eventually ceding portions of the King's land to individuals permanently, to have and to hold. The concept of private property became embedded in English common law and was carried over into our own Constitution, although the awkwardness of Indian rights  created incentive to be a little vague. English common law was not so much transferred into our system as recognized to "inform" it, a characterization which allowed the Judiciary to adopt, modify or ignore the awkward parts. Although the rules were imprecise, the Framers of the Constitution and John Marshall's court created a hybrid system, with enough flexibility to deal with remnants of the two preceding theories of land ownership, the farmer and the cowboy. Pre-revolutionary Royal caprice was frozen at the moment of independence, followed by successive recorded transfers through an unbroken chain to the present. If you could establish your position to the satisfaction  of the courts, it was your land, your property. This seems to have been the basic model the Framers envisioned when they wrote the Constitution, and served as a template for other kinds of ownership when they wrote of the sanctity of contracts. Because this uniform theory of ownership contained some delicate threads of reasoning, well recognized to conflict with the attitudes of the earlier Indian owners, and a little stretched when extended to concepts like intellectual property, it was essential to establish it as  uncontested. Land ownership at that time was the main place to store wealth, and transforming a limitless continent into useful property was the main route to acquiring wealth. Money in the form of currency was a tool for facilitating wealth transfers, banking was a step removed and remained contentious for a century.  Property was wealth, and  more sophisticated definitions of wealth were treated as property organized around the principles of real estate. When the Framers spoke of the sanctity of voluntary contracts  they also had in mind preventing the recent abuses of debt forgiveness under state legislatures responding to unfettered majority rule. If the chain of ownership broke at any point, and particularly if contracts were unenforced the Framers had reason to fear the country could fall apart.</p>

<p>The certitudes of the Eighteenth century were also the certitudes of the Nineteenth; and even for most of the Twentieth century those who challenged it were regarded as nuisances, intellectual triflers, perhaps Bolsheviks. The courts, however, began to observe evolving ideas of society conflicting somewhat with this central core of our law. Small businesses protested the unfairness of competing with big business, unrestrained by governmental antitrust laws. Labor unions rebelled at the situation of worker powerlessness in their eternal struggle for higher wages against huge companies intent on reducing costs. Private companies could not possibly compete against businesses run by government, but perhaps it would be more profitable for all businesses to be run by the government. One by one, foreign socialist and communist countries have tried it and were competitive failures, but perhaps Singapore and China, or Denmark and the Netherlands, have perfected government ownership to a point where some corporate state could impoverish us if we persist in the old economic model. So far, it has not been necessary to argue justice and logic; the economic failures of other systems make adoption of their legal ideas laughable.</p>

<p>Nevertheless, the premise of unlimited open land is disappearing. Only 2% of workers in the economy work in agriculture. If land is no longer the unwritten monetary standard, perhaps its requirements should no longer be the tentpole of the legal system. Perhaps the government has a legitimate role in health care, support of the arts, support of the poor and retired, education of the young. An underlying concept seems to be that certain economically unprofitable but desirable activities will not flourish in a property-based economy unless they are identified politically and reimbursed by taxation.  Perhaps in an information age, government is the logical and most efficient manager of information. Perhaps if government interfered more in private transactions, society as a whole would benefit. It can be difficult to tell how much this sort of reasoning is based on changing concepts of private ownership, and how much is a claim of collective rights; the two visions tend to merge in weakening individual control of property, while enlarging public claims to the same property. Something called Society is claimed to exist, and claimed to have rights.</p>

<p>This assault on old attitudes currently achieves prominence in the Green revolution, where residents of urban skyscrapers feel passionately about swamps and mountain tops they have never seen. If an eagle roosts on a farmer's land, somehow it is not the farmer's eagle, it is everybody's eagle. Green revolutionaries need to become far more explicit about their rights to the private property of others if they hope to convince judges that they have a case; but their ardor is not deniable.</p>
	

<p><a rel="bookmark" title="Constitution V: The Unforeseeable" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1581.htm">http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1581.htm</a></p>
<hr />


<h3><a accesskey="33" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1660.htm">Globalization</a>   </h3>
	<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/Peteraloise.jpg"  width="220" height="300"  alt="{Peter Aloise}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Peter Aloise

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p class="firstDrop"><a href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/topic/123.htm">The Right Angle Club</a> recently heard from one of its own members about the complex issues involved in the topic of globalization. <a href="http://www.aloisglobal.com/biography.html">Peter Alois</a> defined <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization">globalization</a> as the development of an increasingly integrated world marketplace, although enthusiasts call it <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade">Free Trade</a>, and opponents say it interferes with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_trade">Fair Trade</a>. Although there can be local exceptions, globalization generally leads to lower prices, so consumers are pleased, producers are worried. Since <a href="http://www.globalissues.org/issue/38/free-trade-and-globalization">Free Trade</a> can be defined as <a href="http://old.probeinternational.org/catalog/content_fullstory.php?contentId=1671">international commerce without government interference</a>, globalization can also be defined as a general reduction of government influence in trade. But whether you love it or fear it, globalization is a reality; it is here.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Hindrances">Hindrances</a> to trade can take many forms, including subsidies to local merchants, who then can underprice foreign competitors. Carrying things to an extreme, the French fairly recently prohibited the use of American words. While the reasoning used to justify this intrusion into private life was the preservation of the beauty of native French phonetics, this unfortunate government adventure calls attention to the possibility that one of the main functions of local languages is to make it difficult for foreigners to understand what is being said. <a href="http://www.wsu.edu/~delahoyd/medieval/anglo-saxon.html">The Anglo-Saxon response</a> tends to note the large expense of teaching foreign languages in our schools, so why doesn't the rest of the world just stop the nonsense and start speaking English?</p>

<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/dubai%20waterfront.jpg"  width="300" height="200"  alt="{Dubai Waterfront}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Dubai Waterfront

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>There does seem to be something about this issue related to fair play, a thoroughly <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxons">Anglo-Saxon</a> concept. When corruption of trade practices around the world is ranked, it is notable that both New Zealand and Canada, which are ranked at the top, are former <a href="http://www.kidport.com/RefLib/USaHistory/Colonies/Colonies.htm">British colonies</a>. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia">Somalia</a>, certainly one of least British of countries, is ranked at the bottom. Not doubt the French would be offended by this observation. It is also <a href="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/irksome">irksome</a> to Fair Trade advocates (ie Globalization opponents) that national prosperity is also fairly parallel to Free Trade policies, absence of corruption, and so on. It was <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin">George Washington (probably ghost-written by James Madison)</a> who most famously framed the American Doctrine: Honesty is the best policy.</p>

<p>Some of the members of the Right Angle Club, an outspoken lot, took up the other side of the proposition. Underpricing by foreigners leads to competitive advantage for them, and loss of jobs for Americans. This dislocation is the unfortunate side of creative destruction, and a compassionate government should assist its wounded casualties. Whether it should go to the lengths of raising prices for other Americans by hobbling the foreigners, is a more open question. In the passion of argument, it was mentioned that this country was founded on such principles. Well, it would be hard to find anything written in the <a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html">Constitution</a> or spoken in its debates which supports that claim. But it must be admitted that the new nation wasted little time in creating tariff protection for struggling new American manufactures, and took an awful long time to get rid of protective tariffs. The confusions of the newly developing Industrial Revolution were perhaps not the best time to develop enduring principles of trade fairness, and thus we should not necessarily be held to them forever. But there is certainly room for the argument that a nation may need a certain set of policies when it is new and struggling, that are not necessarily appropriate when it become rich enough to claim to dominate world trade.</p>
	

<p><a rel="bookmark" title="Globalization" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1660.htm">http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1660.htm</a></p>
<hr />


<h3><a accesskey="35" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1668.htm">Revising, Amending, and Skirting The Constitution</a>   </h3>
	<p class="firstDrop">In some foreign countries, people who dislike the government about some issue wait for a clear day and go in the streets to riot. Some of our own younger people who spent a little too much time abroad have likewise occasionally called their friends on a cell phone, and agreed to pour out into our town squares to protest. When you try that in Tienanmen Square (1989) or similar places, machine guns can suddenly end the meeting (2,500 dead). We had the Boston Massacre of 1770 (5 people killed) and Kent State of 1970 (4 people killed), where newsmedia somewhat over dramatized the risk involved. In general most Americans feel public demonstrations are neither very dangerous nor very useful.</p>

<p>One measure of Constitutional effectiveness can be found in just this public attitude. The citizenry have been told and generally believe that  methods for addressing grievances have been provided in the legislative, judicial and executive branches, ultimately leading to the Constitution itself as the last point of appeal.  The 1787 framers in Philadelphia probably had this design in mind, but it was not until the third Chief Justice, John Marshall, made it his life's work that the elegance of the system became widely appreciated. The Constitution is the capstone of our system; every citizen's grievance can be appealed within it. If things are sufficiently dire, even the Constitution can be changed.</p>

<p>A second Constitutional Convention could be called, but most lawyers shudder at what chaos might emerge from making multiple changes without waiting to see how a few worked out.  For practical purposes, therefore, amending the Constitution is the last recourse when government goes astray. Amendments don't easily succeed; hundreds were proposed in two hundred years but only two dozen were adopted. In totalitarian countries, millions of amendments might be envisioned, but either nothing significant would be adopted, or nothing significant would be enforced. In our country, it is sufficiently difficult to succeed that frivolous or ill-advised proposals are discarded or modified into less extreme forms by  "due process". But enough amendments do succeed to keep the populace out of street protests. Amendments can succeed, if you and the proposal  are really serious. So far the only realistic appeal beyond an amendment, has been another amendment.</p>

<p>The step provided before amendment is to appeal to the Supreme Court. That happens about a hundred times a year, with generally satisfing outcome. Perhaps the only serious criticism of the Supreme Court is the difficulty of "gaining cert.", which is the process of petitioning the Court to take the case, by granting a writ of <i>certiorari</i>. Only about 2% of petitions are allowed to present their arguments, and the Court has protected itself from overwhelming volume by limiting its caseload to instances of conflicts between circuits, and cases involving sovereignty of some sort. For such a selective process to remain acceptable, implicitly the rulings of the various Circuit Courts of Appeal would also have to enjoy general approval. That such is the case is evidenced by the fame and distinction reached by certain Judges of Appeals Courts, like Benjamin Cardozo, Learned Hand, and Richard Posner. In Cardozo's case, he was finally appointed to the Supreme Court, but at such an advanced age and short tenure that his Supreme Court reputation is rather modest; he achieved his reputation as an Appellate Judge. The failure of Robert Bork and several others to achieve Senate ratification illustrates a somewhat different version of the same issue: that the higher courts, not just the Supreme Court, are generally held to do as good a job as human systems allow; supremely gifted judges are not exclusively in the Supreme Court. As you go lower in the court system, more dissatisfaction can be heard, ultimately reaching slander  accompanied by knowing grins, such as "You show me a hundred thousand dollars, and I'll show you a Philadelphia judge."  Whenever criminals meet justice, such mutterings can  be expected. But the point to emphasize is that there are no muttered challenges to the contention that the higher you go in the Judiciary, the more distinguished the judge is likely to be.</p>

<p>That's the federal judiciary, of course. State judiciaries are held in less esteem, although they have the power to put people  in jail forever, award multimillion dollar verdicts and modify the climate of business. Somehow, the prestige of these judicial systems has eroded to the point where a joke can be heard  that being a state supreme court justice is a pretty good way to start a law practice. It's hard to know whether prestige has disappeared because of performance, or the reverse. Whether the steady erosion of state legislative power by Congress has resulted in a parallel loss of status in the judiciary is a serious question. In that case, of course, there is very little the judiciary itself can do about it. 

In two hundred years, hundreds of amendments have been submitted to overturn Supreme Court rulings which displeased someone. Only three have succeeded. The first was the overturning of <i>Chisholm v. Georgia</i> by the Eleventh Amendment, reflecting a largely unspoken wish to employ state sovereignty to continue the anti-British animosities of the Revolutionary War. While understandable enough, this approach is most unfortunate. The second is the overturning of the <i>Dred Scott</i> decision on the legitimacy of the Fugitive Slave Law by the Thirteenth Amendment. While the outcome meets general approval, here is another court position which could only be changed by winning a war. And finally, the legitimacy of the graduated income tax as an allowable private taking was established by the Sixteenth Amendment, overturning an entirely legitimate decision in <i>Pollack v. Farmers Loan and Trust </i> that the original Constitution prohibited it. In each case, the desired remedy only existed in changing the Constitution.  Dissenters are free under the First amendment to describe such a Court decision as asinine, but it is going to continue to stand.

Some will be tempted to circumvent the whole process in order to achieve their goal, and two examples come to mind. In the court-packing episode of 1937, most impartial observers would agree that the Supreme Court was forced to reverse its decision under threat of coercion by President Franklin Roosevelt. Amendment of the Constitution was a choice open to him, but he chose another way. The Commerce clause of Article I, Section 8 now continues to read:</p>

<blockquote style="font-style:italic"><p><b> The Congress shall have power to .........Regulate Commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes </b></p></blockquote>

<p>just exactly as it did when for 150 years everyone referred to it as the Interstate Commerce Clause. What has changed is the declaration that Congress may regulate all commerce of any sort, without fear of challenge in the court system. Whatever chances Roosevelt might have had to amend the Interstate Commerce Clause before this uproar, it is clear he could never have achieved its amendment afterward.</p>

<p>The second instance of circumvention is related to the same episode. The insurance industry was highly displeased to find itself regulated by federal agencies, and within six weeks successfully lobbied the McCarran Ferguson Act into law. Congress could not overturn or make an exception to a Supreme Court ruling, but it accomplished the same result by prohibiting federal  agencies from taking action in the business of insurance. To maintain regulation for insurance, all of the various states then passed laws establishing insurance regulatory mechanisms, and insurance regulation migrated back to the states. It is now difficult to know whether the same exception could have been created by then re-amending the Constitution. But since the advent of wide-spread current dissatisfaction with health insurance, it it pretty clear that an amendment imitating McCarran Ferguson would never pass, today.</p>

<p>Finally, the Eleventh Amendment may not have been such a good idea, either. The dispute in 1793 (although it avoided saying so) was about compelling Americans to pay just debts regardless of the person they owed them to. And that included paying debts to former Loyalists. John Jay the Chief Justice was sent to England to negotiate a treaty to settle this matter, but after both nations ratified the treaty, state laws were passed to supersede it. From this evolved the issue of whether a treaty takes precedence over American laws, and the ensuing battle firmly established the preemption of Congress by treaties. Two hundred years later, when the British are our allies and Revolutionary debts fade in significance, many people are uneasy about such clear-cut deference to treaties. Our unwillingness to join the League of Nations, and sign the Kyoto Agreement, or enter into many other international cooperative ventures are related to uneasiness about the unintended expansive power inherent in the Constitutional location of a foreign treaty, enacted at a time of limited communication. We are doomed by demography to perpetual minority status in world forums, but forced by economic success to exert leadership or become a target. There is no immediate emergency, but the prescribed generalities of enacting or enforcing treaties need sober reflection in the era of instant communication.</p>
	

<p><a rel="bookmark" title="Revising, Amending, and Skirting The Constitution" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1668.htm">http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1668.htm</a></p>
<hr />


<h3><a accesskey="37" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1689.htm">Subtleties of the Constitution</a>   </h3>
	<p class="firstDrop">Citizens and academics have little appreciation for the intense attention  that politicians apply to the rules. By <a href="http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/madison_papers/mjmconst.html">1787 James Madison</a> had read everything he could get his hands on related to voting procedures, representation, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29">democratic</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29">republican</a> nuances, recent and past.  Consider the size of the legislative body, a seemingly inconsequential matter.</p>

<p>Remember,  one way to prevent a  decision in favor of some particular thing, is to prevent any decision at all. Those who experience blockade by inaction, legitimately  argue that improving the committee  means reducing its size. With effective procedures and experienced leaders, a legislative body of two or three hundred can remain productive and efficient. Whatever the limit was,  it was safely  larger than anything the Constitutional Convention of 1787  had in mind for the United States Congress. Therefore,  the convention concentrated on the number of constituents each congressman should have. Divide that number into the population of the nation, and you arrive at  the size of the body without specifying it. It would be two centuries before America itself  grew to the size where it was necessary to constrain the number of congressmen to a manageable size. During the earlier years of the republic, however, there might be concerns that "the body" was too small and thus too easily controlled by personal dominance. But the nation would eventually grow to the point where the size of Congress had to be limited to around 500 members; that would eventually reverse some important considerations. If we ever reach a size where both the size of the body and the number of constituents per congressman are both undesirably large, there could be a lot of squirming.</p>

<p>The most serious issue for the founders  was the number of constituents each representative should have. Here, the argument was that a congressman representing a small group would likely respond to the narrow parochial interests of that small group,  while a representative of a large group would more likely have many narrow interests to consider, thus be more likely to represent the interests of the nation as a whole. Natural conflicts between farmers and fishermen would likely illustrate this  dynamic; small districts or less numerous  ones would likely split between those representing fishermen and those representing farmers, large districts or more numerous  ones would force the representative to respect the interest of both. Small districts would be more partisan, in this view.  The other extreme  would be districts so large that every representative was forced to consider broader concerns, and the republic would end up so bland that important  constituencies go unrepresented. The latter concern was wide spread at the time of the founding of the country; it was accepted that republics must remain small to remain republics. Madison found this to be  one of the most serious obstacles to agreeing to a national republic, and he took considerable trouble to rebut it. This theory was behind the otherwise peculiar concept which Benjamin Franklin had advanced for many decades, which was that England and British America ought to have separate parliaments, united in allegiance to the same king. There seemed little difference between that idea and the design of the Articles of Confederation with thirteen colonies reporting to the Continental Congress, so it was fortuitous that the abject failure of the Articles made it unnecessary to argue the merits of this multi-chamber approach at the Constitutional Convention.</p>

<p>Nevertheless, it was a serious  concern, based on clear logic. The anti-Federalists were a national group, ultimately a political party of individualists hostile to overbearing top-down authority. Their cause was  hampered by the plain failure of the Articles of Confederation, but nevertheless they were legitimately very restless about a Congress with a weak perception of its duty to represent minorities. The anti-Federalists somehow envisioned each representative as a lawyer defending local interests at court. Indeed, in the days of a strong British monarchy, that was essentially how the British Parliament operated. As the King lost effective power to  rule, ministries elected from within the Parliament took over the powers and attitudes of monarchs. In a sense, that was worse, because the districts lost their power to nominate their own representative, who was selected for them by the party leaders -- now acting in the role of substitute King. So that was no good, either, and the anti-Federalists even though collectively a majority, were basically supporters of the Articles of Confederation, and the Articles were a failure. They thus lost the ratification battle, but although soon taking over the government, had no better proposal to make. A few decades later the South seceded and essentially reinstated the Articles of Confederation in their own part of the country; once again the loose confederation idea failed.</p>

<p>In advancing his argument that a large republic was indeed going to be workable, Madison promoted the idea that a large constituency would produce statesmen of distinction. Only a person of great merit, wealth and effectiveness would be well enough known to be elected. Therefore, congressmen with large districts to represent would tend to be rich,  well-born and famous. Senators would be even more so because they were selected by legislatures and governors (before the Seventeenth amendment), and thus the entire government would become progressively and permanently made up of the elite. Madison particularly liked this idea, because it seemed to solve what he considered the main flaw of elected government. Poor people would always outnumber rich ones, and would inevitably use their voting power to enrich themselves at the expense of the upper classes. Constructing an elitist government by enlargement of congressional district size was thus a highly elegant design feature. Unfortunately for Madison, the scheme didn't produce that result.</p>

<p>Much has been written about the most famous about-face in American history, when Madison the Federalist founder became Madison the leader of the anti-Federalist faction. Madison, George Washington's trusted Federalist agent, became Jefferson's anti-Federalist agent,  and Washington never spoke to him again. Briefly, it has been speculated that the Virginia tobacco plantation culture out of which Madison had emerged,  had begun to crumble, undercutting Madison's Virginia base. And it has been speculated that Hamilton's spectacular leadership of the American banking version of the Industrial Revolution unsettled Madison's earlier conviction that the Old Dominion of Virginia would rule the new nation. And it has been muttered that Madison, the ever-scheming politician, saw that his own future presidency would be more enhanced by Jefferson's popularity than by  Washington's physical leadership in his lame-duck years. There may be still other important considerations in Madison's famous switch which we can only hope historians will be able to uncover. But there seems little doubt that Madison was able to see with his own  eyes that the Congress of Merit, Distinction, and Success which he had imagined would result from large congressional districts, had in fact already in Washington's administration begun to deteriorate into the stereotype of professional professional politician  which today's satirists and cartoonists are pleased to pillory in their blogs on the Internet. Madison had feared the poor would outvote the rich, but in fact the main form this demographic took was that machine politics and special-interest factionalism essentially drove the natural leadership of gentlemen entirely off the stage. The rules changed; winning this game required power and organization, not just the  offer of service.</p>

<p>Over time, the relationship between the Senate and the House of Representatives changed, and the size of the membership had much to do with it. At first, the House was more powerful and prestigious. Direct election by constituents had more prestige than appointment by Legislatures. Later on, the Senate was a more suitable size as a deliberative body than the much larger House; running for election every six years was much to be preferred over running every two years. In the past century, the volume of work forced both bodies to develop a standing committee system. With five hundred members, the House could develop specialists in certain areas, and often a senior member in a safe district could remain in a topic area for thirty or more years. The Senate had fewer members, so each Senator is on several committees. Whatever the merits of a smaller deliberative body, the Senators have increasingly found themselves spread too thin, with new members taking too long to become expert, and older members too tired to keep up with everything. The consequences in both chambers have produced a phenomenon that even Madison never envisioned.</p>

<p>The legislative staff has continued to grow, and has in general grown increasingly professional and proficient at their jobs. In general, the staff went to better Universities and got better grades there than the member they work for, and need not worry about running for election. Often having spent their lives immersed in a legislative topic, they know it cold. Consequently, we have all the makings of a "Yes, Minister," phenomenon in which the people who were not elected are more expert and more academically serene than the member who was elected, and who has the vote. The member and the staff member desperately need each other to succeed, but nevertheless, the potential for secret resentments and secret contempt is present every day in a highly tense environment of constant  overwork. When Ronald Reagan introduced the idea of shrinking the government, and the younger George Bush actually tried to do it, the result was leaks to the newspapers and rumors to the effect that a President who had gone to Yale and had an MBA from Harvard, was a bumpkin. Just how serious all this is, and how exaggerated, is hard to say. But it is a concept that would have dominated the thinking of James Madison for months, if it had ever occurred to him. We have entered an era of 1200-page bills, much of which first surfaces in conference committees a few hours before the vote. Only a handful of members and a handful of staff know what is in these bills, and it can sometimes be a month after passage before the press discovers many buried features. The members cannot master these masterworks of legislation, so they get bigger by being patched. And by getting bigger, it is harder to master them. If, as someone like Ronald Reagan would genially remark, we just fired all the staff, then the bills would be reduced to one or two pages. In some ways, legislation would be better, in some ways worse. But it would be different, because maybe it should be different.</p>
	

<p><a rel="bookmark" title="Subtleties of the Constitution" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1689.htm">http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1689.htm</a></p>
<hr />


<h3><a accesskey="39" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1737.htm">George Washington on the Federal Union</a>   </h3>
	<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/President_George_Washingtonblack.jpg"  width="150" height="200"  alt="{President George Washington}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

President George Washington

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p class="firstDrop">"It is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism">individual</a> happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics">political</a> safety and prosperity, watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of any attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts."</p>
	

<p><a rel="bookmark" title="George Washington on the Federal Union" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1737.htm">http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1737.htm</a></p>
<hr />


<h3><a accesskey="41" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1739.htm">Franklin Endorses the Constitution</a>   </h3>
	<p class="firstDrop">Monday Sepr. 17, 1787. In Convention (6th and Chestnut, Philadelphia).</p>

<p>The Engrossed <a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html">Constitution</a> being read, Docr. Franklin rose with a Speech in his hand, which he had reduced to writing for his own conveniency, and which Mr. Wilson read in the words following:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/georgewashington">Mr. President</a>,</p>

<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/bustof%20Franklinheadmarble.jpg"  width="200" height="250"  alt="{Bust of Benjamin Franklin}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Bust of Benjamin Franklin

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>I confess that there are several parts of this <a href="http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html">constitution</a> which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise.  It is therefore that the older  I grow, the more apt I am to  doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others.  Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever  others differ from them it is so far error.  Steele, a Protestant in a Dedication tells <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_VI">the Pope</a>, that the only difference between our Churches in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrines is, the <a href="http://www.vatican.va/">Church of Rome</a> is infallible and the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England">Church of England</a> is never in the wrong.  But though many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain French lady, who in a dispute with her sister, said, "I don't know how it happens, Sister, but I meet with no body but myself, that's always in the right"- "Il n'y a que moi qui a toujours raison."</p>

<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/Constitutionsun.jpg"  width="300" height="200"  alt="{Signing of the Constitution}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Signing of the Constitution

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this  Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain may be able to make a better Constitution.  For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views.  From such an Assembly can a perfect production be expected?  It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Babel">Builders of Babel</a>; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another's throats.  Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am  not sure, that it is not the best.  The opinions I have had of its error, I sacrifice to the public good--I have never whispered a syllable of them abroad-- Within these walls they were born, and here they shall die--If every one of us in returning to our Constituents were to report  the objections he has had to it, and endeavor to gain partisans in support  of them, we might prevent its being generally received, and thereby lose all the salutary effects and great advantages resulting naturally in our  favor among foreign Nations as well as among ourselves, from our real or apparent unanimity.   Much of the strength and efficiency of any Government in procuring and securing happiness to the people, depends, on  opinion, on the general opinion of the goodness of the Government, as well as of the wisdom and integrity of its Governors. I hope therefore that for our own sakes as a part of the people  and for the sake of our posterity, we shall act heartily and unanimously in recommending this <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution">Constitution</a> (if approved by Congress and confirmed by the Conventions) wherever our influence may extend, and turn our future thoughts and endeavors to the means of having it well administered.</p>

<p>On the whole, Sir, I cannot help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility--and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument.</p>

<p>He then moved that the Constitution  be signed.</p>

<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/huge.82.413542.JPG"  width="300" height="200"  alt="{President's Chair}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

President's Chair

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>When the last members were signing it, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin">Doctor Franklin</a> looking towards <a href="http://www.ushistory.org/more/sun.htm">the President's Chair</a>, at the back of which a rising sun happened to be painted, observed to a few members near him, that Painters had found it difficult to distinguish in their art a rising from a setting sun.  I have, said he, often and often in the course of the Session, and the vicissitudes of my hopes and fears as to its issues, looked at that behind the President without being able to tell whether it was rising or setting: But now at length I have the happiness to know that it is a rising and not a setting Sun.</p>
	

<p><a rel="bookmark" title="Franklin Endorses the Constitution" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1739.htm">http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1739.htm</a></p>
<hr />


<h3><a accesskey="43" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1740.htm">States Rights Confront Civil War</a>   </h3>
	<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/drrandalmiller.jpg"  width="300" height="200"  alt="{Dr. Randall Miller}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Dr. Randall Miller

