A PROPHECY FROM THE PAST
This Short Talk Bulletin has been adapted from an
article written by the late Most Worshipful Brother
Edward F. Carter, P.G.M. Nebraska, and
Associate Justice of The Supreme Court of
Nebraska.
The citizens of the United States have great
pride in their Constitution. They seem to feel
that it is a perfect instrument of government
which was the result of some blessing that came
from on high. The great faith they have in it
leads them to believe that it is a perfect and indestructible document. Their confidence in our
concept of government tends to lull them into a
sense of security and to cause them to pay little
heed to the evidences of danger that appear on
every hand. The erosion of principle that is occurring should forewarn the eventual loss of
freedom and liberty in this land of the free.
The natural tendency of any government is
to centralize power which usually ends in some
form of dictatorship. The misuse of power by
encroachment, interpretation, and usurpation
is a constant threat in any constitutional
government. The fact that it is done with the
most loyal and patriotic intentions does not
mitigate the danger. The growth of the federal
government at the expense of the states in all
three of the branches tends to destroy the
philosophy that division of power is an adequate check against centralized and dictatorial
authority. The fathers of our Constitution had
two main reasons for creating the governmental
structure that they did: First, they teared the excessive centralization of power and, Second,
they wanted to secure the diversified control of
political authority. Aristotle warned of the
dangers that arise when a government of laws is
corrupted by a government of men. In his
Politics, Aristotle praises the rule of law and
says: "Therefore, he who bids the law rule may
be deemed to bid God and Reason alone rule,
but he who bids man rule adds an element of
the beast; for desire is a wild beast, and passion
perverts the minds of rulers, even then they are
the best of men. The law is reason unaffected
by desire."
The same concept was advanced by William
Grayson in the Virginia Ratification Convention in 1788 when, in opposing ratification of
the Constitution, he said: "Mr. Chairman, it
seems to have been a rule with the gentlemen on
the other side, to argue from the excellence of
human nature, in order to induce us to grant
away the rights and liberties of our country. I
have no doubt the same arguments were used on
a variety of occasions. I suppose, Sir, that same
argument was used when Cromwell was invested with power. The same argument was used to gain our assent to the Stamp Act. I have
no doubt it has been invariably the argument in
all countries when the concession of power has
been in agitation. But power ought to have such
checks and limitations as to prevent bad men
from abusing it. It ought to be granted on a
supposition that men may be bad; for it may be
eventually so."
A reading of current newspapers and
periodicals will reveal the encroachments,
misinterpretations, and outright usurpations of
power that are taking place within our constitutional system. Our Constitution did not come
to us like manna from heaven; it was a compromise resulting from argument and dispute.
Like any compromise, it was not perfect. But
an examination of the fragmentary records of
the convention reveals that its drafters were
familiar with the dangers of encroachment,
misinterpretation, and usurpation. The issue
was the adequacy of the language to prevent
their occurrence. It is my purpose here to
discuss the arguments of those opposed to the
adoption of the Constitution in order that you
may relate them to the things that are going on
about us.
In 1787 a constitutional convention was
authorized to convene for the purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation under which
the country was then governed. Upon convening, it was determined that amendments
of the Articles would not accomplish the intended purpose and the drafting of a complete
new Constitution was agreed upon. Seventy-four delegates were elected by the states.
Fifty-five delegates were the most that ever attended.
Rhode Island was never represented and was
hostile to the whole idea. After almost four
months of debate, the convention met on
September 17, 1787, to adopt the finished product. But forty-two delegates were in attendance. The Constitution was signed by George
Washington, the president of the convention,
and thirty-eight other delegates. What of the
three who did not sign?
These three, giants by every measure of
patriotism and public service, were Elbridge
Gerry of Massachusetts and Edmund Randolph
and George Mason of Virginia. Elbridge Gerry
was later Governor of Massachusetts and Vice
President of the United States under James
Madison. His comments, recorded by Madison
in his journal of the proceedings, reflected the
great concern for economic stability and his
faith in the free enterprise system. He wanted
every protection given to property, the guarding of the public credit, and the
protection against the impairment of contracts. He insisted on stronger
provisions on these subjects. Gerry repeatedly objected to the authority given
the government over business and commerce, and insisted that the powers of
government in this area be spelled out.
The 33-year old Randolph had been
Washington's aide serving the revolution and at
23 had been the first attorney general of
Virginia. He was Governor of Virginia at the
time of the Convention and later became the
first attorney general of the United States, and
when Thomas Jefferson resigned the position,
he became the second Secretary of State of the
United States. Lawyer-like, he voiced great
concern over the locations and brevity of many
of the clauses of the Constitution. He greatly
feared that some day much of the general wording of the Constitution would be misinterpreted and given a meaning totally different
from that intended by the framers.
The aristocratic George Mason was a
wealthy landowner, an aristocrat, cynic, critic
and intellectual. He. exhibited insight far surpassing the understanding of most
of his listeners in his frequent expressions regarding the rights of the states.
He complained that the confederation was being converted into a consolidated government which he asserted was
subversive of every principle of the confederation. He contended the critical
power was calculated to annihilate totally the state governments. He insisted that the central government
would become the more powerful and would
eventually destroy the states by absorbing their
powers.
These three men stood and resolutely refused to sign the Constitution and you will not find
their names attached thereto. In the light of
current events, the reasons for their refusal to
sign seem more prophetic now than they did
then.
The Constitution provided that nine of the
thirteen states must ratify before it became effective. It was known that Rhode Island would
not ratify. The other eight states north of
Virginia ratified rather promptly. It was also
known that North Carolina, South Carolina
and Georgia would follow the lead of Virginia
on this question. Virginia, therefore, became
the pivotal state.