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p class="firstDrop"><a href="http://www.sju.edu/news/experts/history/miller.html">Dr. Randall Miller of St. Joseph's University</a> recently gave <a href="http://www.unionleague.org/">the Union League</a> an interesting insight into the non-military upheavals of America by Congress during the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War">Civil War</a>. (Parenthetically, Dr. Miller is the author of <a href="http://philadelphiaencyclopedia.org/"><i>Encyclopedia of Greater Philadelphia</i></a>, which may give him still greater prominence in these columns when it reaches print.) Lincoln and the military get most of the headlines, but the greatest  nation-building activities were products of the Congress, not Abraham Lincoln directly; the President was too busy directing the war  to take much  lead in other matters.  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29">The Republican Party</a> of that time was freshly created, still strong in its idealism around elements of the party platform which really meant something to them. Although Senators John Sherman of Ohio and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_P._Fessenden">William P. Fessenden of Maine</a> are remembered by history, most of the activity was conducted by members of the Congress who had reached seniority in committees, and hence mostly had died off by the end of the War. It seems like one of history's great unfairnesses that a remarkable transformation of the nation was accomplished by people who are now largely unknown.</p>

<p>So Lincoln gets much of the credit by default, and the idealism and grand plans are lost in the current view that <a href="http://socialistworker.org/2005-1/532/532_08_FreedTheSlaves.shtml">the Civil War was about liberating the slaves</a>. That was of course part of it, but the Civil War was in fact mostly fought about the Union, and the Whig principles essential to nation-building. And the transformation was the vision of party policians in offices which we currently regard as being filled by party hacks in safe seats. That wasn't the case at all; these visionaries knew where they wanted the country to go, and cleverly designed a set of programs to make it happen. Lincoln wanted to win the war; these men wanted to have a new nation emerge, after the war.</p>

<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/civilwar.jpg"  width="300" height="300"  alt="" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Civil War 

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption --><p>It almost goes without saying that a Civil War over the secession of rebellious  state governments from a Union created by the Constitution was going to weaken state power -- and strengthen Federal control -- if the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unionist">Unionists</a> won the war. That's what the Republicans wanted, and what the Southerners feared. But, strangely, both sides harbored warm feelings for the Constitution, wanting to preserve much of its essence. The Republicans therefore realized that many of the laws which were essential for winning the war, would lose their popularity and hence their force, once victory had been achieved. <a href="http://wps.ablongman.com/long_carnes_an_11/0,7137,251530-,00.html">Reconstruction of the South</a>, for example, was going to be unsustainable as soon as the huge <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Army">Union Army</a> was demobilized. The liberated slaves were unlikely to migrate to the western wilderness, and so the problems of racial readjustment  were going to remain Southern problems for decades to come, without an army of occupation to maintain stability, law and order. In fact, it was largely Southern whites who migrated to the far West, leaving the situation even more unstable back in the old confederacy. How was a brave new nation to emerge from this mess?</p>

<p>War measures did help. There was no <a href="http://www.frbsf.org/currency/">Federal currency</a> until the War, and so a national system of greenbacks and war bonds helped to unify a vast and far flung continent. <a href="http://www.ushistory.org/tour/tour_1bank.htm">The National Banks</a>, fought over and feared for nearly a century, simply had to be created; all of these national rather than local symbols strengthened the national feeling. Putting  10% tax on state bonds was a pretty good indication that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Republican_Congressional_Committee">the congressional Republicans</a> knew where they were driving things.  The telegraph was of great value to wartime communication; it helped create a virtual community, with national news taking the place of local news.</p>

<p>Up until the Civil War, the main source of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Banking_Act">Federal income</a> was derived from the sale of land; the new nation had a lot more land than gold. After the war, the nation found itself with taxation as the main source of income. The income tax was a step too far, of course, and it was repealed; but a system of national currency organized a system of national taxes which persisted. The country still had plenty of raw land, but it was distributed by giving it to railroads in return for national transportation, and to land-grant colleges in return for greater uniformity of culture. Notice the hand of Congress, however. This land was to be surveyed land, not the land between this rock and that creek. Surveyors since the time of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Penn">William Penn</a> and <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/georgewashington">George Washington</a> were the agents of orderliness, law, and peaceful settlement of disputes. To that extent, surveyors broke up the reliance on local clans and territoriality; peace instead of conquest. <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/North-American-Leaders-Declaration-on-Climate-Change-and-Clean-Energy/">The leaders of the North</a>, the Republicans in congress and the cabinet knew what they wanted; it was that the sacrifices of the war would find
a reward in the peace that would follow, and that reward would be a new nation.</p>

<p>Notice carefully the second section of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution">the Thirteenth Amendment</a>. The first section <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States">freed the slaves</a>. The second section gave to the <a href="http://www.barefootsworld.net/real13th.html">Federal government the charge of enforcing that liberty</a>. The crafters of words and designers of rules, knew exactly where they wanted to go.</p>

<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/Constitution.jpg"  width="384" height="450"  alt="{The Constitution}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

The Constitution

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>They did their work so well, that it begins to look as though the next few decades will display a crisis, created by going too far, too fast. In all these idealistic schemes, the state government is the enemy. State governments would interfere with Reconstruction; state governments would interfere with land grants, and misuse their undisputed control of local law enforcement. State governments would introduce little strategems for restoring the power to tax and control, and to govern. State governments would slowly remember that the Constitution conferred only a few limited powers on the Federal government, and reserved all other powers to the states. <a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html">The Constitution</a> would never have achieved ratification without this explicit provision in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution">XII Amendment</a>. And so, step by step, we have achieved some sort of goal by making the state governments into the weakest, most ineffectual, and yes the most corrupt parts of our national system. <a href="http://www.ca.gov/">California</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York">New York</a>, <a href="http://www.state.nj.us/">New Jersey</a>, and <a href="http://www.michigan.gov/">Michigan</a> lead the way into what seems a certain disaster  of enlisting municipal employees into political machines of the worst sort, and bankrupting the states that permit it.  Massachusetts, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhode_Island">Rhode Island</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland">Maryland</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia">West Virginia</a> are not far behind.</p>

<p>Fanatics could persuade themselves that a solution readily lies in simply going all the way and eliminating state governments. But to do so would destroy <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Madison">James Madison's</a> brilliant insight. The states place a limit on unlimited power from whatever source by offering the citizens  a choice: if things get too bad, just move to a nearby state.</p>
	

<p><a rel="bookmark" title="States Rights Confront Civil War" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1740.htm">http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1740.htm</a></p>
<hr />


<h3><a accesskey="45" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1742.htm">George Washington's Cherry Tree, Revisited</a>   </h3>
	<table class="right" summary="image with caption"> <tr> <td style="text-align:center;"> <img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/georgewashingtoncherry-tree.jpg" width="229" height="191" alt="{George Washington Chopping the Cherry Tree}" /> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="caption"> George Washington chopping the Cherry Tree </td> </tr> </table> <!-- image with caption --> <p class="firstDrop">Parson Weems, it seems, was a mercenary type who made up stories because he thought they would sell. Someone should explore the history of this anti-Weems debunking campaign for us, because it has distracted history from what may be a far more important truth about the founding, and the founder, of our country.</p>

<p>The address President Washington sent to his countrymen, published September 19, 1796, will apparently be forever referred to as his Farewell Address, and it is true that one of the important points he was making was the President should have only two terms of office, adding in his particular case the determination not to die while in office and create undesirable precedents for Presidential succession. It is also sometimes stressed that Washington cautioned the nation against all foreign entanglements, although likely he had in mind the particular conflicted loyalty at the time between England which we strongly resembled, and France to whom we owed a debt of gratitude for our independence. Surely he was telling the nation to watch out for its precarious independence, even at the price of disappointing old friends, and not really attempting to look centuries ahead in foreign relations. The point about a third term was a pretty firm one; Washington's greatest achievement in the eyes of the world was to renounce all resemblance to monarchy, which he could have had for the asking.</p>

<table class="left" summary="image with caption"> <tr> <td style="text-align:center;"> <img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/farewelladdressGW.jpg" width="200" height="300" alt="" /> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="caption"> Farewell Address for George Washington </td> </tr> </table> <!-- image with caption --> <p>Much deeper meaning for the address is suggested when you search, let's say with Google, for the origins of the speech's repeated maxim, <i> Honesty is the best policy</i>. It sounds like the sort of thing Ben Franklin would put in his Almanac, but didn't. There are even times in Franklin's life when it might be questioned whether he really believed honesty was always the best choice for every situation, and Franklin's true belief might possibly have been closer to advising that you should strive to avoid getting caught misleading people. The opinion that honesty is the best policy sounds as if it might come from Shakespeare, or Cervante's <i>Don Quixote</i>; something pretty close can be found in both places. It might be much older than that; the phrase and a detailed examination of its merits can be found in the works of Quintillian, 69 AD. George Washington was unlikely to have read any classical Roman essays, but James Madison the favorite student of John Witherspoon at Princeton might well have been familiar with Quintilian. But these stray remarks about honesty are merely scatterings over fifteen centuries, mostly throw-away lines. It is only in the last decades of the eighteenth Century that the little maxim is found peppered in the speeches of many people, beginning to use it as a cliche to adorn some other point of emphasis.</p>

<table class="right" width="360" summary="inline quote box" style="background-color:#ffffcc; margin:10px;" cellspacing="7" border="1" cellpadding="5"> <tr><td style="padding:5"> <img style="float:left;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:top;border-style:none" src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/startquote.gif" alt="{top quote}" /><br />It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them. <img style="float:left;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:bottom;border-style:none" src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/endquote.gif" alt="{bottom quote}" /> <br style="clear: both" /></td></tr><tr><td style="padding:5;background-color:#cccc99;text-align:center"> <!-- no ilq caption provided --> </td></tr> </table> <!-- inline quote box --> <p>The point begins to catch the imagination that perhaps this flowering of a maxim can be traced to Washington's Farewell Address. It's unlikely that George Washington actually coined the phrase that honesty was best policy, any more than Franklin Roosevelt coined the motto that all we have to fear is fear itself, or John Kennedy originated the happy phrase that we should ask not what our country can do for us, etc. Our more sophisticated views of Presidential rhetoric are now quite broad enough to accept the existence of ghost writers and wordsmiths. It is current practice to agree that credit for originating a phrase adheres rightly to the person symbolized later when the phrase enters common parlance. To think otherwise is to become entangled in bickering about who wrote Shakespeare's plays, or who really wrote the various books of the Bible.</p>

<table class="left" summary="image with caption"> <tr> <td style="text-align:center;"> <img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/GeorgeWashington's%20House.jpg" width="300" height="200" alt="{President's House Philadelphia}" /> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="caption"> President's House Philadelphia </td> </tr> </table> <!-- image with caption --><p>There is, however, historical importance to the speech-writer question in Washington's case. We are told that Washington had asked James Madison to draw up a speech for the occasion of his declining to accept a second term of office in 1792, but the whole matter was reconsidered when various advisors finally persuaded the President that the country needed him at the helm for more than four years. The speech was therefore set aside, but revised and re-issued four years later. By this time, however, Washington and Madison had experienced their fateful falling-out, and therefore Madison's arch-enemy Alexander Hamilton did the re-writing. That <i>honesty is the best policy</i> should survive as a centerpiece in an address co-edited by such bitter philosophical enemies, plus some passing reflection on the personalities of the three men, should suffice to dispel most doubt that the sentiment was Washington's, and that it must have been held very intensely by him. Madison may well have planted it, and he might very well have got it in turn from Cervantes or Quintillian. David Hume of Scotland might be an even likelier source. But overall it is hard to let go of the idea that Washington seized on it as a summary of something he fiercely believed.</p>

<p>There are differing degrees of and situations for honesty, of course; surely the most trivial is the sort of honesty Parson Weems was imagining in the little lad who would become our greatest leader. It really is not necessary to believe the courage to risk a whipping by a schoolboy is a core value which evolves into broad economic vision for a nation. The legal profession, for example, may even overvalue absolute precision of wording, sometimes tolerating exquisite accuracy which artfully avoids full disclosure, <i>caveat emptor</i>. The military academies come closer to Washington's meaning by stressing to their graduates that what matters is not what is said, but what is communicated. At the time of the Farewell letter, what agitated Washington most was political partisanship -- political parties -- and overzealous effort to defeat the opinions of honest opponents rather than strive for resolution of problems by bargain and compromise. In his youth, Washington was a surveyor, deeply impressed by the advantages of getting things straight the first time. Washington was to lose the argument over political parties, but while this defeat was among his greatest disappointments, his resistance still shines like a beacon.</p>

<p>It is hard to discern whether Washington had the depth of economic insight to emphasize the feature of <i>honesty is the best policy</i> which has greatest importance to the twenty-first Century. However, it is possible he did, because he was speaking in the midst of Quaker Philadelphia, having centered most of his public life there. Puritan Boston deeply believed that God had commanded honesty in His followers, honesty for its own sake, and the sake of the honest person's soul. But the wealth of Boston was overshadowed by thriving Eighteenth century Quaker Philadelphia. Honesty to a Quaker was of course a good thing in itself, but experience showed that strict honesty in commercial dealings, and friendliness in all dealings, was very good for business. And conversely, the example of success on all sides encourages others to be honest and friendly when perhaps it was not their first inclination; honesty is catching. John Adams was scornful of those who do the right thing for the wrong reason, but this viewpoint gets ignored in the Twenty-first century. What is important for the third world to grasp is not intuitively obvious; they see abundant examples of getting rich at the expense of others, so much so that the third world and much of our own is willing to believe that if you have prospered, you must have stolen. If the third world cannot grasp the higher truth, we despair of ever getting along with them. Indeed, we may need to worry about skeptics increasing in our own midst. If Washington ever wavered, however, no one has told us of it.</p>
	

<p><a rel="bookmark" title="George Washington's Cherry Tree, Revisited" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1742.htm">http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1742.htm</a></p>
<hr />


<h3><a accesskey="47" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1756.htm">Separation of Church and State</a>   </h3>
	<table class="right" width="175" summary="inline quote box"
    style="background-color:#ffffcc; margin:10px;" cellspacing="7" border="1" cellpadding="5">
    <tr><td style="padding:5">
    <img style="float:left;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:top;border-style:none"
    src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/startquote.gif" alt="{top quote}" /><br /><b>Congress shall make no law</b> respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. <img style="float:left;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:bottom;border-style:none"
    src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/endquote.gif" alt="{bottom quote}" />
    <br style="clear: both" /></td></tr><tr><td style="padding:5;background-color:#cccc99;text-align:center">
<!-- no ilq caption provided -->
    </td></tr>
</table> <!-- inline quote box --><p class="firstDrop">Simplified <a href="http://www.shmoop.com/pictures/index/history/hist00030/state_divisions02.html"> histories of America</a> often declare that other <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_colonization_of_the_Americas">Western Hemisphere colonists</a> mostly came to plunder and exploit; whereas English Protestant colonists came  with families to settle, fleeing <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_persecution">religious persecution</a>. That's a considerable condensation of events covering three centuries, but it is true that before <a href="http://www.42explore2.com/revolt.htm">the Revolutionary War</a>, eleven of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteen_Colonies">the thirteen American colonies</a> approximated <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto">the de facto</a> condition of having established religions. Massachusetts and Virginia, the earliest colonies, had by 1776 even reached the point of appreciable rebelliousness against their new religious establishments. The three <a href="http://www.chroniclesofamerica.com/quaker_colonies.htm">Quaker colonies</a> were  late settlements, in existence less than a century before the Revolution, and still comfortable with the notion  they were religious utopias. But while differing in intensity all colonials respected the mottos, habits of thought,  and forms of speech  natural to utopians residing in a religious environment.</p>

<p>Once <a href="http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/martin-luther.html">Martin Luther</a> had let <a href="http://www.jstor.org/pss/3788857">the Protestant genii</a>  out of its religious bottle, however, revisionist logic was pursued into its many corners. Ultimately, all Protestant questers found themselves confronting -- not <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma">religious dogmatism</a>, but  its opposite -- the secularized  eighteenth century enlightenment.  Comparatively few colonists were willing to acknowledge doubts openly about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle">miracles</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinity">divinity</a>, but private doubts were sufficiently prevalent among colonial leaders to engender restlessness about the <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/TYRANNIES">tyrannies</a> and particularly the <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rigidities">rigidities</a> of the dominant religions, adding to discomfort with self-serving political struggles observable among their preachers,  and alarm about the occasional wars and persecutions over arguable religious doctrines. Arriving quite late in this evolution of thought -- but not too late to experience a few bloody persecutions themselves -- the Quakers sought to purify their <a href="http://en.allexperts.com/q/Quakers-1550/Quaker-society-utopia.htm">Utopia</a> by eliminating preachers from their worship entirely. Thus, the most central and soon the most prosperous of the colonies made it respectable to criticize religious leaders in general for the many troubles they provoked.</p>

<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/friendshouseondon.jpg"  width="250" height="188"  alt="{London Yearly Meeting}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

London Yearly Meeting

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>For Quakers, the most wrenching, disheartening revelation came when they were themselves in unchallenged local control during <a href="http://www.philaprintshop.com/frchintx.html">the French and Indian War</a>. The purest of motives and the most earnest desire to do the right thing  provided no guidance for those in charge of  government when the French and Indians were scalping  western settlers and burning their cabins. Yes, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotch-Irish_American">Scotch-Irish settlers</a> of the frontier had unwisely sold liquor and gunpowder to the Indians, and yes, the Quakers of the Eastern part of the state had sought to buffer their own safety from frontier violence by selling more westerly land to combative <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts">Celtic immigrant tribes</a>. Similar strategy had worked well enough with the earlier German settlers, but reproachful history  was not likely to pacify frontier Scots in the midst of  massacre. The Quaker government was expected to do what all governments are expected to do, protect their people right or wrong. To trace the social contract back to William Penn's  friend <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke">John Locke</a> was too bland for a religion which prided itself on plain speech. Non-violent pacifism just could not be   reconciled with the duties of a government to protect its citizens. The even more comfortably remote Quakers of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britain_Yearly_Meeting">the London Yearly Meeting</a>  then indulged themselves in the luxury of consistent logic; a letter was dispatched to the bewildered <a href="http://americanhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/colonial_pennsylvania">Quaker Colonials</a>. They must withdraw from participation in government. And they obeyed.</p>

<p>Although the frontier Scots were surely relieved to have non-Quakers assume control of their military duty, the western part of the state has never forgotten nor forgiven. In their eyes, Quakers were not fit to be in charge of anything. Quaker wealth, sophistication and education were irrelevant; only Presbyterians are fit to rule. A strong inclination toward pre-destination reinforced that idea.</p>

<p>The French and Indian War in fact turned out fairly well; most of its victories were located on the European side of the Ocean. But twenty years later the Revolutionary War turned into a reassertion of the British conquest of America. If there was to be American victory,  American troops must do the fighting. Many prosperous and educated Quakers solved their dilemma by fleeing to Canada, but the ardent Quaker proposal for dealing with a coercive British government was not at all impractical. John Dickinson in particular argued that since the British motives were economic, success was most likely to come from  economic counter-pressure, adroitly leveraged by three thousand miles of intervening ocean. That was shrewd, and potentially effective. But the Scots-Presbyterian position was simpler and more direct. If you want us to fight your war, you are going to have to fight to win. The Virginia cavaliers were probably more likely to win a conventional war if put in charge, but the blunt and almost savage frontiersmen were ideally suited for what has come to be called guerrilla warfare. Washington was a leader, French money was  welcome and Ben Franklin was a diplomat, but the clarion call to this particular battle was the voice of Patrick Henry.</p>

<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/congresshall2.jpg"  width="300" height="258"  alt="{Congress Hall}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Congress Hall

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>In all wars, diplomatic arts and  religious restraints  are set aside as insufficient, if not altogether failures. In the Revolution,  some Quakers split  from pacifism and became Free Quakers, many more drifted into Episcopalianism,  never to return to pacifism. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was eventually held in this persisting environment; previous service in the War counted for something, and the great goal was to strengthen the central government -- for more effective regional defense. A great many  leaders were Masons, holding  that much can be accomplished by secular leadership, independent of  religious reasonings. Neither Washington nor Madison revealed much of their religious positions, although Washington the church attender always declined communion; Franklin and probably Jefferson were at heart deists, believing that God may well exist, but had wound up the universe like a clock  and let it run by itself. The New England Calvinist doctrines have since evolved as Unitarianism, which outsiders would say theologically is not greatly different from deism. Physically surrounding the Philadelphia convention was a predominantly Quaker attitude; preachers get you into trouble entirely too often.</p>

<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/james_madison.jpg"  width="209" height="260"  alt="{James Madison}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

James Madison

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>When the first Congress finally met under their new constitution, they immediately confronted over a hundred Constitutional amendments,  mostly submitted from the frontier and fomented by Jefferson, demanding a bill of rights. The demand of these amendments was overwhelmingly  that the newly-strengthened central government must not intrude into the rights of citizens. Recognizing the power of local community action, states rights must similarly be strengthened. Just where these rights came from was often couched in divine terms for lack of better proof  that they were innate, or natural. From a modern perspective, these rights in fact often originated in what theologians call Enthusiasm; the belief that if enough people want something passionately enough, it must have a divine source. The newly minted politicians in the first Congress recognized something had to be done about this uproar. Congress formed a committee to consider matters, and appointed as  chairman -- James Madison. Obviously, the chief architect of the Constitution would not be thrilled to see his product twisted out of shape by a hundred amendments, but on the other hand, a man from Piedmont Virginia would be careful to placate the likes of Patrick Henry. The ultimate result was  the Bill of Rights, and Madison packed considerably more than ten rights into the package, in order to preserve the cadence of the Ten Commandments. The First Amendment, for example, is really six rights, skillfully shaped together to sound more or less like one idea with illustrative examples. Overall freedom of thought comfortably might include freedom of speech (and the press), along with freedom of religion and assembly, and the right to petition for grievances. But what it actually says is that Congress shall not establish a national religion. Since eleven states really had approximated a single established religion, the clear intent was to prohibit a single national religion while tolerating  unifications within the various states. Subsequent Supreme Courts have extended the Constitution to apply to the states as well, responding to a growing recognition that religious states had the potential to get so heated as to war with each other. No matter what their doctrines, it seemed wiser to deprive organized religions of political power as a firm step toward giving the Constitution itself dominant power over the processes of political selection.</p>

<p>At first however it was pretty clear; one state's brand of religion was not to boss around the religion of another state. Eventually within one state, Virginia for example, the upstate Presbyterian ministers were not to push around the Episcopalian bishops of the Tidewater. Madison and Jefferson saw well enough where political uprisings tended to start in those days, in gathered church meetinghouses. In this way, an Amendment originally promoted  to protect religions has evolved into a way to ease them out of political power. The idea of separation of church and state has grown increasingly stronger, to the point where most Americans would agree it  defines a viable republic.  No doubt, the spectacle of preachers exhorting the faithful in opposite directions during the Civil War, finally settled the argument.</p>
	

<p><a rel="bookmark" title="Separation of Church and State" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1756.htm">http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1756.htm</a></p>
<hr />


<h3><a accesskey="49" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1765.htm">WILLIAM BLATHWAYT'S DRAFT OF THE CHARTER OF PENNSYLVANIA</a>   </h3>
	<p>Charles the Second, by the grace of [God] King of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland, Defend[er] of the Faith &amp; Co. To all to whom these presents shall come, greeting.</p>

<p><b>  Whereas</b> our truste[d] and well beloved subject William Penn Esquire, sonne and heire of Sir William Penn, deceased, out of a comendable desire to enlarge our English Empire and promote such usefull comodities as may be of benefit to us and our dominions, as also to reduce the Savage Natives by Gentle and just manners to the Love of civill Society and Christian Religion, hath humbly besought leave of us to transport an ample Colony unto a certaine Country hereinafter described in the parte of America not yet cultivated and planted. And hath likewise humbly besought our Royall Ma[jes]tie to give, grant, and confirme all the said Country with certaine priviledges and Jurisdicions requisite for the good govern�ment and safety of the said Country and Colony, to him and his heires for ever.   Know yee therefore that wee, favoring the petition and good purpose of the said William Penn, and haveing regard to the memory and merits of his late Father in diverse services and particularly to his conduct, courage, and dircctione {discretion} under our dearest Brother James, Duke of Yorke, in that signall Battle and Victorie fought and obtained against the Dutch Fleet comanded by [illegible word deleted] {The}2 Heer Van Obdam in the yeare 1653.   In consideration thereof of our speciall grace, certaine knowledge, and meere motion have given and granted and by this our present Charter for us our heires and successors, doe give and grant unto the said William Penn his heires and Assignes</p>

<p><b> All that Tract or part of Land of {in}4 America </b>with all the Islands therein contained <b> as the same is bounded</b> on the East by Delaware River from Twelve miles distance Northwards of Newcastle Towne unto the Three and Fortieth degree of Northerne Latitude, If the said River doth extend soe farr northwards.   But if the said River shall not extend soe farr northward. then by the said River soe farr as it doth extend, and from the Head of the said River, the Eastern-bounds are to be determined by a Meridian Line to bee drawne from the head of the said River unto the said Three and Fortieth degree; The said Lands {to} extend westward Five degrees in longi�tude to be computed from the said Eastern bounds, and the said Lands to be bounded on the north by the begining of the Three and Fortieth degree of northerne Latitude and on the South by a Circle drawne of {at}5 12 miles distance from Newcastle northwards6 and westwards, unto the begining of the Fortieth degree of northerne Latitude, and then by a streight line westwards to the limit of Longitude above mentioned7</p>

<p><b>Wee doe alsoe give and grant</b> unto the said William Penn his heires and Assignes The <b>free and undisturbed use and continuance in and passage into and out</b> of all and singular Ports, Harbours, Bayes, Waters, Rivers, Isles and Inletts belonging unto and {or} leading to and from the Country or Islands aforesaid And all the Soyle, Lands, Feilds, woods, underwoods, mountaines, hills, Fenns, Isles , Lakes, Rivers, Waters, Rivuletts, Bayes, and Inletts scituate or being within or belonging unto the Limitts and bounds aforesaid together with the <b>fishing of all sorts</b> of Fish, whales {sturgeons} and all Royall and other Fishes in the Sea, Bayes, Inletts, waters, or Rivers within the premisses and the Fish therein taken And alsoe all veines Mines and Quarries as well discovered, as not discovered, of gold, silver ,gemms and other {pretious} stones and all other whatsoever bee it of stones, mettalls, or of any other thing or matter whatsoever found or to be found within the Country Isles or limitts aforesaid</p>