On June 2, 1788, the Virginia Ratification
Convention convened. It produced one of the
greatest dramas in American political history.
Among the delegates were a dozen of the
greatest figures of the Revolutionary period-James Madison, George Mason, James
Monroe, John Marshall, Edmund Randolph, Edmund Pendleton, George Wythe, Henry
Lee, William Grayson, George Nicholas, and Patrick Henry. For three weeks of
brilliant and often passionate argument they subjected the proposed new
Constitution to exhausting debate. Out of the yellowing pages of the reports
these figures emerge with startling clarity--the brooding, doubting Randolph;
the soft-spoken and scholarly Madison; Mason of the golden tongue; the sober
Marshall; and dominating the whole play, as statesman, prophet, Shakespearean
actor, the eloquent figure of Patrick Henry, chief foe of the Constitution. The
proponents of ratification were led by Madison and Pendleton, the opposition by
Henry and Mason. Randolph reversed his previous stand and became a proponent
because, as he said, it was the last opportunity to hold the thirteen states
together as a union, a result that was paramount to all others in his thinking.
All of the arguments made in the 1787 convention were repeated with both great
intelligence and much heat. The purposes of this
article will be subserved by a review of the
arguments of Patrick Henry, the greatest orator
of his time.
He argued that this was to be a union of
states and that the preamble of the Constitution
should read "We, the states" and not "We, the
people." He argued that men who wished to
preserve their liberty must always be suspicious
of government. Suspicion is a virtue, he said, as
long as its object is the preservation of the
public good and as long as it stays within proper bounds. All power, he foresaw,
ultimately would end in the hands of the central government. Can the annals of
mankind, he asked, exhibit one single example where rulers overcharged with power, willingly let go the oppressed? He ridicules the idea that the checks
and balances provided would for long stay the
centralization of power. He was a friend of the
idea of achieving union but, he said: "I am a
lover of the American union; the dissolution of
the union most abhorrent to my mind; but, sir,
the first thing I have at heart is American liberty; the second thing is American union." In colorful, lilting phrases, he swept the Convention
fore and aft. He contended the judiciary was
oppressively constructed and that the powers of
the President were excessive--the powers of a
king. Henry and Mason foresaw taxation. The
proponents saw the danger, they said, since
there was every reason to believe it and said:
"The splendid maintenance of the President and of the members of both houses,
and the salaries and fees of the swarm of officers, and dependents of the
government, will cost this continent immense sums." He returned to his main
point, the centralization of power. He said, "Too much suspicion may be
corrected. If you give too much power today, you cannot retake it tomorrow--for
tomorrow will never come for that purpose. " The strongest point of all was the
criticisms of the Constitution in failing to provide the states a means of
defense against encroachment, misinterpretation, and usurpation by the federal
government against the reserved powers of the states. It is true that the states
were left helpless without a means of defense and that they must rely upon the
conscience of the federal government, and the officials who represent it, to conform itself to the
provisions of the Constitution. Current situations bring this criticism to the front in bold
relief.
In the end, Virginia ratified. The vote was
89 to 79. A change of 6 votes would have kept
Virginia, at least temporarily, out of the new
union. Such a change in the vote could have
stopped the infant nation in its tracks. But the
proponents won. The antagonists, however,
mutually left to posterity a fascinating example
of shrewd prophecy, keen insight, and learned
debate on the rule of government in a free
society. Probably no other political convention
better understood and expressed a keener
knowledge of the relationship of government to
the governed than this group of political giants
who met in the New Academy on Shocke Hill in
Richmond, Virginia, in the summer of 1788.
The maintenance of our constitutional
system is, in the final analysis, dependent upon
the will and wisdom of the people. A backward
look at the powerful prophecy of those men
who foresaw in 1?88 the trend of events in 1965
can furnish the energy to arouse us from our indifference and complacency in these matters of
basic importance. The lessons growing out of
this early American experience can point the
way to Freemasons in the inculcation of
patriotism, in building respect for law and
order, and in developing our undying loyalty to
the Constitution of the United States as it was
written and intended to mean. The warnings of
the past should not be disregarded in reflecting
on the gravity of our fears for the future.
The importance of maintaining the states in
their proper role in the government rests on
many grounds. One of primary importance is
that no national government, however
benevolent, can be as closely in touch with
those who are governed as can the local
authorities in the several states. Political
wisdom is not concentrated in Washington
alone. It exists also in state capitals, state agencies, and among the people themselves. In
many fields peculiar to the individual state, the
state may experiment with varying remedies.
Some experiments will fail as is to be expected,
but the consequences may be confined; if it succeeds it may be emulated.
The Virginia Commission on Constitutional
Government, the political descendants of the
great men of that state who participated in the
drafting and ratification of the Constitution,
aptly summarized the situation in a recent
document as follows: "Today it is apparent to
even the most casual eye that the house of our
fathers has fallen into decay. The great beams
that give it strength--the separation of powers
within the central government, the division of
responsibility between the States and the
Federal authority--now tend to crumble under
subtle and insidious attack. The men who framed the Constitution build tight doors hung
awry, and a cold wind of judicial construction
sweeps along its corridors. The States
themselves, falling into impotence, often seem
helpless to halt the destruction. And too many
Americans afflicted with the ills of an affluent
society, are indifferent to the fundamental principles by which the greatness of the American
Republic was achieved."
The eternal principles that control the best
relationship between government and the
governed in a Republic are not dead. They have
become obscured by the ill effects of our affluent society. Our people need to
be aroused to the dangers of indifference and complacency if the inherent
dangers of unrestrained government are to be avoided.
back to top |