<p>And him the said <b<William Penn, his heires and As-signes, Wee doe by this our Royall Charter for us our heires and successors make, create, and constitute the true and absolute Proprie�taries</b> of the countryes7 aforesaid and of all other the premisses</b> saveing alwayes {to us our heirs and successors}8 the Faith and allegiance of the said William Penn his heires and Assignes and of all other {the proprietaries tenants and}9 the inhabitants that are or shall be within the Territories and precincts aforesaid, and {saving alsoe every unto us our Heirs and successors the soveraignty of the aforsd country}10 the sovcrcigncty Dominion thereof due unto us our heires and suc�cessors To have, hold, possesse, and enjoy the said Tract of Land, Coun�try, Isles, Inletts and other the premisses unto the said William Penn his heires and Assignes To the only proper use and behoofe of the said William Penn his heires &amp; Assignes forever To be holden of us our heires and successors Kings of England as of our Castle of Wind�sor in our County of Windsor Berks in Free and comon Soccage by fealty only for all Services and not in Capite or by Knights Service11 Yeilding and <b>paying therefore to us our heires and successors Two Beavere skins to be delivered {at our said Castle of Windsor} on the First day of January in everie year if demanded And alsoe the Fifth part of all gold and silver Oar which shall from time to time happen to be found within the limitts aforesaid {clear of al charges}12</b> And of our further grace certaine knowledge and meere motion wee have thought fit to erect, and wee doe hereby erect, the {afore}said Country and Islands into a province and Segniory13 and doe call it Pennsilvania and soe<b> from henceforth wee will have it called Pennsilvania</b>14 And forasmuch as wee have hereby made and ordained the aforesaid Wil�liam Penn his heires and Assignes the true and absolute Proprietaries of all the Lands and dominions aforesaid Know yee {therefore} that wee reposeing speciall trust and confidence in the fidelitie, wisdome, Justice and provident circumspection of the said William Penn for us, our heires and successors,<b> Doe grant free, full, and absolute power</b> by virtue of these presents to him and his heires and to his and their Deputies and Leiutenants for the good and happy government of the said Countryes to ordaine, make, enact, and under his and their seals,<b> to publish any Laws whatsoever </b>for the raiseing of money for the publick uses of the said Province or for any other end appertaining either unto the publick state, peace, or safety of the said Country, or unto the private utility of particular persons according unto their best discretions, by and with the advise, assent, and approbation of the Freemen of the said Countryes, or the greater part of them or of their Delegates or Deputies, whome for the enacting of the said Laws when and as often as need shall require {x}15 <b>Wee will that the said William Penn and his heires shall assemble in such sort and forme as to him and them shall seeme best and the same Lawes duely to execute unto and upon all people within the said countryes and limitts thereof </b>

{x x}16 And wee doe likewise give and grant unto the said William Penn and his heires and to his and their Deputies and Leiutennts full power17 and <b>authority to appoint and establish any Judges</b> and Jus�tices, Magistrates, and officers whatsoever for what Causes soever for the probates of wills and for the granting of Administrations within the precincts aforesaid and with what power soever and in such forme as {to} the said William Penn or his heires shall seeme most convenient </b>Alsoe to remit, release, pardon, and abolish, </b>whether before Judgment or after all Crimes and offences whatsoever committed within the said Country against the said Laws Treason and willfull and malicious murders onely excepted18 and in those cases to grant repreives untill our pleasured may bee knowne therein and to doe all and everie other thing and things which unto the compleat establishment of Justice unto Courts and Tribunalls formes of Judicature and manner of proceedings doe belong Altho in these presents expresse mention be not made thereof And by Judges by them delegated to award proc-esse hold please7 and determine in all the said Courts and Tribunalls all actions, suits, and causes whatsoever as well Criminall as Civill per-sonall reall and mixt which Laws soe as aforesaid to be published Our pleasure is and so wee enjoyne, require, and command shall be most absolute and available in Law and that all the Leige people {and subjects} of us our heires and Successors doe observe and keepe the same unavoidably19 in those parts soe farr as they concerne them under the paine therein expressed {or to be expressed} Provided. Neverthelesse that the said Laws be consonant to reason and bee not repugnant or contrarie but as neare as conveniently may bee agreeable to the Laws, Statutes, and rights of this our Kingdome of England And saveing and reserveing to us our heires and successors the re�ceiving, hearing, and determining of the appeale &amp; appeales of all or any person or persons of in or belonging to the Territories aforesaid or touching any Judgment to be there made or given And forasmuch as in the government of soe great a Country sudden accidents doe often happen whereunto it will be necessary to apply a Remedy before the Freeholders of the said Province or their Delegates or Deputies can be assembled to the makeing of laws neither will it bee convenient that instantly upon everie such emergent occasion soe great a multi�tude should be called together Therefore for the better government of the said Country wee will and ordaine and by these presents for us, our heires, and Successrs Doe grant unto the said William Penn and his heires by themselves or by their magistrates and Officers in that behalf duely to bee ordained as aforesaid to make and constitute fit and wholsome ordinances from time to time within the said Country to be kept and observed as well for the preservation of the peace as for the better government of the people there inhabiting and pub-lickly to notifie the same to all persons whome the same doth or any way may concerne Which ordinances our will and pleasure is shall be kept {observed} inviolably within the said Province under paines therein to be expressed {[illegible deletion]} Soe as the said ordinances be consonant to reason and bee not repugnant nor contrarie but soe farr as conveniently may bee agreeable with the Laws of our King-dome of England and soe as the said Ordinances be not extended in am sort to bind, charge, or take away the right or interest of any person or persons of or in20 their Life members2' Freehold goods or Chatties22 And our further Will and pleasure is that the [illegible deletion] Laws for regulateing and governing of propertie within the said province as well for the descent and enjoyment of Lands as likewise for the enjoyment and possession {succession} of goods and Chatties and likewise as to the treasone and {to} Felonies shall be and continue the same as they shall bee for the time being by the generall course of the Law in our Kingdome of England untill the said Laws shall bee altered by the said William Penn his heires or Assignes and by the Freemen of the said Province their Delegates or Deputies or the greater part of them23 {x x x And to the end the said William Penn or his24 Heirs, or other the Planters, Owners, or Inhabitants of the said Province, may not at any time hereafter, by misconstruction of the Powers aforesaid, through inadvertancy or design, depart from that faith &amp; due allegiance wch bv the Laws of this Our Realm of England, they &amp; all Our subjects in Our Dominions &amp; Territoryes always owe to Us, our Heirs, &amp; Successors, by colour of any Extent or Largeness of [illegible deletion] {Powers} hereby given or pretended to be given Or by force or colour of any Laws hereafter to be made in the said Province {by virtue of any such Powers} Our further Will &amp; Pleasure is, That a Transcript or Duplicate of all Laws, wch shall be so as aforesaid made &amp;: pub�lished, within the said Province, shall within 5. years after the making thereof be transmitted &amp; delivered to the Privy Councill for the time being of Us, Our Heirs &amp; Successors. And if any of the said Laws, within the Space of 6. months, after that they shall be so transmitted &amp;.- delivered be declared by Us, Our Heirs, or Successors, in Our or their Privy Councill, inconsistent wth the Sovereignety or lawful Pre�rogative of Us, Our Heirs, or Successors, or contrary to the Faith &amp; Allegiance due by the Legal Governm1 of this Realm from the said Wm Penn, or his Heirs, or of the Planters or of the Planters, &amp; Inhabitants of the said Province, And that thereupon any of the said Laws shall be adjudged &amp; declared to be voyd by Us, Our Heirs, or Successors, by order of their, or Our Privy Councill, or by our or their Signet &amp; Sign Manuel, that, {under our or their Privy Seal that} then, &amp; from thenceforth, such Laws concerning wch such Judgement &amp; Declaration shall be made, shall become voyd, &amp; otherwayes the said Laws so transmitted shall remain 8c stand in full force, according to the true intent 8c meaning thereof.}25
Furthermore that this new Collony may the more happyly increase by the multitude of people resorting thither Therefore wee for us our heires and successors Do give and grant by these presents power License and libertie unto all the Leigh people and subjects both pres�ent and fur the future for26 us our heires and successors Excepting those who shall bee specially forbidden to transport themselves and Familyes unto the said Country with such convenient shipping as by the Laws of this our Kingdome of England they ought to use and27 with fiting provisions paying onely the customes therefore due and there to settle themselves dwell and inhabite and plant for there public and their owne private advantage.28 And furthermore that our subjects may be the rather encouraged to undertake this expedition with the ready and chearfull mindes Know yee that wee of our especiall grace certaine knowledge and meere motion doe give and grant by vertue of these presents aswell unto the said William Penn and his heires As to all others who shall from time to time29 repaire {un}to the said Country with a purpose to inhabite there or to trade with the natives of there said Country full License to lade and freight in any ports whatsoever of us our heires and Successors {[illegible deletion]}30 {according to the Laws cstab made or to be made within our kingdome of England}31 and unto32 the said Country by them their Servants or33 Assignes to transport all and singular their goods wares34 and merchandizes As likewise all sorts of graine whatsoever and all other things whatsoever necessary for Food or cloathing not prohibited by the Laws ef and Statutes of our King-domes and Dominions to be carryed out of the said Kingdoms without any let or molestation of us our heires and successors {or} of any the officers of us our heires and successors (saveing alwayes to us our heires and successors the legall impositions customes and other duties and payments for the said wares and merchandize by any Law or statute due or to be due to us our heires and successors)35 {and pro�vided also that nothing}36 And wee do further for us our heires and Successors give and grant unto the said William Penn his heires and Assignes Free and absolute power to divide the said Country and Islands into Townes hundreds and Countyes and to erect and incor�porate Townes into Burroughs and Burroughs into Cityes and to make and constitute Faires and Marketts therein with all other con�venient Priviledges and Immunities according to the Meritt of the Inhabitants and the Fitness of the places to doe all and every other thing and things touching the premisses which to him or them shall seeme meet and requisite37 Albeit they be such as of their owne nature [in the margin: Quare] might otherwise require a more Especiall Comandment and warrant then in these presents is expressed.38 Wee will alsoe and by these presents For us our heires and Successors Wee doe give and Grant Lyscence by this our Charter Unto the said William Penn his heires and Assignes and to all the Inhabitants and dwellers in the province aforesaid both present and to come to import or unlade by themselves or their Servants Factors or Assignes all merchandizes and Goods whatsoever that shall arise of the Fruits and Comodities of the said Province either by Land or Sea into any of the ports of us our heires &amp; successors in our Kingdome of England and not into any other Countrey whatsoever  And we give him Full power to dispose of the said Goods in the said Ports And if need be within One Veare next after the Unladeing of the same to Lade the said merchandizes and Goods againe into the same or other shipps and to export the same into any other Countreyes either of our Dominions or Foreigne according to Law   Provided {alwayes} that they pay such Customes and Impositions subsidies and duties For the same to us our heires and successors as The rest of our subjects of our Kingdome of England {for the time being} shalbe bound to pay39 And doe Ob�serve the Acts of Navigation and other lawes in that behalf made And furthermore of our more ample and speciall Grace Certaine Knowledge and meere motion Wee doe for us our heires and succes�sors Grant Unto the said William Penn his heires and Assignes Full and absolute power and Authority to make erect and Constitute within the said Province &amp; the Isles and Isletts aforesaid {such} and soe many Sea Ports Harbours Creekes Havens Keyes and other places For discharge &amp; unladeing of Goods and Merchandizes40 out of the Shipps Boates and Other Vessells and ladeing them41 and in such and soe many places and with such rights Jurisdictions Liberties and Prive-lidges Unto the said Ports belonging as to him or them shall seeme most expedient And that all and singuler the shipps Boates and other Vessells which shall come For Merchandize and Trade unto the said Province or out of the same shall depart shalbe laden or Unladen only at such ports as shall be soe erected and constituted by the said William Penn his heires or42 Assignes any use Custome or other thing to the ontrary notwithstanding43   Provided that the said William Penn and his heires and the Leiftennants &amp; Governors for the time being shall admitt and receive in and about {all} such Ports havens Creekes and keyes all Officers and their deputies who shall from time to time be appointed For that Purpose by the Farmers or Comissioners of our Customes For the time being44   And Wee do further appoint and Ordayne And by these prsents for Us our heires and Successors Wee do grant unto the sayd William Penn his heires and assignes that he the sayd William Penn his heires and assignes may from time to time for ever have and enjoy the Customes and subsidies in the Ports Harbours and other Creekes and places aforesayd within the Province aforesaid payable or due for Merchandizes and Wares there to be laded and unladed the said Customes and Subsidies to be reasonably assessed (upon any occasion) by themselves and the People there as aforesaid to be Assembled to whom We give power by these presents for us our heires and successors upon just cause and in a due propor�tion to assesse and impose the same Saveing unto Us Our heires and Successors such impositions and Customes {as} by Act of Parliament are and shall be appointed45 And it is Our further Will and pleasure that the sayd William Penn his heires Successors46 and assignes shall from time to time Constitute and appoint an Attorney or Agent to reside in or neare Our City of London who shall make knowne the place where he shall dwell or may be found unto the Clerkes of Our Privie Councell for the time being or one of them and shall be ready to appeare in any of Our Courts at Westminster to answer for any misdemeanors that shall be committed or by any wilfull default or neglect permitted by the said William Penn his heires47 or assignes against the {our} Laws of {Trade or} Navigacon {or otherwise against the true intent of these presents.}48 and after it shall be ascertained in any of Our said Courts what damages Wee or our {heires or} Succes�sors shall have susteyned by such default or neglect the sayd William Penn his heires and assignes shall pay the same within one yeare after such taxation and demand thereof for {from} such Attorney Or in case there shall be noe such Attorney by the space of One yeare {after such taxation}19 or {in case}50 such Attorney shall not make payment of such damages within the space of a yeare51 {&amp; answer such other forfeitures and penalties {within the sayd time} as by the Acts of Parliament in England are or shall be provided}52 according to the true intent and meaneing of these presents Then it shall be lawfull
for Us Our heires and Successors to seise and resume the government of the sayd Province or Countrey and the same to retaine until pay�ment shall be made thereof But Notwithstanding any such Seisure or resumption of the Government Nothing concerning the propriety or ownershipp of any Lands tenements or other hereditaments or goods or chattells of any the Adventurers Planters or Owners {other then the respective offenders}53 there shall be any way affected or molested thereby Provided alwayes and Our Will and pleasure is that neither the sayd William Penn nor his heires nor any other the Inhabitants of the said Province shall at any time hereafter trade or {have or}54 maintaine any commerce to or {correspondance}55 with any other King Prince or state in Europe {or their or with any of their subjects}56 who shall then be in Warr against Us Our heires or Successors Nor shall the sayd William Penn or his heires or any other the Inhabitants of the said Province make Warr or do any act of hostility against any other King Prince or state in Europe {or any of their subjects}57 who shall then be in League or amity with us Our heires or Succes�sors:58  {x x x} {x x x And because in so remote a Country, &amp; situate [illegible deletion] {near so59} many barbarous Nations, the Incursions as well of the Savages themselves, as of other Enemies, Pirates &amp; Robbers, may probably be feared: Therefore we have given, &amp; for Us, Our Heirs &amp; Successors doe give Power by these Presents unto the sakl Lord Baltcmorc, said {W. Penn,} his Heirs, &amp; Assigns, by themselves, or their Captains, or other their officers, to leavy, muster, &amp; traine, all sorts of Men, of what Condition, or wheresoever born in the said Province of Mary-land {Pennsilvania},60 for the time being, &amp; to make war, &amp; pursue the Enemyes &amp; Robbers aforesaid, aswell by Sea, as by ind, yea, even wthout the Limits of the said Province, &amp; (by God's assistance) to vanquish &amp; take them, &amp; being taken, to putt them to death by the Law of War, or to save them at their Pleasure, &amp; to doe all &amp; every61 other thing wch unto the charge &amp; office of a Captain (ienerall of an army belongeth, or hath accustomed to belong, as fully &amp; freely as any Captain General of an Army hath ever had the same.}62
But that it shall and may be lawfull to and for the sayd William Penn &amp; his heircs by themselves or their officers to make Warr and pursue the Indians and other Enemies in or ncare the sayd Province aswell by Land as by Sea And to doe every other thing which belongeth to the office of a Captain Generall of an Army�x x x�<b>And because it may happen that some of the People and Inhabitants of the said Province may not in their private opinions be able to conforme to the publick exercize of Religion </b>according to the Liturgy Form'd &amp; Cer�emonies of the Church of England or take or subscribe the Oaths fe Articles made and Established in this Nation in that bchalfe; And for that the same by reason of the remote distances of those places will (as Wee hope) be <b>noe breach of the Unity and Uniformity Estab�lished in
[missing folio] Licentiousness nor to the civill injury Nor outward disturbance of others Any Law, Statute, or Clause contained or to be contained, usage, or Custome of Our Realme of England to the contrary thereof, in anv wise Notwithstanding</b>63 And furthermore of Our speciall grace and of Our ertaine knowledge and meere motion {Wee} have given and granted and by these presents for Us Our heires and Successors doe give and grant unto the sayd William Penn his heires and assignes full and absolute power, license and authority that hee the sayd William Penn his heires and assignes from time to time hereafter for ever at his or their Will or pleasure may assigne alien grant, devise or En-feoffe of the premisses soe many and such parts and parcells to him or them that shall be willing to purchase the same as they shall think fin To have and to hold to them the sayd person or persons willing to like or purchase their heires and assignes in Fee-Simple or Fee-Tayle or lor terme of life64 or lives or yeares To be held of the said William Penn his heires and assignes as of the sayd Seigniory of Windsor65 by such services Customes and rents as shall seeme fitt to the sayd William Penn his heires and assignes And not immediately of Us Our heires and Successors And to the same person or persons and to all and every of them Wee do give and grant by these presents for Us Our heires and Successors lycense authority and power that such person or persons may take the premisses or any parcell thereof of the afore�said William Penn his heires or assignes and the same hold to them�selves their heires and assignes in what estate of Inheritance soever in Fee Simple or in Fee-Tayle or otherwise as to them the sayd William Penn his heires and assignes shall seeme expedient The Statute made in the Parliament of Edward sonn of King Henry late King of Eng�land Our Predecessor commonly called the Statute Quia Emptores Terrarum lately published in Our Kingdome of England in any Wise Notwithstanding66 And by these presents Wee give and grant License unto the sayd William Penn and his heires likewise to all and every such person and persons to whom the said William Penn or his heires shall at any time hereafter grant any estate of Inheritance as aforesaid to Erect any parcells of land within the Province aforesayd into Man�nors by and with the License to67 be first had and obteyned for that purpose under the hand and Seale of the sayd William Penn or his heires and in every of the sayd Mannors to have and to hold a Court-Baron with all things whatsoever which to a Court Baron do belong and to have and to hold view of franckpledge (for the conservation of the peace and the better government of those parts) by themselves or their Stewards or by the Lords for the time being of other Mannors to be deputed when they shall be Erected and in the same to use all things belonging to view of Franck-pledge68 And Wee doe further grant license and authority that every such person and persons who shall Erect any such Mannor or Mannors as aforesayd shall or may grant all or any part of the {his} said lands to any person or persons in Fee-Simple or any other estate of Inheritance to be held of the sayd Mannors respectively soe as noe further tenures shall be created but that upon all further and other Alienations thereafter to m bee made the said Lands so aliened shall be held of the same Lord and his heires of whom the Alienor did then before hold and by the like Rents and services which were before due and Accustomed69 And further Our pleasure is and by these presents for Us Our heires and Successors <b>Wee do Covenant and grant to and with the sayd William Penn and his heires and assignes That Wee Our heires and Successors shall at no time hereafter set or make or cause to be sett any Imposition, Custome, or other Taxation. Rate or Contribution whatsoever in and upon the Dwellers and Inhabitants of the aforesaid Province for their Lands, tenements, goods or Chattells within the sayd Province or in and upon any goods or Merchandize within the sayd Province</b> or to be laden or unladen within the Ports or harbours of the sayd Province <b>unless the same be with the consent of the Proprietary or chiefe Governor &amp; {&amp;}70 Assembly or by Act of Parliament in England </b> And Our pleasure is and for us Our heires and Successors Wee charge and Command that this Our Declaration shall from hence forward from time to time be received and allowed71 in all our Courts and before ail the judges of Us Our heires and Successors for a sufficient and lawfull discharge payment and Acquittance Commanding all and sin�gular [illegible deletion] {the} Officers and Ministers of Us Our heires and Successors and enjoyning them <b>upon pain of Our high displea�sure that they doe not presume at any time to attempt any thing to the contrary </b>of the premisses or that they doe in any sort withstand the same but that they be at all times aydeing and assisting as is fitting unto the sayd William Penn and his heires and to the Inhabitants and Merchants of the Province aforesayd their Servants, Ministers, Factors and assignes in the full use and fruition of the benefitt of this Our Charter72 And Our further pleasure73 is and Wee doe hereby for Us Our heires &amp; Successors charge and require that if any of the Inhab�itants of the said Province to the number of twenty shall at any time hereafter be desirous and shall by any Writing or by any person Deputed for them signify such their desire to the Bishop of London tor the time being74 that any Preacher {or Preachers to be approved of by the said Bishop}75 may be sent unto them for their Instruction to be approved of by the sayd Bishop That then such Preacher {or Preachers}76 shall and may be and reside within the sayd Province without any denyall or Molestation whatsoever77 And if perchance hereafter it should happen any doubts or questions should arise con�cerning the true sense and meaneing of any Word Clause or Sentence tntained in this Our present Charter Wee will Ordaine and Com�mand that at all times and in all things such interpretation be made thereof and allowed in any of Our Courts whatsoever as shall be adjudged most advantageous and favourable unto the sayd William Penn his heires and assignes Provided alwayes that no interpretation be admitted thereof by which the Allegiance due unto Us Our heires and Successors may suffer any prejudice or diminution78 Although express mention be not made in these presents of the true yearely value or certainty of the premisses or of any part thereof or of other guifts and grants made by Us Our heires and79 Predecessors unto the sayd William Penn or any Statute Act Ordinance Provision Procla�mation or restraint heretofore had made published ordeyned or pro�vided or any other thing cause or matter whatsoever to the contrary thereof in any wise Notwithstanding</p>

<p><b>In Witnesse whereof</b> We have caused these Our Letters to be made Patents, Witness Ourselfe at Westm1 the 4th day of March, In the three and Thirtieth yeare of Our Reigne, 1680/180 Pigott81</p>

<p><i>Note: Footnotes, edits and insertions from Richard P. Dunn and Mary Maples Dunn, <a href="http://www.jstor.org/pss/20091810">"The Papers of William Penn"</a>, U. of PA Press, 1982</i></p>

<p>Clarifying punctuation and emphasis by George Ross Fisher</p>
	

<p><a rel="bookmark" title="WILLIAM BLATHWAYT'S DRAFT OF THE CHARTER OF PENNSYLVANIA" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1765.htm">http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1765.htm</a></p>
<hr />


<h3><a accesskey="51" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1801.htm">Unalienable Rights Before 1776</a>   </h3>
	<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/prowjersey.jpg"  width="200" height="300"  alt="{Proprietors of West Jersey}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Proprietors of West Jersey

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->
<p class="firstDrop">In 1976, the bicentennial birthday celebration of the Declaration of Independence contained two major exhibits of its historical  conceptual origins. Mr. H. Ross Perot of Texas loaned his copy of the 1215 <i>Magna Carta</i>, and the Proprietors of West Jersey loaned their 1677 original  of William Penn's <i>Concessions and Agreements</i> to the colonists of New Jersey. The purpose of the exhibit was to emphasize the historical origins of the concepts within the Declaration, but even the language of the Concessions is remarkably similar, quite evidently lifted by Jefferson when he was writing. On one point, Penn had the better of Jefferson; he correctly wrote about inalienable rights, while somehow Jefferson gave us unalienable ones.</p>

<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/william_penn.jpg"  width="200" height="260"  alt="{William Penn}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

William Penn

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>The matter came up recently at a Socrates meeting of the Right Angle Club, where at least one member felt there was no such thing as a natural right, while others wavered. In discussing the rights which the Creator, William Penn and/or Thomas Jefferson may have given us,  the various contexts must be held in mind. At the time of declaring our intention to sever relations with Britain's King, there was no Constitution to refer to as a source, and it was impolitic to assert the rights had been given by English kings, like King John. Therefore, the language cleverly short-cuts around the divine right of kings to make a direct connection between the Creator and the colonists. William Penn on the other hand, was a real estate promoter, offering enticements and assurances to prospective colonists who were naturally fearful of risking their lives in sailboats, only to face the possible tyranny of a vassal king who might be even worse than the anointed one. Not only did Penn renounce any suggestion of a Royal role for himself, but went to considerable length describing the legally binding concessions and agreements he was offering. The right of trial by jury, for example, became a right to be punished only by a jury of twelve of one's neighbors.  He wasn't talking to lawyers, he was making important distinctions very clear to laymen. These were not rights given by a Divinity who could be trusted, nor something which grew out of Mother Nature. They were the personal promises of William Penn, in personal legal jeopardy of the English courts if he reneged on them. He even had a ready answer for those who discovered religious language in legal documents -- There is That of God, in every man.</p>

<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/ross%20perot.jpg"  width="200" height="260"  alt="{H. Ross Perot}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

H. Ross Perot

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

	

<p>As a small side light of the Concessions document, it had long been housed in the little brick hut on Main Street in Burlington NJ, where the Proprietors of West Jersey keep their treasures. The obscurity of these papers was probably their best protection, but the risk of displaying them in Philadelphia at the centennial brought out the need to insure them, hence to appraise their value. The figure of four million dollars was kicked around. Ross Perot might have felt comfortable with this sort of expense as the natural cost of being a rare book collector, but it seemed highly unnatural to Quakers. Sometime afterward, the Surveyor General, William Taylor, was awakened by a call from Burlington neighbors that someone was trying to break in the roof to steal contents of the Proprietorship building. The burglars were unaware that underneath the shingles, the roof was actually made of concrete a foot thick. So the perps were frustrated in their aims, but Bill Taylor was greatly troubled by the implications, actually unable to sleep at night worrying about what was in his custody. So, in time the State of New Jersey constructed a suitable archives building, and the valuable documents were transferred up to Trenton. Time will tell what the Soprano State does with such a valuable possession, but at least the Quakers can now sleep at night.</p>
	

<p><a rel="bookmark" title="Unalienable Rights Before 1776" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1801.htm">http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1801.htm</a></p>
<hr />


<h3><a accesskey="53" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1803.htm">Three Revolutions at Once, Maybe Four</a>   </h3>
	<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/tea_party.jpg"  width="200" height="200"  alt="{Tea Party Sticker}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Tea Party Sticker

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p class="firstDrop">The rise of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_protests">the Tea Party movement in 2010</a> reopens a lifetime question in my mind. What was <a href="http://www.theamericanrevolution.org/">the American Revolutionary War all about</a>; surely, a tax on tea isn't outrageous enough to go to war over, is it? It only aggravates curiosity to learn this particular law passed by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom">the British Parliament</a>, actually lowered the price of tea.</p>

<p>A somewhat different importance for the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21st_century">21st Century</a> is, of all the dozens or even hundreds of little civil wars that have popped up in the past two centuries, this American one seems to have had the biggest impact on the thoughts and behavior of the civilized world. <a href="http://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/">The French Revolution</a> comes close, but we meant to speak of persuasive influence on serious minds, not merely bloodiness and lasting grievance. Here are three suggestions, maybe four.</p>

<p>In retrospect, we can see the outlines of three major revolutions, coming together at the end of the 18th Century. The first is <a href="http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/ENLIGHT/INDUSTRY.HTM">the Industrial Revolution</a>, which had its beginnings in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester">England around the city of Manchester</a>. That was a region of major Quaker concentration, many of whom migrated to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Penn">William Penn's social experiment</a> in seeing what peace could do. The Industrial Revolution flourished in Great Britain far more readily than in France, and in a sense more than in America. But of the three major countries, America had the largest amount of unsettled land, and the greatest natural resources of the three major countries. America was able to think bigger and broader, necessarily requiring  broad support from an immigrant population. Diversity was often later to prove a mixed blessing, but in the Industrial Revolution it was vital.</p>

<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/french-revolution.jpg"  width="300" height="200"  alt="{French Style}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Dissent, French Style

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Industrial_Revolution">The second major revolution</a> taking place at that time concerned the place of property in the life of every citizen. Up until that time, the King owned all the land  and could redistribute it to suit his political needs. What critically mattered was not who formerly owned the land, but rather what was the latest King's latest word on who owned it right now. The American system gravitated to the notion that when the King <i>or any other owner</i> sold the land, it was no longer his; we now think that's quite self-evident. Each successive owner can sell it to his neighbor or bequeath it to his heirs, and at that moment it is no longer his, either. This idea of private property spread throughout the world, but in America it was a clean sweep. Adopting the rather brutal rough justice of the frontier, the Indian prior ownership just didn't count. They had sided with the British in our revolution, and were insistently resistant to assimilation. And anyway, Pope Nicholas in the 13th Century had established the notion of first discovery, which applied to Christians, only, and so Indians didn't count. Fair or unfair, this was going to be the way it was, from that point forward from 1787 when the Constitution was enacted. The longer the situation lasted, the more unlikely it became that it would ever change. America had so much land and so little coinage, that land itself became a sort of monetary standard. The particular American advantage was there was so much land that early settlers and landed gentry could not monopolize it; from meaning land at first, property soon meant any valuable possession. No King, particularly not George III, was going to take this away from the whole population on this side of the Atlantic. England could do as it pleased with its land and its King. If we needed Independence to preserve a general right to hold private property, plenty of men were willing to die to achieve it. And the whole Western world soon followed our example.</p>

<p>The third revolution was the one you read about, Lexington and Concord, Bunker Hill and the Tea Act. That whole chain of events chronicles how America came to be Independent, but somehow fails to explain why we wanted Independence. The Industrial and the Property revolutions explain it better, but such theorizing would certainly mystify the Revolutionaries themselves.</p>

<<p>And finally, one begins to wonder if we aren't toying with a reversion to the ideas underlying monarchy when we examine some currently widespread views. There's a notion going about that everybody owns everything, which if carried to an extreme means no one owns anything. When you can notice people who live on the 70th floor of a Manhattan apartment building, proclaiming a right to tell Alaskans whether or not they can drill for oil, you behold this monarchy of the many. And when you see prosperous educated adults shouting at rallies, you can see Alaskans for example want to tell New Yorkers to mind their own business. This land, they seem to say, isn't everybody's at all, it is mine.</p>

<p>It never really was entirely the King's, either. The King was a single person, sometimes a rather brutal one who wasn't likely to tolerate advice from his subjects. At times of crisis, somebody has to make a decision, any decision, and act on it. But most of the time, kings seemed to be in the position of that Czar. The one who said, "I don't rule Russia. Ten thousand clerks rule Russia."</p>
	

<p><a rel="bookmark" title="Three Revolutions at Once, Maybe Four" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1803.htm">http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1803.htm</a></p>
<hr />


<h3><a accesskey="55" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1817.htm">Original Intent and the Miranda Decision</a>   </h3>
	<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/Ernesto%20Arturo%20Miranda.jpg"  width="180" height="200"  alt="{Ernesto Arturo Miranda}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Ernesto Arturo Miranda

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p class="firstDrop">At the lunch table of <a href="http://philobiblonclub.org/index.php?page=franklininnclub">the Franklin Inn Club</a> recently, the Monday Morning Quarterbacks listened to a debate about Guantanamo Bay, prisoner torture and police brutality; all of which  centered on the Supreme Court decision known as <i>Miranda v Arizona</i>. Ernesto Arturo Miranda was convicted without being warned of his right to remain silent, sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison in 1966. Eventually, the U.S. Supreme Court, with Chief Justice Earl Warren writing a 5-4 decision, overturned the conviction, because Miranda had not been officially warned of his right to remain silent. The case was retried and Miranda was convicted and imprisoned on the basis of other evidence that  included no confession.</p>

<p>An important fact about this case was that Congress soon wrote legislation making the reading of "Miranda Rights" unnecessary, but the Supreme Court then declared in the Dickerson case that Congress had no right to overturn a Constitutional right. Some of the subsequent fury about the Miranda case concerned the legal box it came in, with empowering the Supreme Court to create a new right that is not found in the written Constitution. Worse still, declaring it was  not even subject to any other challenge by the other branches of government. In the view of some, this was a judicial power grab in a class with <i>Marbury v Madison</i>.</p>

<p>Several lawyers were at the lunch table on Camac Street, seemingly in agreement that Miranda was a good thing because the core of it was not to forbid unwarned interrogation, but rather a desirable refinement of court procedure to prohibit the introduction of such evidence into a trial. The lawyers pointed out the majority of criminal cases simply skirt this sort of evidence, use other sorts of evidence, and the criminals are routinely sent or not sent to jail without much influence from  the Miranda issue. Indeed, Miranda himself was subsequently imprisoned on the basis of evidence which excluded his confession. What's all the fuss about?</p>

<p>And then, the agitated non-lawyers at the lunch table proceeded to display how deeper issues have overtaken this little rule of procedure. This Miranda principle prevents police brutality. Answer: It does not; it only prevents the use of testimony obtained by brutality from being introduced at trial. Secondly, Miranda contains an exception for issues of immediate public safety. Answer: What difference does that make, as long as the authorities refrain from using the confession in court?  The chances are good that a person visibly endangering public safety is going to be punished  without a confession. Further, the detailed procedures  within Miranda encourage fugitives to discard evidence before they are officially arrested in the prescribed way. Answer: If the police officer sees guns or illicit drugs being thrown on the ground, do you think he needs a confession? Well, what about Guantanamo Bay? Answer: What about it?  We understand the prisoners are there mainly to obtain information about the conspiracy abroad and to keep them from rejoining it.  The alternative would likely be their execution,  either by our capturing troops, or by vengeful co-conspirators they had incriminated.</p>

<p>Somehow, this cross-fire seemed unsatisfying. The Miranda decision was made by a 5-4 majority, meaning a switch of a single vote would have reversed the outcome. The private discussions of the justices are secret, but it seems likely that some Justices were swayed by this edict viewed as a simple improvement in court procedure rather than a constitutional upheaval; Justices with that viewpoint feel they know the original intent and approve of it. Others are apprehensive the decision has already migrated from original intent, in an alarming way. Everyone who watches much crime television, and even many police officials feel that Miranda intends for all suspects to be tried on the basis of total isolation from interrogation from start to finish. More reasoned observers are alarmed that the process of discrediting all interrogation will lead to an ongoing  disregard of the opinion of lawyers about court procedure, essentially the process of allowing public misunderstanding to overturn legal standards. Chief Justice William Renquist, no less, poured gasoline on this anxiety by declaring that Miranda has "become part of our culture".</p>

<p>What seems to be on display is the mechanism by which Constitutional interpretation drifts from original intent. Not so much a matter of "Judicial Activism" which is "legislating from the bench", it is becoming a matter of non-lawyers confusing and stirring up the crowds until the Justices simply give up the argument. Drift is one thing; virtual bonfires and virtual torch-light parades are quite another.</p>
	

<p><a rel="bookmark" title="Original Intent and the Miranda Decision" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1817.htm">http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1817.htm</a></p>
<hr />


<h3><a accesskey="57" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1820.htm">Conflict Within the Bill of Rights</a>   </h3>
	<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/jeffersonthomas.jpg"  width="200" height="192"  alt="{Thomas Jefferson}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Thomas Jefferson

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p class="firstDrop">When the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Continental_Congress">First Congress</a> convened in 1789, it confronted more than a hundred proposed amendments to the Constitution, largely stirred up by supporters of Thomas Jefferson who feared a strong central government would be too similar to the monarchy we had just discarded. Essentially, Congress dumped these noisy dissatisfactions  into  the lap of James Madison who had largely written the Constitution,  constituting a committee with Madison as its chairman.  The first ten amendments thus emerged together as a package, enabling trade-offs and compromises between them; all subsequent amendments have been taken up individually, one by one. Since the First Congress and the Constitutional Convention were largely the same people, much of the durability of the Constitution can be traced to them. And therefore, the ability of the nation to feel its way into a new idea, sometimes retreating and sometimes plunging ahead, has migrated into the hands of the Supreme Court.  This result was probably accidental, but nevertheless the power of the Supreme Court was greatly strengthened by default; it alone can tip-toe out of a Constitutional tangle created by momentary impulses.</p>

<p>After duplicates and half-baked ideas were winnowed out, Madison's committee boiled down the wildly disparate proposals into ten amendments, supposedly  limited to ten by alluding to  Ten Commandments which  seemed sufficiently comprehensive to Moses, and presumably to God. Two main principles emerged. The first was that the Constitution should be parsimonious in granting divine, or natural, rights, because what Nature's God had granted was hard to tell but what the judiciary could enforce had limits. And secondly, granting even these few self-evident rights to slaves would  likely tear the Union apart.</p>

<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/JamesMadisonBio.jpg"  width="178" height="262"  alt="{James Madison}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

James Madison

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>So, Madison's committee narrowed the legally enforceable definition of human rights to a handful, trying to select those which were so self-evident they could withstand the tension on those  charged with enforcing them.  When contemplating the problem of extending mandated rights to slaves, however,  there was no obvious solution at all. The evasion agreed upon was to limit the Federal Government  to enforcing a handful of enumerated powers, while leaving all unspecified matters to the state legislatures. The boundary might shift with time, but without saying so, the Bill of Rights kept the Union out of the main foreseeable trouble. The unmentioned conflict between universal rights and slavery defaulted to the individual states, or whoever, but definitely not to the Federal Government.</p>

<p>That tap-dance held together for nearly a century, and then it didn't and we had a Civil War. During all of that time, the balance of power was steadily shifting from the confederated states to the centralized federal government, and after the Civil War it shifted some more. However, the southern confederation may have been defeated, but it was not exactly reconciled, nor were the former slaves exactly equalized.</p>

<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/Robert_E_Lee.jpg"  width="168" height="200"  alt="{Robert E. Lee}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Robert E. Lee

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>Many post-war expedients were tested  to heal these wounds, some of them useful and some, like forcible Reconstruction, disruptive. Two expedients opened new wounds and  distracted the country for a century. The first was intentional weakening of the quality and effectiveness of state governments, to the point where it can now be asserted that state government is the weakest part of our whole government structure. Those who prized universality and efficiency, or who sought greater international power, regarded state legislatures as a hindrance; just look who got us into a Civil War. Consequently, corruption and ineffectiveness were privately tolerated  in state legislatures, because discrediting  state governments made  them easier  to control.  Repairing the resulting imbalance in our overall system is now growing to be one of our greatest problems.</p>

<p>The second response to a sluggish equalization of racial rights was invented by Madison himself. He felt that the ability to migrate from one state to another would discipline any temptation of a state to mis-behave. If your state taxes you unfairly, move. If your state government gets too corrupt, first try to throw the rascals out, but in the last extremity, go somewhere else. This concept has worked magnificently in maintaining national interest rates with appropriate local modifications, and we are about to learn whether it will adequately restrain the half dozen states who have pushed the limits of taxes and borrowing. In the case of former slaves, massive out-migration took a century to happen and then it happened all at once, just after World War II. Wave after wave of slave descendants from the rural South, got on buses and came to the heart of Northern cities. Overwhelming the ability of weakened local governments to cope, city institutions disintegrated, particularly the public school and justice systems. The consequence is  continuing disarray in Washington DC, Baltimore, Detroit -- and Philadelphia -- together with a host of smaller cities like Reading, Newark, Paterson, Wilkes-Barre and many others, in all of which the unsustainable wave of immigrants added to  local industrial and civic problems which had other causes. So now we have two new problems, weakened state government and disruptive migrations, which in other circumstances tended to mitigate each other, but in this case made each other worse.</p>

<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/johnson.jpg"  width="168" height="200"  alt="{Lyndon Johnson}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Lyndon Johnson

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>It took a century for Madison's scheme to break down into war, and Lyndon Johnson was surely quite right to feel a century was long enough to tolerate the dissentions and disunity of enduring that war. If he could not make people love one another, at least he could enforce the law. State governments were not doing it, so he whipped the Congress into taking it on as a Federal duty, by passing the Civil Rights Act. Half a century has passed and there has been progress, but surely not an end to the disunity. State governments have been further weakened, but mass migrations have calmed down. In another half century, the slavery issue and its consequences may fully subside. Meanwhile, the extension of federal power continues, now threatening to extend to the medical profession, the finance industry, the automobile industry, and the Internet. But our Constitution continues to survive more or less intact, into its third century, and we grow increasingly wary of tinkering with it as we watch many other nations fail to achieve its essential quality. Which is, it survives.</p>
	

<p><a rel="bookmark" title="Conflict Within the Bill of Rights" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1820.htm">http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1820.htm</a></p>
<hr />


<h3><a accesskey="59" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1838.htm">Restoring the Gold Standard by Levering Judges' Salaries</a>   </h3>
	<p class="firstDrop">Generally speaking, creditors hate inflation and favor a gold standard because they fear debtors -- who outnumber them at the polls -- will dishonor their debts by inflating the currency. And debtors generally are rather serene about the risk of inflation, for the same reason in reverse. Since governments are almost invariably debtors, the combination of government and debtors on the side of promoting inflation represents a dishearteningly strong force for creditors to combat. It is plain for everyone to see that inflation has been steadily moving ahead.  But it is something for everyone to ponder that leaving creditors with only one recourse is almost certain to translate that particular recourse into action. Creditors will raise interest rates in anticipation of inflation, and the economy will suffer for debtors as well as everyone else.</p>

<p>So, hard-money advocates like the Paul family of Texas have been rather nonplussed to discover that Federal Judges have handed them in 2010 a very effective weapon they had long overlooked. It should be no surprise that it came from that direction; judges are long accustomed to looking backward to the historical origins of the laws they are charged with interpreting. In this case, the defining statement is found in the Declaration of Independence.</p>

<p>Parenthetically, conservatives are reluctant to include the Declaration in an explanation of the Constitution, since it is plainly true the Constitution was written to correct the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation, which was much more closely defined by the circumstances of the Declaration. The almost immediate response to any such logical jump over the Constitution, particularly those of Abraham Lincoln, is to thump the maxim that The Declaration of Independence is not Law. And it isn't; it's just in this case it makes a concise statement of a major reason we were offended by the King of England:</p>

<p><b>"He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries."</b></p>

<p>Note the operative phrase <b> dependent on his will alone </b>, which takes us back to the Magna Carta, where even the King must obey the Law. If judges are the umpires, it isn't in accord with deeply felt  British culture that the King could force the umpires to favor his wishes in their official decisions, by threatening punishment on their persons. No, a thousand times no. Anyone can see that.</p>

<p>Furthermore, the determination of underlying intent is so difficult to prove, and so easy to deny, that it is scarcely mentioned in debate. If two motives seem possible, the other party will assert the high-sounding one and deny the ulterior one. The offended party will instinctively suspect the reverse, and will brush aside any protestations to the contrary. Since that is bound to happen, please skip the preliminaries and get on with the evidence. So it is in this case; any reduction in judge's salary is treated like an attempt to influence official decisions. The Administration maintains a reduction of Federal judge salaries is necessary for budgetary reasons. Please don't insult my intelligence that way. You aren't allowed to reduce the salaries of judges  for any reason.</p>

<p>From this rather easy position to take, it is only a short step to say that refusing to raise judge salaries during an inflation is a reduction of salary in real terms, after adjusting for inflation. Your paper money is phoney; I want to preserve my purchasing power. Your refusal to adjust for inflation is even more clearly a salary reduction, since the link to gold was severed during the Nixon and Johnson administrations. We are not on anything remotely resembling a gold standard; we are on a monetary standard which is by law adjusted to inflation, and just about nothing else. Hubert Humphrey may have thought he was creating a loophole by mandating concern with unemployment, but just try to convince the judges of the Supreme Court of that one.</p>

<p>And so, it seems predictable that Judge Beer of the Eastern District of Louisiana, and his fellow judges, will achieve an effective gold standard for Federal Judges if they have the fortitude to tough it out. After that it gets harder, Congressman Paul. You have to push the concept that what is fair for Federal Judges is fair for everyone else. You should assume that judges will vote in their own favor, and therefore reasonably assume that the public will vote in its own favor, too. If that be treason, said Patrick Henry, make the most of it.</p>
	

<p><a rel="bookmark" title="Restoring the Gold Standard by Levering Judges' Salaries" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1838.htm">http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1838.htm</a></p>
<hr />


<h3><a accesskey="61" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1976.htm">Addressing the Flaws of Republics</a>   </h3>
	<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/james_madisonbc.jpg"  width="175" height="192"  alt="{James Madison}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

James Madison

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p class="firstDrop">Everyone might profit from reading Plato on the subject of republics, not to mention reading James Madison. But both <i>The Republic </i> and <i> The Federalist </i> were conjuring republics they proposed, not ones they had experienced.  After Madison did get hands-on experience he had such radical changes of opinion his good friend George Washington essentially never spoke to him again. Not only in republics of course, does reality prove different from founding theory. It might seem more measured to say of republics that two centuries of their reality proves to be such an extension of theory, it effectively departs from it. In essence, the republican idea is to  limit the voters to one periodic review of their representative's term of office overall, not in ongoing picky detail which would hamper him. This definition contrasts republics with democracies, and implies the reason to favor republics. The elected representative is given full power to act during his term in office, but must eventually face the voters for an accounting at the fixed time for re-election. Plato and Madison were right about extending latitude to one's chosen representative, but they failed to predict how effectively that latitude might be stolen by the legislative body itself, and controlled by rules and leadership which skirt ratification by the general public outside their chamber, in any district. The Romans, of course, did know what they were talking about, but history has tended to ascribe  Roman difficulties -- assassinations, for example -- to flaws in  Roman character rather than in  construction of the Roman Republic.  After describing some problems history has revealed about our own system, this essay is written to propose a solution. A second essay follows, to defend that solution.</p>

<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/JosephLBristow.jpg"  width="267" height="315"  alt="" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Joseph L Bristow

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>The differences between House and Senate in the original U.S. Constitution were three, but since the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913, there are now only two. Originally, Senators were selected by the legislatures of the states they came from. A century of experience demonstrated the result  was cronyism, members of the legislature using senatorial appointments as bargaining chips  and for the most part limiting the choice to one of their own members. The provision probably did attract a higher grade of legislator overall, encouraging those primarily  ambitious to be U.S. senators  to have a try-out in the minor leagues first.  It did give the State government serious power to punish a U.S. senator who failed to please the home state. And this selection process made it simpler and cheaper to run for the job as U.S. senator. This feature encouraged candidates with competing career choices, otherwise discouraged by the expense and unpleasantness of candidacy, to step forward. But by 1913 all this was seen as a way for cronyism to dominate the process, swapping appointments for favors, or even more tangible bribes. From the distance of another century it can be seen that the steadily declining power of state legislatures was matched by a declining quality of their elected membership, leading to a rising level of sordidness in their foibles. Hapless amateurs were largely supplanted by career politicians. After the Civil War "states rights" stirred up memories of secession and led to  deliberate weakening of the states' role. Whatever the reasoning, the mentality of Progressivism was sweeping the country in 1913, and popular election of senators was deemed a Good Thing,  swept in to general satisfaction. Doubt about whether it all made as much difference as claimed lies in the reality that from 1913 to 2010, one quarter (182) of all Senators have first arrived in the Senate through appointment by a Governor to fill an unexpired vacancy. Many of these vacancies have of course been contrived for the purpose.</p>

<p>The relative power of a senator and a representative lies in the size of the population who vote for them, and the frequency with which they must endure that unpleasantness. Members of the House are elected for two years and members of the Senate are elected for six; the voting constituency of  100 Senators is generally much larger than that of 532 Representatives, so because the population grows faster than the number of states, the representation discrepancy also grows. The frequency of running for reelection seems to be so irksome that whenever a senate seat falls vacant, some sitting Congressman from that state is almost certain to try to switch. Of course it is true that with only a quarter as many senators as congressmen, the power of each vote is weightier. To the extent that committee memberships represent special insider power, a senator does belong to more committees, but is more severely stretched to attend them all. Each senator's vote does have greater scarcity value, but a Representative who tends to business is more likely to know what he is talking about, hence better able to be influential in the committees where most matters are really decided. The limits of merit promotion in both houses of congress lies in the differing power of various committees, while the favor of appointment remains within the iron control of caucus leadership. In public, senators seem generally more polished and experienced in public persuasion. The persuasion that counts however is of gaining the respect of colleagues in your own legislative body, always restrained by the power of leadership to coerce conformity. Public persuasiveness by contrast is often little more than glibness, reflecting greater experience with dodging an issue to conceal a lack of depth in it.  Almost all senators aspire to the presidency, although  few  achieve it.  No Congressman has been elected President since Warren Harding; indeed, few Congressmen even dare to seek nomination. The appointment of Gerald Ford was a special situation. However, it is worth pondering that during the early days of the republic, the House of Representatives was considered  much more prestigious than the Senate, and that curiosity continues to raise an important question just why it is now reversed.</p>

<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/george-washingtonbc.jpg"  width="300" height="224"  alt="{George Washington}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

George Washington

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>The differences in prestige between the House and the Senate cannot be ascribed to the comparatively minor differences in their Constitutional definition, the size of their district and the frequency of election. Otherwise, we could immediately improve the quality of congressmen by reducing the limit of their number and frequency of re-election, which  scarcely anyone has proposed. The more likely source of the problem can be found in the differing rules of procedure which each body has adopted; and reaffirms at the opening of each term. Various strategies of committee assignment and seniority have adapted to the reality that newly elected politicians rarely have any skills other than the ability to get elected. But almost everyone can learn, given enough time being exposed to a topic. A seniority system can occasionally lead to someone who is hopeless, gradually floating into a position where he can do great harm. Provision must be made for graceful exceptions to the seniority rule, usually by excluding a member from important committees until he has demonstrated some competence, less often by later dropping someone who has age- or alcohol-diminished faculties. Underlying this approach is a contempt bred of experience for the wisdom of the voters, back there in the district, whereas the leaders of the fraternity   can protect the nation by judiciously devised rules. Sometimes it is unfortunately necessary to be a little hard boiled.</p>

<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/martin-van-buren.jpg"  width="300" height="299"  alt="{Martin Van Buren}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Martin Van Buren

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>So far so good. When Jefferson and Martin Van Buren  invented political parties, the bodies of Congress responded by inventing caucuses. George Washington was not a learned man, but he knew he hated this system. James Madison probably feared political parties more than he hated them, so he incurred Washington's permanent displeasure by getting good at manipulating what he saw as the winning strategy.  Van Buren's fate was more ironic; after inventing many of the unpleasant little strategies of modern politics, he was defeated by William Henry Harrison in the "log cabin" election of 1840. Harrison hadn't been born in a log cabin at all, he was born in a Virginia mansion, hee, hee, hee. George Washington wouldn't have chuckled at that one, he would have been livid.</p>

<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/henry-claycongress.jpg"  width="315" height="267"  alt="{Henry Clay}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Henry Clay

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>Party caucuses have only one central feature, which is vote-swapping. Many of the strategies of this unattractive behavior were outlined in elegant detail by Pliny the Younger, in the Roman Senate, and James Madison the student of government had sought to avoid them. When he decided it was hopeless, he joined them and got good at it. In retrospect, the premier example of vote-swapping was the trade which Madison and Hamilton made, placing the nation's capital in Virginia/Maryland instead of Philadelphia, in return for federally redeeming the Revolutionary debts for all 13 states, when Virginians had already paid theirs off. Philadelphia had essentially nothing to say about it. Pliny had cautioned and subsequent practitioners have followed the advice to cover your tracks by swapping votes for an issue seemingly unrelated to the one in dispute. That's about all there is to vote-swapping, find out what the guy wants badly enough, and trade him something for it. It follows that it's wise to give off the appearance that you don't want much of anything. A corollary is that political caucuses try to conduct even innocent or public-spirited discussions in secret, making public only what is expedient to be made public. And a further corollary: some members of a caucus are from totally "safe" districts. Occasionally their votes can safely be traded for something the opposing party wants but the caucus feels necessary to claim to oppose.  When a caucus wants something badly enough to trade it for something else, but is three or four votes short, the opposing caucus may trade the four votes from safe districts while violently denouncing the dirty turncoats. All this is known as party loyalty. When things are particularly tough, party loyalty can be enforced by finding out what you want badly, and taking it away from you. When these whips are applied to you, a grievance develops. Fine, what do you want to trade in return for vengeance? Many of these refinements seem to come, not from Rome, but from Sicily.</p>

<p>As was stated at the beginning, the purpose of this essay is not to rail at Congressional corruption, but to counteract it to some degree. Since the worst features of this system require secrecy and public duplicity to be effective, the best remedy is sunshine. Not about what Roosevelt did in his third term, but about what your local congressman might do next week, and his fear you will find out. His fear that a blogger will tip off the local newspaper or radio station, encouraging someone else with ambition to file for election against you. And his fear that when he asks someone for a campaign contribution, that person will bring up the topic in question. His fear that the local political boss will decide he can't win.</p>

<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/BattlePolitician.jpg"  width="250" height="265"  alt="{Boxing Politcians}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Boxing Politcians

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>This was more or less the system which the founding fathers, James Madison chief among them, envisioned for this shining city on a hill. And which two centuries of rather clever schemers have gradually eroded. The highly desirable feature of a republic is that the elected person is free to represent his own interpretation of what is best for his district or, failing that, what is best for the nation. The elected representative is encouraged to risk defeat in the next election, if in his judgment what is good for the district is bad for the nation. But he is not a suicide bomber, if his vote will make little difference in the outcome he can be forgiven for taking cover. One would wish that fewer of them would speak one way and vote in the opposite direction, but that  can be forgiven if someone back home in the district is keeping score and letting others know of it. The fundamental principle of a republic as distinguished from a pure democracy is that a representative, while free to act during his term in offfice, remains obliged to face the voters at the appointed time. Our system has come to exaggerate the actual extent of freedom to use judgment, because the freedom has been stolen by party leaders through the application of schemes too devious to detail. But the freedom is fundamentally a good thing. What has come to be so lacking is the idea of facing an informed electorate in making a choice between you and an informed opponent. The public, it must be feared, doesn't know beans.</p>

<p>And so the proposal for fixing this mess is difficult, but it can be stated simply. The recent economic boom created nearly a thousand billionaires; maybe four hundred would be a number that would escape challenge. If only fifty of them would endow think tanks in all fifty state capitals, and the fifty-first would endow an organization dedicated to making their research available to the public, then perhaps another fifty would be prompted to create a second think tank in each state capital on the opposite political side. Two polarized think tanks in each state capital, just imagine it. As things now stand, it would be a sufficient first step if that happened in only one state, and the rest of the country could watch what happens.</p>
	

<p><a rel="bookmark" title="Addressing the Flaws of Republics" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1976.htm">http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1976.htm</a></p>
<hr />


<h3><a accesskey="63" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1999.htm">Wyoming, Fair Wilkes Barre</a>   </h3>
	<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/wbmountains.jpg"  width="300" height="200"  alt="{Wilkes-Barre}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Wyoming Valley

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p class="firstDrop">There are a dozen or so places on the planet where a natural bowl formation famously moderates the climate. Cuernavaca in Mexico, the Canary Islands, and Chungking in Western China all claim to have temperatures which range from 70 to 75 degrees Fahrenheit, year round. In Cuernavaca at least, they claim it only rains at night. These three places have a high plateau in the cener of a mountain bowl, like an angel food cake pan,  which may (or may not) contribute to the unusually mild climate effect. Several other places within inner China compete for the title of Shangri La, famous in song and story, never precisely located  by tourists. The Wyoming Valley of the Susquehanna River once enjoyed a similar  luster during the Romantic Period at the very beginning of the Nineteenth century, although unfortunately its temperature is plainly  not so balmy. Wyoming of song and poem was imagined to be the home of the Noble Savage, unstained by the wayward influences of civilization, and thus a model for the democratic ideal expected to emerge in Old Europe once the aristocrats were exterminated by nature's noblemen, European version. That seems to have been Robespierre in France, as disappointing to idealists as the Iroquois along the Susquehanna.</p>

<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/monument.jpg.jpg"  width="200" height="300"  alt="{Monument}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Massacre Monument

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>But one must not scoff. The Wyoming Valley was created long ago by a lake between two mountain ridges, which gradually dried up leaving  flat topsoil deep at the bottom of the valley when the river finally broke through at Nanticoke, and drained it. Its appearance is enhanced by surroundings in all directions of at least fifty miles of bleakness. Nowadays, the best way to appreciate the natural beauty of the place is to arrive from the south, gaining the summit of the ridge by one of the secondary roads. Housing development down below stops at the edge of the level plain, so as one ascends to the southern rim it is possible to see the inside of the bowl without seeing much of the town, and thus  appreciate how it must have looked to frontiersmen searching for likely places to settle. It's quite beautiful. Descending into the bowl, the potholes in the road and  roadhouses along the way do begin to make an impression. In full sight, it looks as though a city suburb has filled the place to its edge, with a rather decaying Nineteenth century town center, but towering wooded mountainsides. There's a quiet park in the very center, through which the quiet river runs. In a little subdivision named Wyoming there is a monument to The Massacre, now described as a hopeless defense by untrained  Revolutionaries against the fearsome Indians and British  Loyalists. The names of the fallen and the names of those who escaped are carved on this monument near  Forty Fort. One presumes the wounded and some bystanders were massacred, the officers and trained infantry were more likely to escape the hopeless odds by fleeing into the woods. It is claimed that common soldiers were finished off by  Indian Queen Esther smashing their heads between two flat rocks. Wounded officers were tortured to death.</p>

<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/monument2.jpg"  width="400" height="324"  alt="{Monument}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Wilkes Barre

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>Just where the Connecticut immigrants, or invaders, first arrived in the Wyoming Valley is not known. Their most likely entrance was at the top of the northern end of the valley, where ski lodges now cluster, after coming up the mountains from the east.  The hills rising from the Delaware watershed are wooded but too rocky for farming. It's therefore inexpensive to set aside parks named "Promised Land" and "The Lord's Valley" and such, with some Milfords scattered here and there in the woods. A section of the upper Delaware River fifty miles long , from Port Jervis down to the Delaware Water Gap at Stroudsburg is enclosed in a National Wildlife and Recreation Area of about a mile's width on either side of the river. It's surprising how little is said of this rather large national park  close to two large metropolitan areas. No doubt the visitors arel torn between wishing it were more appreciated, and hoping to keep it secret and unspoiled.</p>

<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/Wyoming_Massacre_Web.jpg"  width="300" height="200"  alt="{Wyoming Massacre}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Wyoming Massacre

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption --><p>The Decision of Trenton(1782) simply gave the disputed land back to Pennsylvania. There is a strong presumption  the Connecticut migrants were privately promised land in the Western Reserve, in Ohio, whenever Ohio became a state.  In spite of the implicit guarantees, the Pennsylvanians nevertheless treated the usurpers pretty roughly, and traces of Connecticut trail westward toward the Ohio line. There's a Westmoreland County near Pittsburgh, where many stranded families in the bituminous coal regions can thus trace their ancestry back to the Mayflower. It is truly extraordinary that such bitterness could leave so little trace of itself later. History may not be bunk, but persistent grievances are surely a menace to peaceful existence. The events of the Pennamite Wars are widely believed to have led to the slanting of the 1787 Constitution toward the protection of individual property rights, but the wording to that effect within the Constitution is hard to locate. Somehow, like the implicit promises of the Western Reserve, ways were found to provide credible promises  that it soon wouldn't matter which state you lived in.   Somehow the word got to John Marshall that in actual practice, what would matter was whether an identified person  could demonstrate  clear title to specific land back to, or a little beyond, 1787, no matter what state the land was in. And the obscurity of the complex connection between this revolution in the law of property, and the very sad events in the Wyoming Valley, suited everybody concerned. <i>Stare decisis.</i></p>
	

<p><a rel="bookmark" title="Wyoming, Fair Wilkes Barre" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1999.htm">http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1999.htm</a></p>
<hr />


<h3><a accesskey="65" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/2010.htm">Regulation Precision: Not Entirely Good Idea</a>   </h3>
	<table class="right" width="175" summary="inline quote box"
    style="background-color:#ffffcc; margin:10px;" cellspacing="7" border="1" cellpadding="5">
    <tr><td style="padding:5">
    <img style="float:left;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:top;border-style:none"
    src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/startquote.gif" alt="{top quote}" /><br />

Without proof of special damages or reference to extrinsic circumstances  
    <img style="float:left;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:bottom;border-style:none"
    src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/endquote.gif" alt="{bottom quote}" />
    <br style="clear: both" /></td></tr><tr><td style="padding:5;background-color:#cccc99;text-align:center">
 Per Se 
    </td></tr>
</table> <!--inline quote box --> 

<p class="firstDrop">Lawyers have a word for it, as they do for most things they handle frequently. Ordinary citizens are mostly baffled by the term "per se violation", and even more put off by "rule of reason".  If the reader is a lawyer, these terms are clear enough but the average person requires some explanation. It's supplied next, before proceeding to the point, which is that <i>per se</i> is a mixed blessing.</p>

<p>When the Constitution was adopted in 1787, we had no laws, but we had courts and crimes. To some extent, the problem was addressed by adopting English Common Law as a default. Until Congress got around to writing statutes on the subject, common law would have to do. Roughly speaking, the amount of statutory law written by Congress began to occupy as much shelf space as common law during the Civil War. Since that time, the volumes of statutory law have come to exceed the volumes of common law by a great deal. But the result has one over-riding principle: the entire legal code of the nation was examined in detail and re-written as a uniquely American product.</p>

<p>In a sense, to state the principles of law was just the first step. Statutory law generally stated what was forbidden or punishable in a general way, defined it, and left it to judge and jury to determine if the facts of a case fit the meaning of the statute. When such generalities prevailed, decisions were based on the "totality of the circumstances", using the "rule of reason". This approach left a great deal to the discretion of the judge, and  created the opportunity for "loopholes" .  Judges in a huge modern nation are not uniformly of the same level of education or skill, and cultural differences cause variation in what they would generally accept as reasonableness. So, appeals are made possible to courts of appeal; if courts of appeal differ on the same point, the matter is resolved by the Supreme Court. Legislatures and Congress are then free to clarify the issue, but unless they do,  rulings of the appeals system have the force of law. Not everyone was happy with the outcomes of this  rough-and-ready system of approximated justice.</p>

<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/lawbooks2.jpg"  width="320" height="266"  alt="{Law Books}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Law Books

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>Their reaction took two forms: regulations, and "per se" laws.  Through regulations, the executive branch acquired the ability to interpret Congress's statute, and implement it in specific ways and circumstances. The result of a staggering proliferation ( a hundred thousand pages a year) of regulations with the force of law,  originating in the executive branch, is the growing feeling that legislation is slipping away from the legislative branch in a manner not intended by the Constitution.  To this, Congress responds with laws of far greater specificity, <i>per se</i> laws. For example, instead of passing a law prohibiting monopoly, Congress might specify the allowable percentage of customers a company might have within a specific market area. Per se laws and per se regulations greatly reduce the latitude a local judge has to examine the  totality of circumstances, using the rule of reason. As one loophole after another gets closed, the number of pages of codified law is vastly increased. The typical state legislature now deals with about ten thousand bills a year, and the U.S. Congress deals with twenty-five thousand.  Although the resulting law may be clearer when you do locate it, the nation has a much harder time finding what the law says. By attempting to create more stability and certainty about the laws, this process -- even making allowances for computer searching -- has greatly increased public uncertainty about what the law does say and what it intends, because it is impossible to carry around a general idea of what the law says. Elements in a system  confused by a vast history of specific decisions by Congress are  less to be pitied however, than the plight of  Congress itself wallowing in an endless prospect of newly proposed legislation.</p>

<table class="right" width="175" summary="inline quote box"
    style="background-color:#ffffcc; margin:10px;" cellspacing="7" border="1" cellpadding="5">
    <tr><td style="padding:5">
    <img style="float:left;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:top;border-style:none"
    src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/startquote.gif" alt="{top quote}" /><br />

 which prohibits "every contract, combination � or conspiracy, in restraint of trade
    <img style="float:left;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:bottom;border-style:none"
    src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/endquote.gif" alt="{bottom quote}" />
    <br style="clear: both" /></td></tr><tr><td style="padding:5;background-color:#cccc99;text-align:center">
Rule of Reason
    </td></tr>
</table> <!-- inline quote box --> 

<p>Much is to be lamented in the present situation. It's hard to say whether we strive for micromanagement because we have lost trust in judges, or whether we trust them less because we have less need to trust. To the extent that judges represent the collective will of society, an increasing hunger for diversity of opinion leads to less trust in the system, and a desire to narrow judge's power of discretion. The increasing volume of litigation is  wasteful  of resources but here again, it is hard to know whether increasing the lawyer supply provokes legislation, or whether we just train more lawyers to cope with it. It is somewhat idle to tabulate the proportion of legislation which breaks new ground, and how much converts rules of reason into lists of <i>per se </i>violations and requirements. But a very substantial proportion of this legislative blizzard is of the <i>per se </i>nature, closing little loopholes, specifying endless contingencies. If the Law were a computer, massive micro-programming would steadily improve the performance; in this case, it seems to be breaking it down. The most disheartening feature of the present legal trajectory is that it does not appear to be reaching for equilibrium; breakdown seems to be its only end-point. Neither the regulatory process nor the legislative one contains an adequate mechanism for reducing the number of laws, one which can address the growth of them. Repeated waves of "Reform" have made little impact, consolidations of the code periodically plod along step by step,  while the supply of  <i>per se</i> laws keeps rollin' along. The nation almost seems to have decided just to wait until something breaks.</p>
	

<p><a rel="bookmark" title="Regulation Precision: Not Entirely Good Idea" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/2010.htm">http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/2010.htm</a></p>
<hr />


<h3><a accesskey="67" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/2037.htm">Powel House, Huzzah!</a>   </h3>
	<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/mrs.powell.JPG"  width="220" alt="{Elizabeth Powel}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Elizabeth Powel

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p class="firstDrop">If George Washington were still alive he would no doubt be a Republican, but the term Republican Court actually has nothing to do with R's and D's. It was a scheme deliberately cooked up by Washington and Madison to enlist support by the new government's important ladies for a modified version of a European royal court, to make  thirteen colonies into a cohesive nation. A most remarkable thing about it was its frank imitation of the royal courts, something only the Father of His Country could pull off in former colonies which had just fought an eight-year war to be rid of monarchy. It is one more great  testimony to the faith of Americans in George Washington; but it  also testifies to the power of enthusiastic women, once they agree on a project. Chief among the leaders in this court was Elizabeth Powel, along with her niece living around the corner on Spruce Street, Anne Willing Bingham. Recently, the Peale Society of the Academy of Fine Arts held a candlelight dinner in Mrs. Powel's magnificent second-floor dining room, while scholars of the history of the Republican Court told assembled notables of Philadelphia what had once been what, during the first ten years of the Republic.</p>

<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/candlelightreading.JPG"  width="300" height="199"  alt="{candlelightreading}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Dining Room

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>Members of the early Congress were largely the same men as the founding fathers of the Constitutional Convention, hand-picked by Washington and Madison  to persuade the legislatures of their colonial states to give up state sovereignty, for a unified nation. There was the difference that now they brought their wives to live in Philadelphia during  sessions of Congress. Those women wanted to know each other, and  wanted to have something exiting to do together in the largest city in the nation. Their husbands knew well how   politically useful it was to be socially acquainted in this way, so everybody liked the idea of suddenly becoming nationally connected. The initial idea proved unworkable. Martha Washington was supposed to become Lady Washington, reigning over weekly receptions.</p>

<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/candlelightreading2.JPG"  width="300" height="199"  alt="{candlelightreading2}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

In Our Cups

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>But Martha unfortunately wasn't up to the task, and Anne Bingham whose rich husband had taken her on lengthy tours of European royal courts, moved right in and took charge of this project. Besides her cousin Elizabeth Powel, notable members of this social whirl were the two daughters of Chief Justice Benjamin Chew, Alexander Hamilton's wife, and various members of the Shippen and Willing families. Members of the family of Lord Sterling of New Jersey, Charles Carroll of Carrolton, Maryland, Cadwaladers of various sorts, and a number of other names famous from then until even today joined their affiliations with ladies from other states through parties and even some weddings. John Adams was particularly awestruck by the poise and beauty of Anne Bingham, although Abigail Adams may not have been quite so infatuated. It was a dizzy whirl, with dinner parties the central activity just as they are in Philadelphia even today. Country bumpkins had to learn how to dress, to talk and to eat with the right spoon and keep their elbows off the table; those who could tactfully show them what was what, were friends for life. Centuries later, Emily Post made a fortune writing books about these rules.</p>

<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/reading.JPG"  width="200"  alt="{reading}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

reading

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>In those days, they even had their war cry, which was to raise a glass and shout back "Huzzah" in response to the proposer of a toast, who had raised his glass  starting the warcry. It wasn't "Skol" or "Cheers" or "Here, here" if you knew what was what; it was "Huzzah". Most fashionable dinners had at least twenty courses, but the ladies didn't eat them. It was a whispered instruction among the ladies that they should eat before the dinner, so they could gracefully decline to gobble up  goodies, and spend their time in gay conversation or waiting to be asked to dance.  Drinking and eating, especially drinking, was for the men at the party, although naturally the many courses of the banquet were put in front of the ladies to be airily ignored.  When George Washington was present as he often was, or even La Rochfoucault himself, it was important to remember every spoken word.</p>

<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/washington%20letter.JPG"  width="200"  alt="{Washington's Thank-You Letter}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Washington's Thank-You Letter

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>And, you know, it worked. When these important people went back home, they took the customs of the Republican Court  with them. The American diplomatic corps found  the equivalent of minor-league training for their efforts on behalf of the country abroad. Politics was easier if you personally knew your adversaries as well as your allies. The persistance of the same family names in the Social Register, the lists of The Four Hundred and other compilations of high society show that Anne Bingham and Elizabeth Powel did indeed know what they were doing, and for that matter, so did George Washington. If anyone else had been at the top of this heap, Thomas Jefferson stood ready to attack with all his might.</p>

<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/amittybutton.JPG"  width="200"  alt="{Amity Button}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Amity Button

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>But he, and even Patrick Henry, didn't dare attack Washington. The aristocrats of Old Europe probably did sneer at this amateur effort, and in some circles still do. But the inability of absolutely any other group of nations, whether European, Asian or South American, to unite peacefully is a thumb in the eye of anyone who mocks George Washington's little Philadelphia creation. And to think it all began right here, right here in the Powel House, right here in the  dining room on the second floor. For that, folks, one thunderous "Huzzah!"</p>
	

<p><a rel="bookmark" title="Powel House, Huzzah!" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/2037.htm">http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/2037.htm</a></p>
<hr />


<h3><a accesskey="69" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/2097.htm">Adrift With The Living Constitution</a>   </h3>
	<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/JoeSestak%20(2).jpg"  width="150" height="200"  alt="{Senator Joe Setak}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Senator Joe Sestak

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p class="firstDrop">Former Congressman Joe Sestak visited the Franklin Inn Club recently, describing his experiences with the Tea Party movement. Since Senator Patrick Toomey, the man who defeated him in the 2010 election, is mostly a Libertarian, and Senator Arlen Specter who also lost has switched parties twice, all three candidates in the Pennsylvania senatorial election displayed major independence from party dominance, although in different ways. Ordinarily, gerrymandering and political machine politics result in a great many "safe" seats, where a representative or a Senator has more to fear from rivals in his own party than from his opposition in the other party; this year, things seem to be changing in our area. Pennsylvania is somehow in the vanguard of a major national shift in party politics, although it is unclear whether a third party is about to emerge, or whether the nature of the two party system is about to change in some other way.</p>

<p>For his part, Joe Sestak (formerly D. Representative from Delaware County) had won the Democratic senatorial nomination against the wishes of the party leaders, who had previously promised the nomination to incumbent Senator Specter in reward for Specter's switching from the Republican to Democratic party. For Vice-Admiral Sestak, USN (ret.) it naturally stings a little that he won the nomination without leadership support, but still came reasonably close to winning the general election without much enthusiasm within his party. He clearly believes he would have beaten Toomey if the party leaders had supported him. It rather looks as though the Democratic party leadership would rather lose the election to the Republicans than lose control of nominations, which are their real source of power. Controlling nominations is largely a process of persuading unwelcome contenders to drop out of the contest. Sestak is therefore making a large number of thank-you visits after the election, and clearly has his ears open for signs of what the wandering electorate might think of his future candidacy.</p>

<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/toomey.jpg"  width="150" height="200"  alt="{Senator Patrick Toomey}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Senator Patrick Toomey

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>America clearly prefers a two-party system to both the dictatorial tendencies of a one-party system, as well as to European multi-party arrangements, such as run-offs or coalitions. A two-party system blunts the edges of extreme partisanship, eventually moving toward moderate candidates in the middle, in order to win a winner-take-all election. Therefore, our winner-take-all rules are the enforcement mechanism for a two-party system. Our deals and bargains are made in advance of the election, where the public can express an opinion. In multi-party systems the deals are made after the election where the public can't see what's going on, and such arrangements are historically unstable, sometimes resulting in a victory by a minority fringe with violently unpopular policies. In our system, a new third-party mainly serves as a mechanism for breaking up one of the major parties, to reformulate it as a two-party system with different composition. Proportional representation is defended by European politicians as something which promotes "fairness". Unfortunately, it's pretty hard to find anything in politics anywhere which is sincerely devoted to fairness.</p>

<p>Going far back in history one of the great theorists of legislative politics was the Roman Senator Pliny the Younger, who wrote books in Latin about how to manipulate a voting system. For him, parties were only temporary working arrangements about individual issues, a situation where he recommended "insincere voting" as a method for winning a vote even if you lacked a majority in favor of it. Over the centuries, other forms of party coalitions have emerged in  nations attempting to make democracy workable. Indeed, a "republic" itself can be seen as a mechanism devised for retaining popular control in an electorate grown too large for the chaos and unworkability of  pure town hall democracy. A republic is a democracy which has been somewhat modified to make it workable.  Our founding fathers knew this from personal experience, and never really considered pure democracy even in the Eighteenth century.</p>

<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/Senator%20Specter.jpg"  width="150" height="200"  alt="{Senator Specter}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Senator Specter

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption --><p>The two main actors in shaping the American Republic were George Washington and James Madison. Madison was young, scholarly and largely unknown; Washington was old, famous, and insecure about his lack of academic political education. Both of them knew very well that if Washington really wanted something he was going to have it; what mainly restrained him was  fear of looking foolish. But he hated partisanship and conniving, partly as a result of having been the victim of General Mifflin and the Conway Cabal. Washington hated political parties and anything resembling them; Madison was young and uncertain, and briefly surrendered the point. It took about two years of real-life governing for Madison to conclude that political parties were absolutely essential to getting something accomplished. In this he experienced for the first time those unwelcome "pressures from the home state", with Thomas Jefferson determined to thwart Alexander Hamilton, and Patrick Henry thundering and denouncing any hesitation in going for the jugular vein of opponents. Madison was deeply concerned with making his new nation a success, and eventually joined Jefferson in the Virginia policy of opposing banks, cities and manufacturing. When Washington saw that Madison was committed to this course, he never spoke to him again. For Washington, honesty was always the best policy, and personal honor is never regained  once it is lost. The compromise of 1790 was particularly vexing to their relationship, when Washington's honor and personal finances were used as  bargaining chips for moving the nation's capital opposite Mount Vernon on the Potomac River, in return for placating Hamilton and Robert Morris with the assumption of state revolutionary war debts.</p>

<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/henry%20clay1811.jpg" width="200" alt="" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Henry Clay 1811

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>Legislative partisan politics took a violent turn in 1811, when 34-year old Henry Clay was elected to his first term as member of the House of Representatives. The Senate was less prestigious than the House in those days, and Clay had spent his time as a senator studying the landscape of the House, before he made his big move upward. Up until that moment, the role of Speaker was that of mediator and administrator of the rules,  partisanship was considered a shameful thing in a Speaker. Young Clay was elected Speaker on the first day of the first session after he moved to the House as a member. Seniority was brushed aside, and this newcomer took over. It takes only a moment's reflection to surmise that a lot of politics had taken place before the House convened. Not only that, but Clay immediately added the power of the Speaker to appoint committee chairmen, to the invisible powers of majority leader. The office of majority leader had not yet been created, but it was not long in emerging that anyone who could assemble enough votes for Speaker was also able to make highly partisan choices for Committee Chairs. Eventually, the seniority system was imposed in part as a reaction to perceived abuses of Speaker power. It is worth a digression to reflect on the role of any seniority system, which as it is clearly seen in labor-management industrial relations, serves to deprive management of  promotion power, usually substituting seniority  for selection by merit. In the case of the Speaker, the seniority system catapults the power of the Speaker over that of every member of his caucus. To rise in a seniority system for committee chairmen, a member must first be appointed to a desirable committee -- by the Speaker, or by his instructed favorites on the appointment committee. It puts in the hands of the Speaker or his agents the power to humiliate a member by ignoring his seniority; the other members know immediately what that means. To understand the power of this threat, reflect on Woodrow Wilson's famous observation that "Congress in committee, is Congress at work."</p>

<p>Soon after Henry Clay made his dramatic moves, Martin van Buren extended the idea of partisan party politics to the actual election of Congressmen. Much of the whoopla and deceptiveness of subsequent campaigns was invented by Andrew Jackson's vice president. And that included their own deal, in which van Buren worked for Jackson's election in return for a promise that he would be the successor President. After that came the election of 1848, in which William Henry Harrison was elected as a man born in a log cabin. When, in fact he had been born in one of the largest mansions in Virginia. That had been approximately George Washington's residence description, too, but it is hard to see Old Stone Face lowering himself to accept any office unless it was offered unanimously.</p>

<p>Compare that with the campaign financing episode which created the urban political machine. The Philadelphia traction king Wm. L. Elkins was narrowly concerned with building street car lines along with his business associate P.A.B. Widener; Widener had been a city politician before he got into street cars. One or the other of these two approached the Mayor of Philadelphia with the complaint that it interfered with building street car lines to have to bribe every bartender on every street corner. So he made a proposal. It wasn't the money that bothered him, because he could just raise trolley fares to cover it, it was the protracted delays. So, how would it be if the trolley company just delivered a big lump-sum bribe to the mayor. That would give enormous political power to the party boss through the power to distribute or withhold the boodle to party workers. And it would save the trolley company lots of time, while not costing any more than the "retail graft" system. Since then, just about every urban political machine in the country has been largely financed through the macing of utilities.</p>

<p>The downward trend of serial modifications to the Philadelphia Constitution of 1787, should be clear enough without further illustration. If the Tea Parties aren't mad about it, they should be. More likely, however, they are mainly mad about the modern pinacle of sly tinkerings, plainly displayed on TV during the enactment of the Obama Health Bill. The point was repeated for emphasis  in the Dodd-Frank financial bill, in case it is ever claimed to have been accidental. In both cases, 2000 page bills were prepared out of sight, and thrust before the Congress with orders to enact them in four hours. If that's representative government, perhaps we ought to go back to having a King.</p>
	

<p><a rel="bookmark" title="Adrift With The Living Constitution" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/2097.htm">http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/2097.htm</a></p>
<hr />


<h3><a accesskey="71" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/2113.htm">Pennsylvania:  Browbeaten Into Joining a War</a>   </h3>
	<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/battle-of-lexington-concord-1775.jpg"  width="400" height="300"  alt="{Battle of Lexington}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Battle of Lexington

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p class="firstDrop">In April, 1775, colonial militia were shooting it out with British soldiers at Bunker Hill and Lexington/Concord. If you include the December 16, 1773 Boston Tea Party, Massachusetts had been fighting the British for almost three years before July 4, 1776. It had never been absolutely clear to Pennsylvanians just what they were fighting about in New England, beyond the fact that a considerable store of gunpowder was hidden in Lexington and Concord and British soldiers had been sent to confiscate it, along with those two trouble-makers, Samuel Adams and John Hancock.  The militiamen behind the trees were just as British as the soldiers were, and  their short slogan of fair treatment was to elect  representatives to any Parliament which claimed a right to tax them. Snubbed by a high-handed King, they got his attention by  shooting back when the King tried to enforce laws they had not had a chance to vote on. Seeing your neighbors shot soon soon clarifies your options.   Other colonies, especially Pennsylvania, Delaware and South Carolina, were slower to anger about either taxation or representation, worrying more about the motives of unstable leaders in Massachusetts like Samuel Adams, and content to stall while British Whigs led by Edmund Burke and the Marquess of Rockingham tried to civilize the king's ministry. Besides, the British were not attacking Pennsylvania.</p>

<p>To be fair to the hot-headed New Englanders who were apparently stirring up so much unprovoked trouble, a better case could have been made against the heedless British ministry, and New England lawyers should have made it. Following the Boston Massacre, there was genuine alarm among lawyers like John Adams that King George was eroding historic legal rights achieved over several centuries, indeed,  preferentially undermining them more for mere colonists than for U.K. citizens with a vote. The Navigation Acts of the British government in particular  were offensive to American colonists; randomly chosen representatives on juries proceded to render them unenforceable with a wide-spread refusal to convict. They were employing William Penn's strategy of "Jury Nullification", and better acknowledgment of its legal history was sure to make a favorable impact on Philadelphia minds. Somehow, the Boston legal community felt this line of argument was too specialized to be effective, or else shared the alarm of their enemy the British Ministry that Jury Nullification in the hands of public  could be  too hard to control.  John Adams had made a particularly famous defense of John Hancock who was being punished with confiscation of his ship and a fine of triple the cargo's value. Adams was later singled out as the only named American rebel the British refused to exempt from hanging if they caught him. As everyone knows, Hancock was the first to step up and sign the Declaration of Independence, because by 1776 there was also widespread colonial outrage over the British strategem of transferring cases to the (non-jury) Admiralty Court. Many colonists who privately regarded Hancock as a smuggler were roused to rebellion by the British government thus denying a defendant his right to a jury trial, especially by a jury almost certain not to convict him. To taxation without representation was added the obscenity of enforcement without due process. John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the newly created United States, ruled in 1794 that "The Jury has the right to determine the law as well as the facts." And Thomas Jefferson built a whole political party on the right of common people to overturn their government, somewhat softening it is true when he saw where the French Revolution was going. Jury Nullification then lay fairly dormant for fifty years. But since the founding of the Republic and the reputation of many of the most prominent founders was based on it, there may have seemed little need for emphasis of an argument any modern politician would seize with glee.</p>

<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/Bunker%20Hill.jpg"  width="300" height="400"  alt="{Bunker Hill}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Bunker Hill

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>At that time, only a third of colonists were in favor of fighting about it, and a third were entirely opposed. Samuel Adams himself had written his supporters that it would be best to hold back until greater revolutionary support could be gathered. Unfortunately, in the minds of the British ministry, hostility had already escalated irrevocably when the Continental Congress in June 1775 created the Continental Army and dispatched George Washington to Boston to join the fight. This was probably the moment when war became inevitable in the collective mind of the British Parliament; a full year had passed since then. Regardless of Bunker Hill, the British were incensed by the creation of the Continental Army, and passed the Prohibitory Act, which declared that all thirteen colonies (belonging to the Congress) were renegades, their decision to raise armies placing them "outside the protection of the king". All American shipping was now subject to seizure, not just that of Massachusetts, as were foreign vessels engaged in American trade. News of this Parliamentary thunderbolt  first came to Robert Morris through one of his ships, accompanied by news that 26,000 troops had been raised for an invasion of American ports. The British position was that all thirteen colonies had gratuitously formed a government and an army, and needed to be punished for such treason. Pennsylvania was no exception; the offending Continental Congress had met there, and Benjamin Franklin had represented both Massachusetts and Pennsylvania before Parliament. Confirmation of that particular British attitude toward them greeted Pennsylvanians when British warships promptly appeared in May 1776, to patrol the mouth of the Delaware.  Three cruisers exploring up the river were attacked by American galleys. In response, the cruisers sailed directly at Philadelphia until they were finally beaten back by citizen flotillas, supervised by Robert Morris and the Committee on Safety. Morris wrote to Silas Deane in Paris that war was probably inevitable. Far less tentatively, the British felt it had already been in progress for a year.</p>

<p>The British Ministry had probably been unreasonably hostile, but they were not unanimous and they were not fools. In response to colonial unrest up until these almost irretrievable events, the British were concentrating on depriving the colonists of arms and gunpowder, mostly avoiding direct violence; it seemed an effective strategy. During the Boston Tea Party, for example, British warships in Boston harbor merely stood by and watched the fun. Although gunpowder was a simple chemical, comparatively easy to make, it was less likely to blow up in your face if finely ground and milled in a major factory; for a real Colonial war it had to be imported. The British strategy had been: Take away their weapons, and they will capitulate. Unfortunately that was not the response at all, since even loyal colonists felt they needed good gunpowder for hunting and self-protection. Gunpowder blockades and confiscations were going to be bitterly resented. Nevertheless, British patience with the colonists was probably only irretrievably exhausted in June, 1775, when the Continental Congress formed its own army and Washington marched them to Boston. If Pennsylvania became convinced of that  inevitability, the war was certainly on. After the naval battles right here on the Delaware, what really became  hard to believe was that -- only a week earlier -- Pennsylvania's moderate voters had soundly defeated the revolutionary radicals in an Assembly election.</p>

<p>Pennsylvania had indeed been far less eager to fight than Massachusetts and Virginia, but the more belligerent colonies felt they needed allies in order to prevail. In the Continental Congress Pennsylvania and South Carolina voted against rebellion in the Spring of 1776; and in the May 1776 election where independence was the main issue, the Pennsylvania voters elected an Assembly 70% opposed to rebellion, including that eminent merchant Robert Morris. Some of the determined Massachusetts efforts to persuade the Mid-Atlantic colonies bordered on subversion, but Pennsylvania remained unmoved. Nevertheless, they could see a real danger of war, and had approved  Secret Committees to be prepared if it came. Robert Morris was ideal for covert activity and could be expected to keep the activity under control, along with Benjamin Franklin and several prominent merchants. Morris made no secret of his affection for England the country of his  birth, or of his membership in the John Dickinson group  which hoped economic pressures would suffice. When the Secret Committee chairman suddenly died of smallpox, Morris was then appointed chairman.  His personal integrity was widely respected; in several hotly contested elections, he was nominated by both the radicals and the conservatives.</p>

<table class="left" width="175" summary="inline quote box"
    style="background-color:#ffffcc; margin:10px;" cellspacing="7" border="1" cellpadding="5">
    <tr><td style="padding:5">
    <img style="float:left;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:top;border-style:none"
    src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/startquote.gif" alt="{top quote}" /><br />

It seems absolutely necessary to prepare a vigorous defense, since every account we receive from England threatens nothing but destruction.
    <img style="float:left;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:bottom;border-style:none"
    src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/endquote.gif" alt="{bottom quote}" />
    <br style="clear: both" /></td></tr><tr><td style="padding:5;background-color:#cccc99;text-align:center">
Robert Morris: December 1775.
    </td></tr>
</table> <!-- inline quote box --> 


<p>The Secret Committee was charged with smuggling in some gunpowder, just in case. Several of the members agreed to ship arms and gunpowder in their own ships; there was no one else to do it. The decision to engage in treasonous gunrunning was greatly assisted by the unexpected appearance of two Frenchmen with aristocratic accents in a boat loaded with gunpowder, who proposed themselves as French counterparties in a major gunpowder and weapons smuggling network which did actually materialize. Just who sent them has never been made entirely clear, but later events make the playwright Beaumarchais a reasonable guess, acting as a secret agent of the French King. Beaumarchais the famous playwright had been caught in a police trap, and forced to act as a government spy; just whose agent he was is a little murky. The American merchants on the Secret Committee knew gun running  was expensive for them; they all expected to be paid for dangerous work, so it was also profitable. And treasonous. If caught, there was every possibility of being hanged. Initially, the Americans all imagined the Frenchmen were simply in it for the money, and that is possible. Surprisingly, no one seems even to have speculated they were agents of the French government on a mission to stir up trouble against the English. Spies had surely informed the French King of approaching war, at least six months before the Americans knew of it. Since these two foreign shippers (giving their names as Pierre Penet and Emmanuel de Pliarne, and surely sent to spy) demanded to be paid in hard currency, Morris did send one ship with hard money to pay for munitions to be carried in its hold on the return voyage. But he soon devised safer payment approaches.</p>

<table class="right" width="175" summary="inline quote box"
    style="background-color:#ffffcc; margin:10px;" cellspacing="7" border="1" cellpadding="5">
    <tr><td style="padding:5">
    <img style="float:left;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:top;border-style:none"
    src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/startquote.gif" alt="{top quote}" /><br />

For my part I abhor the name &amp; idea of a rebel, I neither want or wish a change of King or Constitution &amp; do not conceive myself to act against either when I join America in defense of Constitutional Liberty.
    <img style="float:left;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:bottom;border-style:none"
    src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/endquote.gif" alt="{bottom quote}" />
    <br style="clear: both" /></td></tr><tr><td style="padding:5;background-color:#cccc99;text-align:center">
Robert Morris: December 1775.
    </td></tr>
</table> <!-- inline quote box --> 


<p>Since he had agents and offices in most major foreign ports, Morris could arrange for the money to arrive independently of the cargo ships. Or better yet, send ordinary commodities on the outward journey and make a private profit on that, returning with munitions paid for by the "remittances" -- revenue from the other cargo. Money was also sent on other circuitous journeys and through other channels, particularly the discounted debt system he had earlier perfected when paper currency had been prohibited. There was thus less incriminating evidence on the ship, and even if the ship burned or everyone got hanged, the money was at least out of the hands of the enemy. Secrecy was of course essential, this activity could be called treasonous, and it was most assuredly smuggling. When neutral countries were found supporting gunrunning, that assistance might well be called an act of war, so all nations prohibited it. In spite of his earlier reluctance about independence, Morris could easily see that gunrunning by the privateers of a recognized nation might be  better protected by the conventions of war than exactly the same activity conducted by, say,  brigands, profiteers or pirates.</p>

<p>Gunrunning was always seriously dangerous; Morris soon lost four ships, one by a mutiny of secretly loyalist sailors, and two were captured by unscrupulous American privateers. There would be some protection from hanging for gun runners as authorized combatants of a recognized nation. In retrospect we can now surmise that Franklin was committed to independence, and was probably nudging his friend on the Secret Committee. John Adams could barely contain himself, openly and repeatedly. Washington was already outside Boston leading an army. Commitment had many levels.</p>

<p>In July, 1776 Morris was called on to vote in Congress for the independence he always said he opposed. Caesar Rodney rode in from Delaware to deliver his state for Independence; now, Pennsylvania alone stood in the way. When the moment came, on the advice of Franklin, Robert Morris and John Dickinson left the room to allow other Pennsylvania delegates to constitute a Pennsylvania majority, casting the state's vote for the war. Commitment to the war had many variants, even after the war began.</p>
	

<p><a rel="bookmark" title="Pennsylvania:  Browbeaten Into Joining a War" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/2113.htm">http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/2113.htm</a></p>
<hr />


<h3><a accesskey="73" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/2114.htm">Anatomy of an Urban Political Machine</a>   </h3>
	<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/bigfam.jpg"  width="340" height="300"  alt="{One Big Family}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

One Big Family

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p class="firstDrop">The Franklin Inn Club meets every Monday morning to discuss the news, and recently it discussed the upcoming local political campaign. The discussion went on for fifteen minutes before a newcomer asked if we were talking about the primary or the general election. The question was met with broad smiles all around, because of course we were talking about the primary. Voter registration is 6:1 in favor of the Democrats in Philadelphia, so the general election is just a required formality. The election, that is, consists only of the Democrat primary; election of the Democrat nominee in the general election is a foregone conclusion.  Someone idly remarked on the number of politicians who are blood relatives of other politicians, someone else said that was true of union officers, too. So, skipping from the inside baseball of the election, we took a little time to discuss the anatomy of an urban political machine.</p>

<p>The first step in consolidating control of a city by a political machine is to eliminate the issue of the general election by making the other party's chances seem hopeless. That converts an election which typically turns out 40% of the voters into an exclusively primary election, turning out 20% of the voters, or even less in an off-year. In some "safe" districts a winner needs far less than 10% of the eligible vote to win.</p>

<p>The second step is to run as a prominent member of a local ethnic or religious group, preferably the largest of such groups within the district. If possible, election is almost assured by being the sole candidate associated with the largest ethnic group. Here's where family connections work for you. If your father held the same seat, or some other family member had been prominent in the district, it helps assure everybody that you are really an ethnic member, and not just someone whose name sounds as though it would be. Your relative will know who is important in locally local politics, the members of large families, or people known to be the "go-to guy".</p>

<p>Assembling all that, the final step is to get everyone else who is a member of the ethnic group to drop out of the primary, and to encourage other ethnic groups to field as many candidates as possible, splitting up their vote. Getting other members of your religious group to drop out, consists of having your relative approach them and tell them to wait their turn.  The implicit promise underneath that advice is probably next to worthless, unless it is specific and witnessed, and the other fellow's ability to deliver it is credible. If all else fails, the resistant opponent is muscled in some way, verbally at first, and then increasingly threatening. The consequence of this ethnic/religious influence is more involvement in government by clergy than is healthy for either one of them. Now, that's about all there is to achieving permanent incumbency, but the minority party should be mentioned, as well as the flow of money.</p>

<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/ppa.jpg"  width="175" height="93"  alt="{the Parking Authority}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

the Parking Authority

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>It quite often happens that the minority party in the big city, hopeless in its own election chances, finds itself with a Governor and/or Legislature of their party. The patronage of state jobs becomes available to the foot soldiers who have no chance of local election. Much of the wrangling within state legislatures revolves around  whether appointive patronage jobs should be lodged in state agencies, or local ones; at the moment, the Parking Authority and the Port Authorities figure prominently as jobs for which a local Republican could aspire. The coin of this trade is maintaining influence in the state nominating process, and paying off with increased voter turn-out in elections which have no local effect but may be important at the state or national level. Since party dominance at state and national levels changes frequently, the local machine finds it useful to continue this system. Where they have nothing to lose in local elections, they may even encourage it.</p>

<p>Money is the mother's milk of politics. Except for safe districts no one can get elected without it. And various degrees of corruption provide money to be "spread around" the clubhouse, sometimes to induce people to drop out of primary races, sometimes to console "sacrifice" candidates who run hopeless campaigns just to make the party look good, and sometimes just to enrich the undeserving. The politically connected parts of the legal profession participate a good deal in the flow of funds, sometimes in order to get government legal work, sometimes to obtain judgeships, sometimes to launder the money for clients.  One particularly lurid story circulates that professional sports teams are expected to make seven-figure contributions in return for lavish new stadium construction, from which they in turn are able to generate various sorts of compensating revenue.</p>

<p>But, as the old story goes, if you eat lunch with a tiger, the tiger eats last.</p>
	

<p><a rel="bookmark" title="Anatomy of an Urban Political Machine" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/2114.htm">http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/2114.htm</a></p>
<hr />


<h3><a accesskey="75" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/2115.htm">Constitutional Liberty</a>   </h3>
	<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/Richard%20Henry%20Lee.jpg"  width="150" height="200"  alt="{Richard Henry Lee}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Richard Henry Lee

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->
<p class="firstDrop">SOMETHING can of course be learned by asking a man's friends, but  descriptions given by his enemies are usually briefer. The Lee family of Westmoreland County Virginia were bitter enemies of Robert Morris the Financier of the Revolution, and they surely said unfair things about him. Morris paid as little attention to the Lees as possible, but for generations the Lees had been neighbors of the Washingtons, and could not be brushed aside. Furthermore, they were close to the center of Thomas Jefferson's anti-Federalist party. So insights into the Lee family probably illuminate the main disputes before, during, and after the Revolution. They even illuminate the mixed character of George Washington, who was sometimes  exceptional by  Virginia standards. Nevertheless, there was the same quality of heedless idealism to be found in Samuel Adams of Massachusetts and Patrick Henry of Virginia which goes beyond the ability of two-feet-on-the-ground revolutionaries like Robert Morris and Benjamin Franklin to understand, or even abide; this conflict runs throughout the history of the American founding. It  seemed to baffle even those who switched positions, like James Madison going in one direction, and Thomas Paine, going the other. So, although it therefore cannot be an inborn character, it must quickly acquire very deep roots.</p>

<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/Arthur%20Lee%20(diplomat).jpg"  width="150" height="200"  alt="{Arthur Lee}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Arthur Lee

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>Arthur Lee and his brothers William and Richard Henry Lee of Virginia, were passionate rebels of the Patrick Henry ("Give me liberty or give me death") sort, conducting  lifelong attacks on Robert Morris. Highborn Tidewater aristocrats, they were ancestors of Virginia's revered General Robert E. Lee. Arthur had even attended Eton College and later studied medicine in England. The Lee brothers started attacking Robert Morris well before his famous abstention from the critical 1776 vote on independence. It's much too easy to shrug the Lees  off as landed aristocrats who disdained self-made men, or as passionate Jacobins who hated rich people, or maybe just narrow-minded nuts. Out of their often inaccurate attacks  emerges an outline of what a lot of other people thought about Robert Morris.  Many of these  polar mind-sets outline the main divisions of political strife in America  right up to the present. For present purposes, let's try to understand why Morris might risk his substantial fortune in underground smuggling before the war, and then dedicate his huge energies to winning the war -- while at the same time, not only refuse to agree to the Declaration of Independence (he did finally sign it in August 1776), but speak out in public opposition to independence. What explains Morris' apparent double-talk?</p>

<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/signdeclaration.jpg"  width="300" height="200"  alt="{Constitution}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Robert Morris Signature

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>The explanation I choose to accept is that Robert Morris' real feelings were too sophisticated for this particular crisis, reaching clearer expression in his later activities promoting the Articles of Confederation and its revision the United States Constitution. A man given to terse one-liners, Morris said in December 1775 that he joined his fellow Americans in striving for "Constitutional Liberty" but could not join them in promoting independence.</p>

<p>Morris was never explicit about what would achieve Liberty without Independence; possibly something like the independent Irish parliament which English Whigs then supported, or the Scottish local parliament which exists today. Both of them link a single King to a commonwealth. At the time, no one was interested in the political philosophy of a shipping merchant.</p>

<p>But today we are in a position to see no member nation of the British Commonwealth has a written constitution; written constitutions are a comparatively recent innovation and not necessarily an essential one.  The American Constitution today continues to argue about original intent and living documents, so it is still possible to prefer the wisdom of a benign King to written constitutions. The British goal seems to be to infuse overarching principles of government so deeply into citizen minds that such principles overwhelm any written commandments, however vague all that may sound to outsiders who prefer to niggle over documents. Not in America, of course, because  an immigrant nation like ours cannot grow cultural roots sufficiently deep in a few generations, and must have written rules. Great Britain's recent difficulties with immigrants from the Commonwealth may well reassert the limits of unwritten constitutions; constant questioning of the written American constitution by more recent immigrant groups may become a part of the British life, too.</p>

<p>The Articles of Confederation were written by the eminent lawyer John Dickinson, said to be the man closest to sharing Robert Morris' political philosophy. However, for five years the Articles were un ratified, and Morris began to believe this lack of ratification was the reason the states were so resistant to taxation. So Dickinson gets credit for writing the Articles, but Morris must be seen as their father. Believing the lack of federal taxation was the main difficulty, and blaming the unratified Articles as the reason for it, our businessman man-of-action pushed them through. Unfortunately, with the Articles it didn't work because the taxation problem still remained, so Morris turned his immense energies toward replacing the Articles with something which would work. It does not twist American history a great deal to believe that Robert Morris, Jr. was one of the main driving forces behind both the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution of the United States. He was neither a lawyer nor a political scientist, and therefore was quite indifferent to who got credit for the documents. As Ronald Reagan was to discover two centuries later, that's one of the best ways to get anything done.</p>

<p>Morris could read; he knew the Articles didn't endorse Federal taxation. But he was apparently convinced an unwritten constitution always contains the latitude to do what simply has to be done; anything else amounts to shooting yourself in the foot. After the Battle of Trenton, when Morris became President of the United States for three months in everything except name, he still blamed his troubles on the inability to levy taxes, which in turn was due to failure of the states to ratify those Articles. So sensible a man as John Dickinson would never assume overly strict interpretation was intended; obviously, a state must confiscate private property when otherwise it cannot survive. After five years of state inaction, Morris abruptly pushed the Articles through to ratification. But he was wrong, it didn't help. When he finally grasped that the explicit limitations on taxation were intentional, intended to override any  implicit power in the Articles whatever, he promptly threw his weight behind John Jay, George Washington  and James Madison to support a new Constitutional Convention setting it right, especially the national government's ability to levy taxes. Since Washington had by then become his best friend, who actually lived next door in Morris' Market Street house for years, there is not much paper trail of this interaction between these old friends. Once he got his tax mandate at the Convention however, Morris had hardly anything further to say. His frenetic later activity immediately after the Constitution was enacted can almost surely be attributed to lifelong habits of a negotiator, avoiding mention of anything which might distract from his main goal, in this case of ratifying the Congressional right to levy federal taxes, but not abandoning subordinate goals for a moment. What the Lees hated about Morris therefore cannot be easily explained, but certainly one feature of it was his ability to hold his cards. The Lees didn't hold their cards, they flourished them.  In their eyes, no gentleman would do anything else.</p>

<p>The incidents of June, 1776 place the Lees in a more favorable light if they are seen as urging instinctive decisions by popular mandate, essentially favoring an unwritten  British Constitutional arrangement. The Lees believed the place of a gentleman was at the head of a troop, daring the rest to follow their lead. The British had blockaded Boston, passed the Prohibitory Acts, fought naval battles in the Delaware River in May of that year. A huge British fleet had landed in New York harbor, and the agitated colonists were about to declare war. At the very moment of crisis, that rich Philadelphia merchant had refused to vote for independence. The Virginia tobacco planters were dancing a war dance in a city known for its pacifist Quakers, while their neighbor George Washington was conducting an actual war with the British.  It was then revealed that Robert Morris had been participating in a gunpowder smuggling operation known as the Secret Committee, and Morris had made considerable profits from it. While many of his friends defended Morris, it was pretty easy to go wild with indignation about trusting him to sit on a secret espionage committee, unwatched. The very least that could be done was to appoint Arthur Lee, already a member of the Continental Congress, to that Secret Committee to sound the alarm if anything looked funny. The ironic fact seems to be that Morris and the Lees were passionately committed to the same unwritten approach to government, primarily based on trust in personal character, otherwise defined as fidelity to an unwritten tribal code. If you are the right sort of person, you will be with us; if you are not with us, you must not be the right sort of person. Unfortunately, a nation of immigrants may not survive if it adopts  such notions.</p>

<p>The Lees had expressed disruptive views of Morris in the past; but they were exactly the sort of clan likely to confront scoundrels  whenever facts called for it, and sometimes even when they didn't. The underlying conflicts, fiercely advocating both a strong centralized government and a loose decentralized one but not defining either, continue to run through American politics until the present. Whether Morris ever acknowledged it or not, he ended up on the side of defined contracts, as opposed to a Code of Honor. But he spent his life as a man of his word, because in business your word is your bond; if you are any good, you won't need to cheat. If our Tower of Compromises is to endure, its limits of such agreement must be few, but they must somehow be strictly understood.</p>
	

<p><a rel="bookmark" title="Constitutional Liberty" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/2115.htm">http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/2115.htm</a></p>
<hr />


<h3><a accesskey="77" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/2144.htm">Fort Wilson</a>   </h3>
	<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/jameswilson.jpg"  width="235" height="300"  alt="{James Wilson}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

James Wilson

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p class="firstDrop">October 4, 1779. The British had conquered but abandoned Philadelphia; order was  still only partially restored. Joseph Reed was President of the Continental Congress, inflation ("Not worth a Continental") was rampant, and food shortages were at near-famine levels because of self-defeating  price controls. In a world turned upside down, Charles Willson Peale the painter was leader of  a radical group of admirers of Rousseau the French anarchist, called the Constitutionalist Party, leaners in the radical direction actually followed by the French Revolution in 1789. Peale was quick to admit he had no clue what to do with his leadership position, and soon resigned it in favor of painting portraits of the wealthy. Others had deserted the occupied city, and many  had not yet returned. The Quakers of the city hunkered down, more or less adhering to earlier instruction from the London Yearly Meeting to stay away from any politics involving war taxes. About two hundred militia roamed the city streets making trouble for anyone they could plausibly blame for the breakdown of civil order. Philadelphia was as close to anarchy as it would ever become; the focus of anger was against the pacifist Quakers, the rich merchants, and James Wilson the lawyer.</p>

<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/wilson2.jpg"  width="300" height="203"  alt="{Fort Wilson}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Fort Wilson

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>Wilson had enraged the mob by defending Tories in court, much as John Adams got in trouble for defending British troops  involved in the Boston Massacre; Ben Franklin advised Wilson to leave town. It is still possible to walk the full extent of the battle of Fort Wilson in a few minutes, and a pity the tourist bureau has not marked it out. Begin with the Quaker Meeting at Fourth and Arch. A few wandering militiamen caught Jonathan Drinker, Thomas Story,  Buckridge Sims, and Matthew Johns emerging from the Quaker church, and rounded them up as prisoners.  The Quakers were marched down the street for uncertain purposes when the militia encountered a group of prominent merchants emerging from the City Tavern. Unlike the meek Quakers, Robert Morris and John Cadwalader the leader of the City Troop ordered the militia to release the prisoners, behave themselves, and disperse; Timothy Matlack shouted orders. It was exactly the wrong stance to take, and about thirty prominent citizens were soon driven to retreat to the large brick house of James Wilson, at the corner of Third and Walnut, known forever afterward as Fort Wilson. Doors were barred, windows manned, and Fort Wilson was soon surrounded by an armed, shouting, mob. Lieutenant Robert Campbell  leaned out  a third story window, and was soon dropped dead by a lucky bullet. Crowbars were sought, the back door forced open, but the angry mob immediately scattered after fusillades from inside.</p>

<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/josephreed.jpg"  width="250" height="301"  alt="{George Reed}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Joseph Reed

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>Down the street came President Reed on horseback, ordering the militia to disperse, with Timothy Matlack at his side; both men were well-known radicals, switching sides to maintain law and order. The City Troop arrived, an order was given the cavalry to Assault Every Armed Man. The mob was finally dispersed by this makeshift cavalry charge, cutting and slashing its way through the dazed militia. When it was over, five defenders were dead and about twenty wounded. Among the militia the casualties were heavier, but inaccurately reported. Robert Morris took James Wilson in hand and retreated to his mansion at Lemon Hill; Wilson was the founder of America's first law school. Among other defenders huddled in Fort Wilson were some of the future signers of the Constitution from Pennsylvania: General Thomas Mifflin, Wilson, Morris, George Clymer. Equally important was the deep impression left on radical leaders like Reed and Matlack, and Henry Laurens, who could see how close the whole war effort  was to dissolution, for lack of firm contol. Inflation continued but the conter-productive price control system was abandoned and never revived; the patriots had a bad scare, and the heedless radicals forced to confront the potentially disastrous consequences of their own amateur performance when entrusted with the power and responsibility they had just been demanding. It was one of those rare moments in a nation's history when the way suddenly opens to previously unthinkable actions.</p>

<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/Timothy_Matlack.jpg"  width="240" height="300"  alt="" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Timothy Matlack

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>The Battle of Fort Wilson was the only Revolutionary War battle fought within Philadelphia city limits;  a revolution within a revolution, every participant was a Rebel patriot. Reed and Matlack were the two most visibly appalled by the whole uproar, forced by circumstances to attack the forces of their own political persuasion. But it seems very certain that Robert Morris and the other prosperous idealists were also left with an indelible conviction that even a  confederation must maintain central command and discipline with an iron will, or all might be lost. A knowledgable French observer  estimated that Robert Morris then owned assets worth eight million dollars, an almost unimaginable sum for the time. But he would lose every penny if effective political control could not be restored. A few days later in the October election, he and all the other Republican (conservative) officials lost their seats. It did not matter; Morris  then knew what to do and his opposition didn't.</p>
	

<p><a rel="bookmark" title="Fort Wilson" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/2144.htm">http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/2144.htm</a></p>
<hr />


<h3><a accesskey="79" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/2168.htm">Father of the Bureaucracy</a>   </h3>
	<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/Robert_morris_3.jpg"  width="300" height="361"  alt="{Robert Morris}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Robert Morris

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p class="firstDrop">UNDER the Articles of Confederation, America had a President who presided, but there was no executive branch for him to do anything administrative. The day to day business of the nation was conducted by committees of Congress, who mainly contracted out the actual work. Evidently, Robert Morris the businessman had observed this  system with displeasure, because it only took him a few days to replace it with departmental employees, reporting to him. The affairs of the nation were evidently in such disarray that there is scarcely any recorded resistance to this astonishing re-arrangement, probably viewed  as only one of a series of brisk actions by this foremost businessman of the nation, acting in an emergency and to some extent using his own money. Furthermore, the immediate administrative improvement was apparently so obvious to everyone that the system continued after Morris left office, and was absorbed into the 1787 Constitution without much recorded debate. Without dissent, as we say, the bureaucracy had been created. As the press of business steadily increased the bureaucracy, from a handful of employees to many millions of them, a fourth branch of government was created without any Constitutional mission statement, not one single word. Following directions set by early America's preeminent no-nonsense businessman, control of the bureaucracy was placed within the Executive branch, in time largely located within the District of Columbia, and governed by rules made by the Civil Service Commission.  Sometimes this fourth and largest branch of government skirts dangerously close to encouraging insubordination to their politically appointed superiors.</p>

<p>For some reason, the State Department is particularly suspected of  such   "Yes, Minister" behavior. Increasingly, government subcontractors are relied upon ("privatization"), as growth of public sector work forces a return to the subcontractor approach of two centuries earlier; such subcontractors increasingly find the bureaucracy assumes the role of a second Board of Directors. And for the same reason as before: the work of the central government keeps increasing. At a state and local level, an uncomfortable amount of political funding can be traced to utilities and other corporations who have been awarded legal monopolies, uncomfortably like the mercantilism which our colonist ancestors had found so repugnant to deal with. In the 21st Century we are finally approaching the point where we can foresee the number of people working for some level of government becoming greater than the number of voting citizens, and therefore able to control their income and the nature of their work. When the bureaucracy begins to exert political election power over its elected superiors, elected politicians are almost certain to rebel at what they will surely see as going a step too far. However, on the topic of salary and work environment, they are likely to become allies. Public discontent is already echoed in the growing political movement to limit or shrink the size of government; it would be well to examine and pilot test alternative options, before this one gets us into trouble.</p>

<p>In retrospect, this was one of many features of creating the three branches of government where broader implications went unnoticed in 1787. The British government had three branches, King, Parliament and Judiciary. To create a government consisting of a President, a Congress, and a Judiciary did not then seem like much of a departure. However, the Revolution deposed the King and made the people sovereign. When the real implications of that breezy slogan had to be translated into legislative language serious implications emerged, unexpected then, and now hard to change.</p>
	

<p><a rel="bookmark" title="Father of the Bureaucracy" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/2168.htm">http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/2168.htm</a></p>
<hr />


<h3><a accesskey="81" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/2169.htm">Reconsidering All Our Laws</a>   </h3>
	<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/commonlaw.jpg"  width="200" height="300"  alt="{Common Law}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Common Law

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p class="firstDrop">A KING who conquers a new country theoretically gains the chance to revise all its laws. However thousands of years of experience demonstrate that those who are good at wielding the sword seldom have much interest in, or aptitude for, devising a legal code. Napoleon seems to have been an exception, and Alexander the Great was tutored by Aristotle, but most conquerers have been illiterate in the law. Therefore, earlier conquerors  merely extended their native laws into additional territory, or else left the whole business to a permanent priesthood of judges. In this way,  an independent judiciary could survive unless, like Thomas a Becket or Thomas More,  it grew stubborn about thwarting the wishes of the King. The concept of citizen rights more or less defined feasible limits to what the King was allowed to do. British law went still further, distinguishing between rights of the people and rights of the sovereign. It identified those few things even a  King was not allowed to do, as well as those many things he alone must be able to do in order to govern. The latter were collectively called the King's Prerogative. Today, we would call it a job description.</p>

<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/US%20Code.jpg"  width="300" height="200"  alt="{U.S. Codes}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

U.S. Codes

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>Along those lines, the English Civil War had been fought, briefly transferring the power of Prerogative to Parliament, and incidentally clarifying some disadvantages of doing so.  Americans, after fighting an eight-year Revolutionary War to be rid of a particular king, had developed a sentiment for eliminating all kings entirely. However, the memory of the English Civil War and subsequent abuses by the Cromwell Parliament restrained that impulse. The alternative idea grew of transferring sovereignty to the people, to be translated into action by their elected representatives in the Legislative branch. Although such sovereignty would be unlimited, the intermediate steps taken by the Legislature could be deliberately slowed down, and particularly worrisome actions might be tangled up in complicated steps of legal process by a vocal minority.  Such a complicated system required an umpire, which Chief Justice John Marshall eventually  positioned the Supreme Court  to be. Conducting elections every two years was a simple way to allow the people to restrain its agents from misbehavior of a more general sort.  Since George Washington was confidently expected to be the first President, it was left to him to devise protections against presidential abuse, since he had notoriously and repeatedly expressed his intense dislike of kings. In modern times this system of checks and balances has only been severely tested once, in 1937. Immediately after winning a landslide re-election in 1936, Franklin Roosevelt nevertheless was slapped down hard by public outcry forcing Congress to thwart his Supreme Court-packing scheme.</p>

<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/Bacon001.jpg"  width="250" height="300"  alt="{Sir Francis Bacon}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Sir Francis Bacon

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>Such subtle, complicated ideas cannot be implemented by writing 6000 words on a piece of paper, and they certainly cannot withstand two hundred fifty years of subsequent nit-picking by dissenters, no matter how carefully crafted the 6000 words may have been. The complexity of the political system it describes would long ago have fallen apart without a million little accommodations and revisions, just as every other nation's constitution has done during that same period of time. And that fine-tuning process was made possible by starting with a more or less blank slate, with thousands of lawyers and legislators debating every particle of common law for more than a century. In 1787 it was decided to adopt English common law as a default position, and to invite a host of legislative bodies to debate and replace any part of it with a "statute". It was a laborious process. Measured by pages of law books, the volume of statutes only grew to equal the volume of common law by the time of the Civil War. The English common law was certainly a good place to start, having been created by Sir Francis Bacon two hundred years earlier as the legal equivalent of the Scientific Method; based on real, adversarily contested case decisions, a hypothesis was created, then tested, revised, and tested again. By actual count, one state legislature only enacted three statutes in the year before the Constitution was ratified; all its other activity was concerned with adjudicating disputes within the boundaries of existing common law. But when the Constitution suddenly rearranged the balances of power in 1787, almost every sentence of common law had to be regarded as potentially requiring modification to reflect the new Constitutional rearrangements. During the first half century there existed great enthusiasm for almost all of the new Constitution except those parts which affected slavery, the fine-tuning was almost universally intended to strengthen it or repair some oversight. If it failed in some way, adversaries were quick to point out the flaws. In short, every lawyer in the nation was involved to some degree for a century in the process of re-writing the English common law for American purposes, in American circumstances, for the grander purpose of strengthening the American commonwealth.</p>

<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/fedreg.jpg"  width="300" height="200"  alt="{Federal Registry}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Federal Registry

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>And everyone knows what happened next. The state legislatures who considered it normal to pass fewer than a dozen laws in a year, started passing fifteen hundred in a year, and kept it up for many years. Today, almost every state legislature considers more than a thousand bills, and passes two or three hundred. Since the colonial legislatures passed few laws and spent most of its time adjudicating disputes about existing law, the character of the law changed as it gradually gave up adjudicating, stopped being like a court. The tendency of early law was to state principles to guide the judges. In recent times, our over-lawyered system specifies all imaginable conditions and exceptions in excruciating detail, so that our laws tend less and less to speak of "reasonable amounts" and more and more to define drunken driving, for example, in milligrams per deciliter of the defendant's blood. We have better measuring devices, so we measure. But who can deny that a legislature  accustomed to making judgments itself, will more confidently rely upon the good judgment of courts, than a legislature which spends its time going to committee meetings to consider the testimony of experts, often never visiting a courtroom?</p>

<p>Our lawyers, who once enlisted the efforts of the entire profession for a century into refining the English common law into the American statutory law, are to be encouraged to extend equal effort into the process of turning off the faucet. Or possibly, having done such a good job at this assignment, seek another line of work?</p>
	

<p><a rel="bookmark" title="Reconsidering All Our Laws" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/2169.htm">http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/2169.htm</a></p>
<hr />


<h3><a accesskey="83" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/2170.htm">Corporations: Property, but also Immortal Persons</a>   </h3>
	<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/Proprietorshouse.jpg"  width="300" height="271"  alt="{Proprietor House}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Proprietor House

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p class="firstDrop">The Proprietorship of West Jersey is the oldest stockholder corporation in America. Devised by William Penn it has been doing business in Burlington, New Jersey since 1676. The Proprietorship of East Jersey may possibly have been created slightly earlier by William Penn, but recently dissolved itself, thus leaving a clear path for West Jersey to claim to be the oldest. For a hundred years before 1776, corporations were devised by the King through royal charters, and for a century after 1776 most state legislatures passed individual laws to create each corporation, one by one. Consequently, there were a great many variations in the powers and scope of older corporations, with heavy emphasis on the purpose to which the business was limited. Eventually, so many corporations were created that a body of law called the Uniform Law of Corporations simplified the task of incorporation for the legislatures. The Proprietorships of East and West Jersey would now probably be described as real estate investment trusts (REIT), but the Uniform laws now tend to diminish the emphasis on corporate purpose. It is now common to have a corporation proclaim the ability "to do whatever it is legal to do."</p>

<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/lady%20justice.jpg"  width="171" height="295"  alt="{Lady Justice}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Lady Justice

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>Many voices have been raised in opposition to corporations, largely claiming  unfairness for a large and established corporation to  compete with newcomers, especially small newcomers striving for the same line of business. Because of its immortality, a stockholder corporation can achieve dominance no individual could hope for, while because of its multi-stockholder ownership, it can generally raise larger amounts of capital. Moreover, because of its size and durability a corporation can become more efficient and offer the public lower prices and higher quality. As much as anything else, a corporation can generally hire more employees and pay them higher wages; as even the unions admit, corporations create jobs, jobs, jobs. No doubt, state legislatures are attracted by the tax revenue derived from major corporations, but the quickest way to stimulate the economy has repeatedly been found to grow out of lowering corporation taxes. Since there is scarcely any purpose to creating a for-profit corporation unless it eventually pays its stockholders some kind of dividend, all corporation taxes have the handicap of double-taxation for a fixed amount of business. The Republic of Ireland recently lowered its corporate tax rate severely and triggered so much new corporate activity that it inflated and destabilized its whole economy. The result was a dangerous economic crisis, but politicians privately and world-wide silently derived only one real conclusion: lower your corporate taxes if you are looking to stimulate jobs, jobs, jobs.</p>

<p>The corporate model of business thus looks pretty safe, in spite of envious criticism, and is what most people mean when they speak of capitalism. The Constitution had the intention of extracting Interstate Commerce for the Federal Government and leaving the regulation of every other business to state legislatures. The Roosevelt Supreme Court-Packing dispute of 1936 twisted the meaning of Interstate Commerce to mean almost all commerce, but Congress wasted no time specifically exempting the "Business of Insurance" from federal regulation and returning it to the state legislatures in the 1945 McCarran-Fergusson Act. Although the matter remains one of some dispute, it is roughly correct to say  that all commerce is federally regulated, except insurance. The corporation is nevertheless usually a creation of some legislature, and legislators have wide latitude in regulating them. To illustrate, in the early days of banking corporation, the Bank of Hartford was delayed in receiving incorporation by strong legislative suggestion that a closed stockholder list would result in refusal to incorporate them, whereas opening up the list to new stockholders might result in rapid approval. The implication was strong: the legislators wanted some cheap or free stock as a condition of incorporation. The following year, 250 banks were incorporated, and the year after that, over 400 more. Macing of incorporation applicants by politicians was sharpened to a fine point in Pennsylvania in the late 19th Century, when legislatures accorded monopoly status to public utility corporations, withholding it from competitors. It is now a textbook statement that the funding of substantially all municipal political machines is derived from voluntary contributions by utilities with politically granted monopolies, who are consequently indifferent to the retail prices of their products.</p>

<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/jmarshall.jpg"  width="225" height="279"  alt="{John Marshall}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

John Marshall

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>So there is still room for public concern and vigilance, and both the courts and the Constitution protect but restrain corporations. In the early 19th Century when public opinion was becoming firmer about incorporation, it was contended they should be treated as persons, possibly resembling real persons more closely by imposing a finite life span on their charters. Although corporation entities are still to some degree treated like individuals, the legal doctrine prevailed that they are in fact contracts between the state and the stockholders. The paradox is thus defended that although legislatures can create corporations, they cannot dissolve them! After all, a contract is an agreement between two parties, and it requires both parties to agree to dissolve the agreement. And then, the final uncertainty was removed by John Marshall. The U.S. Supreme Court in the <i>Dartmouth College </i> case applied Article I, section 10 of the Constitution. That section provides that state governments may not pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts.  The Supreme Court decision written by Marshall made it clear that this provision of Constitution eliminated any distinctiveness between a contract involving a state and a contract involving two citizens.  There had been a growing feeling that private property was not to be disturbed by state power, and this linkage to Article 1 affirmed that point and finally settled matters. Shares of company stock were property, protected  from state legislatures as belonging to the owner and not to the state in any sense.  All the while that this quality of property was established, certain features of the corporation as a person endured.  Most of the attention to this point arose after the Civil War, when the mixture of concepts ( a slave was a person who was also private property) more or less applied to the institution of slavery as well. More recently, potential muddles have been created by limiting campaign contributions of corporations, thus impairing their right to free speech in the role of a person. It even appears to be true that some of the 1886 precedents were created by an error of a court reporter. The dominant precedent in operation here, would appear to a layman as, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Additional centuries including a Civil War thus encrusted  conditions and traditions onto the hybrid idea of a corporation which now allow it to stand on its own feet, more or less free at last.</p>

<p>The legal profession can certainly be congratulated for constructing two institutions which include the majority of working Americans -- the corporation and the civil service -- without the slightest mention of either one in the Constitution. Although everything seems to be reasonably comfortable, and no one is actively proposing substitutes, it is uncomfortable to hear so much dissension about original intent of the Framers, when so much of American  Law traces its history to events and institutions which the Framers never imagined. Constitutional Law, both within and without original intent, will soon be dwarfed in effect by non-constitutional accretions to it. Sooner or later, the advocates of some undefined cause could  find it in their interest to challenge the Judicial system for what has been allowed to happen.   Expediency has triumphed. We started with nothing but the common law (defined as law created by judicial decision), and we are slowly returning to that condition under a different name, misleadingly called statutes.</p>
	

<p><a rel="bookmark" title="Corporations: Property, but also Immortal Persons" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/2170.htm">http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/2170.htm</a></p>
<hr />


<h3><a accesskey="85" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/689.htm">The Third Pennamite War (1784)</a>   </h3>
	<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/Wyoming_Massacre_Web.jpg" width="400" alt="{Wyoming massacre}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Wyoming massacre

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p class="firstDrop">And so, after the Revolution was finally over, there was a third war between Pennsylvanians and the Connecticut born settlers of the Wyoming Valley. This time, the disputes were focused on, not the land grants of King Charles but the 1771 land sales by Penn family, most of which conflicted with land sales to the Connecticut settlers by the Susquehanna Company. The Connecticut settlers felt they had paid for the land in good faith, and had certainly suffered to defend it against the common enemy. The Pennsylvanians were composed of speculators (mostly in Philadelphia) and settlers (mostly Scotch-Irish from Lancaster County). Between them, these two groups easily controlled the votes in the Pennsylvania Assembly, leading to some outrageous political behavior which conferred legal justification on disgraceful vigilante behavior. For example, once the American Revolution was finally over (1783) the Decision of Trenton had given clear control to Pennsylvania, so its Assembly appointed two ruffians named Patterson and Armstrong to be commissioners in the Wyoming Valley. These two promptly gave the settlers six months to leave the land, and using a slight show of resistance as sufficient pretext, burned the buildings and scattered the inhabitants, killing a number of them. One of the weaknesses of the <a href="http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/ArtConfed.html">Articles of Confederation</a> was thus promptly demonstrated, as well as the ensuing importance of a little-understood provision of the new (1787) <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/">Constitution . No state may now interfere in the provisions of private contracts</a>. Those with nostalgia for states rights must overcome a heavy burden of history about what state legislatures were capable of doing in this and similar matters, in the days before the federal government was empowered to stop it.</p>

<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/prospectrock.jpg" width="400" alt="{prospect rock}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

prospect rock

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>A flood soon wiped out most of the landmarks in the Wyoming Valley, and it had to be resurveyed. Patterson, whose official letters to the Assembly denounced the Connecticut settlers as bandits, perjurers, ruffians, and a despicable herd, boasted that he had restored, to what he called his constituents, "the chief part of all the lands". The scattered settlers nevertheless began to trickle back to the Valley, and Patterson had several of them whipped with ramrods. As the settlers became more numerous, Armstrong marched a small army up from Lancaster. He pledged to the settlers on his honor as a gentleman that if both sides disarmed, he would restore order. As soon as the Connecticut group had surrendered their weapons, they were imprisoned; Patterson's soldiers were not disarmed at all, and assisted the process of marching the Connecticut settlers, chained together, to prison in Easton and Sunbury. To its everlasting credit, the decent element of Pennsylvania were incensed by this disgraceful behavior; the prisoners somehow mysteriously were allowed to escape, and the Assembly was cowed by the general outrage into recalling Patterson and Armstrong. Finally, the indignation spread to New York and Massachusetts, where a strong movement developed to carve out a new state in Pennsylvania's Northeast, to put a stop to dissension which threatened the unity of the whole nation. That was a credible threat, and the Pennsylvania Assembly appeared to back down, giving titles to the settlers in what was called the "Confirming Act of 1787". Unfortunately, in what has since become almost a tradition in the Pennsylvania legislature, the law was intentionally unconstitutional. Among other things, it gave some settlers land in compensation that belonged to other settlers, violating the provision in the new <a href="http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/takings.htm">Constitution against "private takings",</a> once again displaying the superiority of the Constitution over the Articles of Confederation. It is quite clear that the legislators knew very well that after a protracted period of litigation, the courts would eventually strike this provision down, so it was safe to offer it as a compromise and take credit for being reasonable.</p>

<p>It is useful to remember that the Pennsylvania legislature and the Founding Fathers were meeting in the same building at 6th and Chestnut Streets, sometimes at the same moment. Books really need to be written to dramatize the contrast between the motivations and behavior of the sly, duplicitous Assembly, and the other group of men living in nearby rooming houses who had pledged their lives and sacred honor to establish and preserve democracy. To remember this curious contrast is to help understand Benjamin Franklin's disdainful remarks about parliaments and legislatures in general, not merely this one of which he had once been Majority Leader. The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention were kept secret, allowing Franklin the latitude to point out the serious weaknesses of real-life parliamentary process, and supplying hideous examples, just next door, of what he was talking about.</p>
	

<p><a rel="bookmark" title="The Third Pennamite War (1784)" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/689.htm">http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/689.htm</a></p>
<hr />


<h3><a accesskey="87" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/2178.htm">Morris Quits His Business</a>   </h3>
	<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/charlesdickensport.jpg"  width="130" height="165"  alt="{Charles Dickensons}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Charles Dickens

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p class="firstDrop">There are a dozen episodes from American revolutionary times which might be called pivotal, but a single debate in the Pennsylvania Legislature seems to have started our political parties in their present form. The two debaters, their topic, and its consequences all rise to dramatic, even operatic, heights. In another place, we intend to explore the clashing philosophies of the Eighteenth century, with Hegel and Hume at the apex, but two quotations from Adam Smith are more intelligible to ordinary readers. Charles Dickens nearly ran away with the topic in his novel <i>A Tale of Two Cities</i>, but Charles Brockton Brown and Hugh Henry Brackenridge were good enough and they were Pennsylvanians, present at the scene. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson debated for decades about which of them was the main protagonist. But all of that is background material for that operatic scene at Independence Hall, where the real David and Goliath were William Findlay and Robert Morris.</p>

<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/morris.jpg"  width="130" height="140"  alt="{Robert Morris}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Robert Morris

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>Robert Morris, it must be remembered, was probably the richest man in America, a signer of the Articles of Confederation, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution. He was one of three men, including Ben Franklin and George Washington, about whom it could be said that the Revolution could not have been won without them. He essentially invented American banking, had founded the first bank, the Pennsylvania Bank, invented investment banking, corporate conglomerates, American maritime insurance, and dozens of financial innovations. His merchant house probably had 150 ships sunk by the enemy. George Washington lived in his house for years.</p>

<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/findlay.jpg"  width="140" height="188"  alt="{William Findlay}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

William Findlay

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>William Findlay, on the other hand, was a Scotch-Irish frontiersman with a flamboyant white hat, elected by others like him from the Pittsburgh area to promote inflation through state-issued debt paper, so as to finance land speculation in the West. He had no education to speak of, and no accomplishments to mention. He made no secret of his self-interest in land speculation, and therefore no secret of his opposition to rechartering the Bank of North America, which Morris had founded for the purpose of restraining inflation and speculation. Findlay wanted the bank to disappear, get out of his way, and he boldly denounced Morris for his self-interest in promoting a bank he owned stock in. He utterly denied that Morris had any motive other than the profit he would make for the bank, so they were equal in self-interest. Let's vote.</p>

<p>Prior to that time, Findlay had politically defeated Hugh Brackenridge, using the two strong arguments that Brackenridge had gone to Princeton, and written poetry; how could he possibly represent the hard-boiled self-interest of his frontier constituents?</p>

<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/HBrackenridge.jpg"  width="150" height="200"  alt="{Hugh Brackenridge}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Hugh Brackenridge

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>Morris was positively apoplectic at this sneering at everything he stood for. As for the country's lack of trust in a man who had risked everything to save it, well, what have you done for us, lately? America had lately thrown off the King, but what it had really discarded was aristocracy. Every man was as good as every other man, and each had one vote. Under aristocratic ideals, a man was born, married and educated  in a leadership class, expected to be utterly disinterested in his votes and actions, scrupulous to avoid any involvement in trade and commerce, where temptations of self-interest were abundant. Washington never accepted a  salary for his years of service and even agonized for months when he was awarded stock in a canal company, wanting neither to seem ungrateful nor to make private profit. John Hancock, who came pretty close to having as much wealth as Morris, gave up his business when he was made Governor of Massachusetts. Benjamin Franklin was only accepted into public life when he retired from the printing business, to live the life of a gentleman. That's how it was, everywhere; every nation had a king, and depended on rich aristocrats to supply the leadership for war and public life. But, now, America had a republic where every man was equal. Morris, and the Federalists he represented, wanted to turn the clock back to an era that would never return.</p>

<p>Goaded too far, Morris impulsively resigned his business interests, to prove he had the nation's interest at heart in opposing inflation. It didn't help. Findlay won the vote, and the Bank of North America was closed.</p>
	

<p><a rel="bookmark" title="Morris Quits His Business" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/2178.htm">http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/2178.htm</a></p>
<hr />


<h3><a accesskey="89" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/2187.htm">Tammany: Philadelphia's Gift to New York</a>   </h3>
	<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/Tammany%20Hall.jpg"  width="250" height="300"  alt="{Tammany Hall}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Tammany Hall

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p class="firstDrop">Edward Hicks painted a scene over and over, depicting William Penn signing a treaty of peace with the Lenape Indians at Shackamaxon ( a little Delaware waterfront park at Beach Street and E. Columbia Ave.). This scene was apparently a reference to a larger and more finished depiction by Benjamin West. The Indian chief in the painting is Tammarend, chief of the Delaware tribe. Long before Hicks got the idea for the picture from Benjamin West, Tammarend was locally famous for having the annual celebrations of the Sons of St. Tammany named after him.  These outings centered on the joys of local firewater, and thus may have had something to do with the evolutions of the  Mummers Parade. George Washington presided over a lively Tammany party at Valley Forge, and local Tammany Hall clubs sprang up all over the country. The most famous  offshoot had its headquarters on 14th Street in New York, as a club within the local Democrat party asserting Irish dominance over New York politics, allegedly using Catholic Church connections to control other immigrant groups. The identity of Tannerend seems to have got thoroughly mixed up along the way; the famous statue of "Tecumseh" at the Naval Academy in Annapolis, much revered by the cadets, is actually a depiction of Tammany.</p>

<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/Treaty_of_PennBenjamin_West%20.jpg"  width="300" height="200"  alt="{/Treaty of Penn By Benjamin_West}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

 Penn's Treaty With the Indians By Benjamin West

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>At earlier times, Tammany was the vehicle Aaron Burr used to assert control of the now-Democrat Party, particularly in the contested Presidential election of 1804. Shooting Alexander Hamilton in a duel, along with disgrace and impeachment as Vice President necessitated Burr's rapid conversion into a non-person, both in New York and in Philadelphia. In Philadelphia, the uproar led to the dispersion of Tammany influence, while in New York other bosses, particularly Boss Tweed, took over the organization and consolidated its role as a small club which dominated a larger political party, which in turn pretty well took over the government of New York City, which in turn dominated the governance of New York State, and even occasionally leveraged itself into national politics.  Eventually, Tammany fragmented sufficiently that Mayor Fiorello La Guardia was able to dislodge it from control, which in time led to its dissolution. In a larger sense however, the decline of New York's Tammany Hall began when in the late 19th Century it adopted the Philadelphia system of consolidating graft from local leaders into unified "donations" from local utilities. That greatly improved the efficiency of collections and disbursements, but undermined the need for an effective local organization of ward leaders.</p>

<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/aaron-burr.jpg"  width="150" height="200"  alt="{Aaron Burr}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Aaron Burr

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>So, although Tammany was originally a Philadelphia creation perfected by New York, it continued to have connections to Aaron Burr in early days, and Philadelphia machine politics later on. But of course for seventy five years, around here it was Republican.</p>
	

<p><a rel="bookmark" title="Tammany: Philadelphia's Gift to New York" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/2187.htm">http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/2187.htm</a></p>
<hr />


<h3><a accesskey="91" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/2188.htm">Morris Defends Banks From the Bank-Haters</a>   </h3>
	<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/Robert_morris_jr.jpg"  width="250" height="300"  alt="{Robert Morris}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Robert Morris

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p class="firstDrop">In 1783 the Revolution was over, but the new nation would not launch its new system of government until 1790.  It was a fragile time, and a chaotic one. Just after the British abandoned their occupation of Philadelphia in 1778, Robert Morris had been given emergency economic powers in the national government,  but the state legislatures were struggling in parallel to create their own models of governance, often in overlapping areas. Thus it came about that the Pennsylvania Legislature was still occupying the Pennsylvania State House now called Independence Hall, when it issued the charter for America's first true bank the Bank of North America in 1778, as it also was in 1784 when the charter came up for renewal. Morris was a member of the Assembly both times. Although he was not a notable orator, it was said of him that he seldom lost an argument he seriously wanted to win.  Keeping that up for several years in a small closed room,  will itself make you many enemies.</p>

<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/feast.jpg"  width="300" height="200"  alt="{The City Tavern}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

 Tavern and Bank

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>Morris was deeply invested in the bank, in many senses. He had watched with dismay as the Legislature squandered and mismanaged the meagre funds of the rebellion, issuing promissory notes with abandon and no clear sense of how to repay them, or how to match revenues with expenditures. There was rioting in the streets of Philadelphia, very nearly extinguishing the lives of Morris and other leaders, just a block from City Tavern. Inflation immediately followed, resulting in high prices and shortages as the farmers refused to accept the flimsy currency under terms of price controls. Every possible rule of careful management was ignored, and promptly matched with a vivid example of what results to expect. Acting only on his gut instincts, Robert Morris stepped forward and offered to create a private currency, backed by his personal guarantee that the Morris notes would be paid. The crisis abated somewhat, giving Morris time to devise The Pennsylvania Bank, and then after some revision the first modern bank, the Bank of North America. The BNA sold stock to some wealthy backers of which Marris himself was the largest investor, to act as last-resort capital. It then started taking deposits, making loans, and acting like a modern bank. Without making much of a point of it at the time, the Bank interjected a vital change in the rules. Instead of Congress issuing the loans and setting the interest rates as it pleased, a commercial bank of this sort limits its loans to a fraction or multiple of its deposits, and its interest rates are set by the public through the operation of supply and demand. The difference between what the Legislatures had been doing and what a commercial bank does, lies in who sets the interest rates and who limits the loans. The Legislature had been acting as if it had the divine right of Kings; the new system treated the government like any other borrower. As it turned out, the government didn't like the new system, and has never liked it since then. Today, the present system has evolved a complicated apparatus at its top called the Open Market Committee of the Federal Reserve, most of whose members are politically appointed. Several members of the House Banking Committee are even now quite vocal in their C-span denunciation of the seven members of the Open Market Committee who in rotation are elected by the commercial banks of their regions. Close your eyes and the scene becomes the same; agents of the government feel they have a right to control the rules for government borrowing, while agents of the marketplace remain certain governments will always cheat if you allow them to.</p>

<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/banknotes_and_coins.jpg"  width="300" height="200"  alt="{seigniorage}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Seigniorage

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>That's the real essence of Morris's new idea of a bank; other advantages appeared as it operated. The law of large numbers smooths out the volatility of deposits, and permits long-term loans based on short term deposits. Long-term deposits command higher loan prices than short-term ones can; higher profits result for the bank. And a highly counter-intuitive fact emerges, that making a loan effectively creates money; both the depositor and the borrower consider they own it at the same time. And finally there is what is called seigniorage. Paper money (gold and silver "certificates") deteriorates and gets lost; the gold or silver backing it remains safe in the bank's vault, where it can be used a second time, or even many times.</p>

<p>For four days, Morris stood as a witness, hammering these truisms on the witless Western Pennsylvania legislators. At the end of it, scarcely one of them changed his vote, and the bank's charter was lost. But at the next election the Federalists were swept back into majority, defeating the opponents of the bank. Although, as we learn democracy works, still not convincing them.</p>
	

<p><a rel="bookmark" title="Morris Defends Banks From the Bank-Haters" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/2188.htm">http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/2188.htm</a></p>
<hr />


<h3><a accesskey="93" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/2226.htm">Two Friends Create the Articles of Confederation</a>   </h3>
	<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/Letters%20of%20a%20Pennsylvania%20Farmer.jpg"  width="200" height="300"  alt="{Letters of a Pennsylvania Farmer}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Letters of a Pennsylvania Farmer

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p class="firstDrop">JOHN Dickinson had been active in resistance to England's treatment of its colonies, and as early as 1768 had written a book called <i>Letters of a Pennsylvania Farmer</i> which is credited with strongly influencing the colonies in the direction of resistance to the British Ministry. When it came time to write the Articles of Confederation, Dickinson was the lawyer selected for the task. His good friend Robert Morris was less outspoken in opposition to the Ministry's behavior, quite possibly because he was adept in finding work-arounds for his own personal business problems. And possibly he was trying to maintain a neutral negotiating posture, since in a hotly contested election with this as the main issue, Morris was elected by both sides in the argument. When July 4, 1776 forced the issue, both Dickinson and Morris refused to sign the Declaration, but within a few months, both of them were actively fighting for the Rebellion.</p>

<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/13colonies.jpg"  width="300" height="300"  alt="{The thirteen colonies}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Thirteen

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>The thirteen colonies united to fight the British King, but many of them were reluctant to unite for any other time or purpose. Rhode Island was perhaps the extreme example of this view of what Independence was supposed to mean, but the feeling existed to some degree in many colonies. Concern for the power of this feeling may have contributed an important reason the Articles placed heavy emphasis on declaring them to be perpetual. Recognition of this intent may have been an important reason why George Washington was later willing to sweep the issue aside, even though he of all people was most concerned to avoid the appearance of acting like a king. For this and other reasons, the Articles remained unratified for years. Finally, in 1781 Robert Morris became convinced that failure to ratify was encouraging a failure to cooperate, and successfully pushed ratification through the steps. At that time, Morris was effectively running the country, even providing his own credit and funds to do it. People were unwilling to oppose his wishes, but they were also unwilling to provide the taxes, supplies and troops that Morris thought were being blocked by failure to ratify. Ratification of the Articles accomplished very little except to convince Morris: the Articles were flawed and must be replaced.</p>

<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/Constitutional%20Convention%20in%201787.jpg"  width="300" height="200"  alt="{Constitutional Convention in 1787}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

The Goal: 1787

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>Little is known for certain about the evolution of thought in Morris' mind between 1781 and the Constitutional Convention in 1787, although a great deal is known about his other numerous activities. It is clear however, that his experience with the Pennsylvania Legislature had been dismal, while he came to see the insurmountable flaw in the current Federal government was its inability to raise taxes and consequently, to service national debt. The states were able to levy taxes under the Articles, but erratic in doing so, resorting to inflation at the first sign of tax resistance. In Morris' view the key to effective government was to reverse the situation; let the national government tax, and let the states spend. The key to such rearrangement would be to limit the national government to spending on a very limited list of vital purposes, but bedazzle the states with a substantially unlimited shopping list if they could afford it. As the accounts to pay for the Revolutionary War totalled up, it was apparent that the National Government had twice as much debt as the states. Therefore it would, at most, need twice the state taxing power to service such a debt; presumably wars would be infrequent. Pay this one off, and potentially the need for future federal spending would be small. Indeed, under the presidency of James Monroe the national debt was completely paid off, although briefly. It was almost as if Robert Morris and his pupil Alexander Hamilton had a crystal ball.</p>

<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/Decline%20and%20Fall.jpg"  width="200" height="300"  alt="{The Wealth of Nations in 1776}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>Robert Morris was brilliant and had six years to fashion his strategy; he also had some help. For one thing, George Washington lived next door for much of that time. By then, almost no one dared confront Washington. Adam Smith had written his book <i>The Wealth of Nations</i> in 1776, and Morris gave this extraordinary book as presents to his friends. Morris had corresponded with Necker, the genius financier of France, and through his good friend Benjamin Franklin, gathered insights from the rather advanced British national finance. And James Madison brought in scholarship about politics and statecraft accumulated by Witherspoon, Hume and the Scottish enlightenment. The year 1776 was a remarkable moment for new ideas. In that year, Edward Gibbon also published the first volume of <i>The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire</i>. The idea behind that important book had an important effect on the minds of important thinkers of the era, too.</p>

<p>Once you grasped all the central ideas, in this environment the resulting strategy almost worked itself out.</p>
	

<p><a rel="bookmark" title="Two Friends Create the Articles of Confederation" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/2226.htm">http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/2226.htm</a></p>
<hr />


<h3><a accesskey="95" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/2231.htm">What Is the Purpose of a National Constitution?</a>   </h3>
	<p class="firstDrop">NATIONAL constitutions are mainly an outgrowth of the 18th Century Enlightenment, even though similarities are found among ancient legal codes. Those who trace the origins of the American constitution to the 13th Century Magna Carta will usually point to a central sentence of section 39:</p>

<p><i>No free man shall be arrested, or imprisoned, or deprived of his property, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor shall we go against him or send against him, unless by legal judgement of his peers, or by the law of the land.</i></p>

<p>That's a pretty good beginning, a good example of something needed, but unrecognizeable as what we today call a  Constitution. Nor do even the many Enlightenment philosophers of government take the final step of demonstrating where their ideas take us, until the document had been written and needed to be defended in the <i>Federalist </i> papers.  Nowhere among the writings of Montesquieu (1748), Diderot (1751), Catherine the Great(1762), James Madison (1787), John Dickinson(1763) or Gouverneur Morris(1787) can there be found a tightly defined description of a constitution. Certainly, there is no definition within the writings of Adam Smith, if we are looking for rule-making among  Enlightenment thinkers whose ideas were influential on the 1787 Philadelphia document. The American constitution was the product of many minds, before and after 1787. But the outlines of its final form converged, and emerged, from the Constitutional Convention of the summer of 1787, with Gouverneur Morris as the penman of record. To him we owe its succinctness, which is the main source of the affection the document inspires. But that probably understates matters; in his diary of the secret meetings, James Madison records that Gouverneur Morris spoke about 170 times, more than any other delegate. Lots of thought and debate; few words.</p>

<p>The Elizabethan, Sir Francis Bacon, has the greatest claim on devising a theory of law and law-making in the Anglosphere, but his elegant modification of Galileo's scientific method, the English Common Law,  is only a subset of present Constitutional tradition. Anyway, tracing the American Constitution back to the British one tends to stumble when the British Constitution fails a definition inclusive of our own. The British Constitution is said to be "unwritten" to the degree it is an unsystematic consensus of documents which can be amended by Parliament itself at will, has a variable history of defining just who is covered by it, and in order to define constitutional principles must rely on sentences extracted from arguable context. If the two constitutions had been written at the same time, one would say the British had sacrificed coherence out of respect for tradition. In fairness, some features of the American constitution are perhaps unnecessary features for every constitution, but by surviving as the oldest constitution of the modern form, have almost become its model. That would be:</p>

<p><i>A set of principles governing the legitimacy of a body of laws, but standing above them.  It defines its domain, geographically and by membership in a defined citizenry. By default, it supersedes all other governance within its domain, except to the specific degree it relinquishes control. It defines and defends its own origins.  It includes a definition of how to amend it, which is intentionally infrequent and difficult, occasionally even envisioning no amendment except by revolution or conquest. It then goes on to define the structure of the laws it regulates, with subtle modifications made to channel the type of power structure which will govern.</i></p>

<p>In the American case, history and culture generated several instabilities so central to its situation they justified equally increased difficulty to amend, and undisputed dominance over competing forms of importance. That would be:</p>

<p><i>A separation of government powers, which weakens any offending branch of government and thus, enhances citizen liberty. A separation of church from state, for like purpose. A right of citizens to bear arms, to strengthen citizens'  defense against  internal or external attack, or perhaps merely warning that revolt was possible, even endorsed as some final extremity.</i></p>

<p>BIG nations easily gobble up small ones, so small ones band together. As George Washington famously observed, when you are strong the others leave you alone. But other forces make smallness seem attractive, especially if the nation is already uniform in  religion, language and culture. Most nations search for an ideal size for both  Peace and Prosperity, and find they need two sizes. Both the American Revolution of 1776 and present struggles of the European Union fit a common formula:  banding together for military security, then pulling back for greater independence. American experience of a  subsequent Civil War eighty years later suggests the margin for error is narrow.</p>

<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/europe_common_marketmap2.jpg"  width="150" height="150"  alt="{Europe Colonies}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Europe 

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>Geography doubtless imposes limits for both peace and prosperity. Some nations have  therefore banded together for military reasons then split apart in local quarrels, more or less regularly. The thirteen American colonies had been afraid to confront Britannia alone, but somewhat overconfidently took on that challenge as a confederation of thirteen. At the other extreme, little Rhode Island even refused to send delegates to the Constitutional Convention, for fear the other twelve would want to share its revenues from the coastal road through their state. Similar possessiveness has at least not been reported about the narrow defile through the northern end of the equally small State of Delaware, but one glance at a map is sufficient to expect similar restlessness from the region which for decades protected its secrets of mushroom cultivation. Peace and prosperity: getting bigger discourages predators, but getting smaller offers sole possession. Since the United States grew in jumps through most of its history, it probably learned intangible things from its alternating episodes as too big and then too small. Frederick Jackson Turner's thesis of the frontier as a shaper of culture is fairly similar.</p>

<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/uscolonies2.jpg"  width="100" height="200"  alt="{13 Colonies}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

13 Colonies

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption --><p>When ideas of Union first gained traction, both the thirteen American colonies and the twenty-five nations of the Euro zone were afraid of war. The American objective was the simple one of military parity with a common enemy. The nations of the European Union had a longer view; a seemingly endless history of bloody wars sustained their conviction that other wars would inevitably follow unless they did something innovative. National unification on the American model would be ideal, but perhaps the habits of cooperation and trade would lead to that. The unexpected decline of the Soviet empire further reduced the threat to peace. Pride may also have led to over-reaching; twenty-five is comfortably larger than thirteen, which up to that time was the largest nation merger to survive. But twenty-five is smaller and thus more manageable than the present American fifty. To begin the process with monetary union would produce quick benefits from a source too mysterious to produce much public resistance. Nobody could think of a war started by a monetary dispute.</p>

<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/JusticeBlackmun.jpg"  width="200" height="300"  alt="{Justice Blackmun}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Justice Blackmun

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>Of course the Europeans would expect to cope with the difficulties of speaking many languages. The American colonies mostly shared a single language. Even their enemy spoke English. In this particular, the Europeans seem to have underestimated the language-induced difficulties of maintaining a common understanding of what their Constitution meant to people. Indeed in American Judicial disputes about Original Intent, we repeatedly encounter the tenacity of people to believe a document says what they want it to say. Staying within a single English language, the inflammatory evolution of U.S. Supreme Court interpretations often turns on subtle differences in meaning of simple words, since vigorous legal advocates think they are paid to marshall every argument weak or strong. Penumbras and emanations from the word "Privacy" in <i>Roe v. Wade </i> force our judges to decide whether the inclusion of abortion within a right of privacy is simply too far from common understanding of English, in a double sense. Both in the discovery of a right to privacy within a document which does not use the word, and in the inclusion of abortion within that,  Justice Blackmun clearly overestimated the capacity of citizens to understand what they did not want to understand. How much more surely would he have overestimated public willingness to grasp his meaning in two-step translations from a foreign language.  Since this famous decision is destined to stand or fall, depending on public tolerance for such wordplay, having almost every citizen confidently understanding English is a decided advantage in achieving consensus about its wisdom. It seems almost unnecessary to point out how many European languages are derived from Latin or German, and how seldom such migrations of meaning have sharpened the precision of the originals.</p>

<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/burned%20at%20the%20stake.jpg"  width="300" height=200"  alt="{Burned at the stake}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Auto-de-fe

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>By contrast with important language confusions, "hatreds between nations" are often mentioned as an obstacle to unification but seem largely bogus. Argot and slang are commonly invented to conceal the opinions of a minority group. Over thousands of years, this purpose of "jiving" a secret code among conspirators has been perfected exquisitely. It's hard to overcome, easy to teach children. But the memory of  actual wars really dies out rather quickly, not least because atrocities are so hideous, mankind wants to forget them. I was seventy years old before someone told me I had ancestors  burned at the stake. By whom? By someone who has also been dead for four hundred years, not likely to seem threatening. Over the fifty years since the Second World War, I have run into former German and Japanese soldiers; they now seem pretty benign. One American former prisoner of war was forced to stand at attention while his Japanese captor pulled out his gold teeth with pliers; he told this story with a faint smile. It is one of the benevolences of biology that we are born without memories, and a second is the impossibility of remembering the feeling of pain without first dramatizing the experience for future reference.  Once actual onlookers stop grinding the grievance axe, it should be possible to get on with devising a European constitution, provided it contains the equivalent of our First Amendment.</p>

<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/helenoftroy.jpg"  width="100" height="200"  alt="{Helen of Troy}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Helen of Troy

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>It's an important point for a proposal unifying two dozen different priesthoods and a number of nations who are wholly defined by the remit of a single religion. A workable constitution for them must contain a strict separation of church and state, because myths, epic poems, and traditions are synthetic, quite different from actual experiences. Helen of Troy may or may not have had a face that launched a thousand ships, but Homer's <i>Iliad </i> certainly glorified more hatred than she did; who can say whether the poem portrays the truth?  That's the war side of things; the <i> Odyssey </i> is powerful in evoking the special virtues leading to prosperous nationhood. Because you can't argue or reason with epic myth, it is their many glorifications and condemnations which supply endurance to patriotic myths, easily reducing macroeconomists of the European Central Bank to tears of frustration. Because the best of these epics stand alone as powerful literature, their propaganda strength is difficult to deconstruct with mere logic. Quoting Arnold Toynbee, it is not weaknesses, but overextension of their finest qualities, which usually brings them down.</p>

<table class="left" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/euro_big_symbol1.jpg"  width="200" height="200"  alt="{Euro zone symbolic}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Euro Zone 

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>While true grievances seldom pose obstacles of their own, they do often misdirect political leadership from what is best for their countries. European Unification had a primary goal of eliminating future wars, but decided the peace goal was achievable only by indirection, and began first with monetary tools for prosperity. That takes a long time; America was still fumbling monetarily  until the end of the Civil War. So while starting with small victories seems a plausible route to big victories, in fact it drains much of the idealism out of revolutions. Even worse, it here made the financial disaster of the Euro symbolic of hazards on the road to Prosperity, which itself seems merely preliminary to achieving  a brief Peace. At least when you struggle for national security, every day you survive is another victory. There is no room in past struggles for Americans to gloat over their superior approach to permanent Union. But a defeat is a defeat, and the Euro mess is a big defeat.</p>

<table class="right" summary="image with caption">
  <tr>
    <td style="text-align:center;">

<img src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/Mr.%20Ron%20Paul.jpg"  width="210" height="200"  alt="{Ron Paul}" />

    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="caption">

Congressman Ron Paul

    </td>
  </tr>
</table> <!-- image with caption -->

<p>From a commentator's perspective, currency matters are difficult to understand and explain. For contrast, the Battle of Normandy is thrilling and awe-inspiring; every death is the death of a hero. But rises in productivity, the risk implications of volatility, even the way the value of bonds goes down while their interest rate rises, seem hopelessly confusing to a beginner. Worse still, there exists real uncertainty. We now have currency which has no backing in precious metals, and is really just a book entry. That's useful for transactions, less certainly useful for a storehouse of value. Mr. Ron Paul is running for President of the United States  challenging the whole Federal Reserve concept, and a possibility must be admitted that he has a grain of truth in his speeches. We trust our  bankers to devise a workable system of exchange without gold and silver, and readily admit that Mr. Bernanke knows more than we do. But. The world economy nearly collapsed utterly a few years ago, and you know, Mr. Ron Paul might just have a valid point or two. There has not yet  emerged any fit environment for enjoying a monetary Crusade to a World Without War. For striking contrast, go to any Civil War movie and watch those teen aged soldier boys charge up the hill, ready to die for the Union.</p>
	

<p><a rel="bookmark" title="What Is the Purpose of a National Constitution?" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/2231.htm">http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/2231.htm</a></p>
<hr />


<br />
				</div> <!-- end of topic blogs -->

			</div> <!-- id="content" -->

			<!--                                              -->
			<!--    comments display                          -->
			<!--                                              -->

			<!-- code to display comments on my blogs -->		
		<div id="comments"> 
		
		<!-- this next line alows you to go directly to the comments in the page
		     by saying "http://www.whatever.com#COMMENTStop"                       -->
		     
		<a name="COMMENTStop"></a>
		
			<!--  Display the comments stored for this page                     -->
					
			

	<div class="overallFrame">

		<div class="commentFrame">
			Right from this article begin to read this blog. Plus a subscriber:DD
		</div> <!-- class="commentFrame" --> 

		<div class="userFrame">
			<table style="width:100%" summary="Information about the person leaving a comment">
				<tr>
					<td>Posted by: <span style="font-weight:bold">Cherry Hill NJ personal trainer </span>
			 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;|&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
			Feb 13, 2012  12:40 PM</td>
					<td style="text-align:right;font-size:80%">10311</td>
				</tr>
			</table>
		</div> <!-- class="userFrame" --> 

	</div> <!-- class="overallFrame" --> 



	<div class="overallFrame">

		<div class="commentFrame">
			Interesting, but still I would like to know more about it. Liked the article:DD
		</div> <!-- class="commentFrame" --> 

		<div class="userFrame">
			<table style="width:100%" summary="Information about the person leaving a comment">
				<tr>
					<td>Posted by: <span style="font-weight:bold">followers exchanege </span>
			 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;|&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
			Feb 13, 2012  11:54 AM</td>
					<td style="text-align:right;font-size:80%">10259</td>
				</tr>
			</table>
		</div> <!-- class="userFrame" --> 

	</div> <!-- class="overallFrame" --> 



	<div class="overallFrame">

		<div class="commentFrame">
			Internet is written with the capital letter in a sentence, by the way. And hundredths are written not with a point but with a comma. This is according to the standard. And actually everything is very good..!!
		</div> <!-- class="commentFrame" --> 

		<div class="userFrame">
			<table style="width:100%" summary="Information about the person leaving a comment">
				<tr>
					<td>Posted by: <span style="font-weight:bold">cheapostay discount </span>
			 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;|&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
			Feb 13, 2012  11:32 AM</td>
					<td style="text-align:right;font-size:80%">10205</td>
				</tr>
			</table>
		</div> <!-- class="userFrame" --> 

	</div> <!-- class="overallFrame" --> 



	<div class="overallFrame">

		<div class="commentFrame">
			A unique note..!!
		</div> <!-- class="commentFrame" --> 

		<div class="userFrame">
			<table style="width:100%" summary="Information about the person leaving a comment">
				<tr>
					<td>Posted by: <span style="font-weight:bold">esalerugs promo code </span>
			 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;|&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
			Feb 13, 2012  11:09 AM</td>
					<td style="text-align:right;font-size:80%">10151</td>
				</tr>
			</table>
		</div> <!-- class="userFrame" --> 

	</div> <!-- class="overallFrame" --> 



	<div class="overallFrame">

		<div class="commentFrame">
			no
		</div> <!-- class="commentFrame" --> 

		<div class="userFrame">
			<table style="width:100%" summary="Information about the person leaving a comment">
				<tr>
					<td>Posted by: <span style="font-weight:bold">[none] </span>
			 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;|&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
			Dec 13, 2011  1:00 PM</td>
					<td style="text-align:right;font-size:80%">8892</td>
				</tr>
			</table>
		</div> <!-- class="userFrame" --> 

	</div> <!-- class="overallFrame" --> 



	<div class="overallFrame">

		<div class="commentFrame">
			very good but do some recent upgradings by adding photos of recent presidents like obama
		</div> <!-- class="commentFrame" --> 

		<div class="userFrame">
			<table style="width:100%" summary="Information about the person leaving a comment">
				<tr>
					<td>Posted by: <span style="font-weight:bold">don capo </span>
			 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;|&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
			Jan 21, 2009  3:25 PM</td>
					<td style="text-align:right;font-size:80%">2027</td>
				</tr>
			</table>
		</div> <!-- class="userFrame" --> 

	</div> <!-- class="overallFrame" --> 


			
			<!-- Display the comment input form                                -->	
			
		<form name="comment_form"
						action="/utilities/comment_insert.php" 
						method="post">

			<fieldset>
				<legend>Please enter your comments here</legend>
				
				<p>Name     <br />
					<input type="text" name="name" size="20" maxlength="40" /></p>
<!--				<p>Email    <br />
					<input type="text" name="email" size="40" maxlength="40" /></p> -->

				<input type="hidden" name="email" value="[hidden]" /> 
				<input type="hidden" name="comment_type" value="topic" /> 
				<input type="hidden" name="comment_key"  value="121" /> 
				<input type="hidden" name="blogid"  value="writing_and_shaping_the.php" /> 
																			
				<p>Comments <br />
					<textarea name="comments" rows="5" cols="37"></textarea></p>	
										
				<input type="submit" name="form_button" value="Click to post comments" />
				
			</fieldset>
			</form>
						
		</div> <!-- id="comments" -->

		</div> <!-- id="center" -->


		<div id="clear">

		</div> <!-- id="clear" -->


	</div> <!-- id="wrapper" -->


	<div id="footer">

		<p style="text-align:center;background-color:#41627E;vertical-align:middle;padding-top:10px;width:50%;height:20px;margin:0 auto;font-size:100%;text-decoration:none">
<a class="reflectionsFooterLink" style="font-size:8pt" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/copyright.php"> Copyright � 2004 - 2012 George R. Fisher, MD. All rights reserved.</a></p>

<table class="contactUs" border="1" summary="Click here to go to our Contact Us or our Syndication pages">
  <tr>
    <!-- Contact Us, Link To Us -->
    <td><ul><li><a href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/address.php">Contact Us</a></li></ul></td>
    <td><ul><li><a href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/link_to_us.php">Link to Us</a></li></ul></td>
    <!-- Contact Us, Link To Us -->
  </tr>
</table>

<table class="contactUs" border="1" style="width:130px;margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:15px;" summary="Click here to go to our Linking Partners page">
  <tr>
    <!-- Linking Partners -->
    <td style="padding:2px;width:120px">
      <ul><li><a class="reflectionsFooterLink" style="text-decoration:none" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/directory.php">Linking Partners</a></li></ul>
    </td>
    <!-- Linking Partners -->
  </tr>
</table>
<hr class="reflectionsFooterHR" />

<table style="margin:0 auto;" border="1" summary="This table contains clickable RSS icons">
  <tr>
    <td colspan="3">
      <span class="sprite_xml" >&nbsp;</span>
    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <!-- Atom, Yahoo, Google and RSS -->
    <td>
      <a href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/atom.xml" class="sprite_atom" title="Subscribe to Philadelphia Reflections' ATOM feed" ></a>
    </td>
    <td>
      <a class="sprite_google" href="http://www.google.com/ig/add?feedurl=http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/rss.xml" title="Subscribe to Philadelphia Reflections with Google"></a><br />
      <a class="sprite_yahoo" href="http://add.my.yahoo.com/content?url=http%3A//www.philadelphia-reflections.com/rss.xml" title="Subscribe to Philadelphia Reflections with Yahoo"></a><br />
    </td>
    <td>
      <a class="sprite_rss" href="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/rss.xml" title="Subscribe to Philadelphia Reflections' RSS feed"></a>
    </td>
    <!-- Atom, Yahoo, Google and RSS -->
  </tr>
</table>
<!-- Start of StatCounter Code -->
<script type="text/javascript">
var sc_project=470352; 
var sc_invisible=1; 
var sc_security=""; 
var sc_remove_link=1; 
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://www.statcounter.com/counter/counter_xhtml.js"></script><noscript><div
class="statcounter"><img class="statcounter"
src="http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/images/1by1.gif" alt="counter for
tumblr" /></div></noscript>
<!-- End of StatCounter Code -->

<!--  Start Google Analytics -->
<script type="text/javascript">
  var _gaq = _gaq || [];
  _gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-7741312-1']);
  _gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);
  (function() {
    var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
    ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
    var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
  })();
</script>
<!--   End Google Analytics  -->
	</div> <!-- id="footer" -->

</body>

</html>
