by Michael Gaddy, ©2015

(Sep. 17, 2015) — We hear on a regular basis from talking heads in government what our founders intended our government to be, but seldom, if ever, do we hear a candidate for public office quote our founders such as Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson. With the possible exception of Ron Paul, I can’t remember hearing either one of the two mentioned at all in recent history. Why is that, one might ask?

Well, most politicians don’t want to quote anyone whose political philosophy contradicts almost everything they support, promise to do and campaign for.

All of those people you know who claim to be “constitutionalists” but vote for candidates based on the lesser of evils paradigm, political party affiliation, or any other reason not based on the tenets of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, are not constitutionalists, but, indeed, domestic enemies to our founding documents. Of course these selfsame folks are the ones who complain the loudest when the person they voted against violates the Constitution as if it never existed. Funny how people will ignore violations of the Constitution by the politician they voted for, yet, complain to high heaven when the other guy/woman does the same thing. Try explaining that to your children and grandchildren with a straight face when you lecture them on integrity and hypocrisy.

Back to our founders; what we hear most from the majority of politicians and the faux constitutionalists who vote for them is the supremacy of the central government. You can also sit in bewilderment as they “pledge allegiance” to this “one nation…indivisible.” I can’t help but wonder if these folks understand the political philosophy behind the concept and purpose of an indivisible national government is exactly what the colonists of 1776 opposed in old King George III?

“What is a [nation]al government?” you ask. According to Collins Dictionary, nationalist forms of government are “politicians that make up the government that run the country as a whole,” while Dictionary.com defines national government this way: “any political organization that is put in place to maintain control of a nation.There you have it; run the country and maintain control; that is the function of a national government. Obviously, to control the nation, it is required the people of that nation also be controlled. That is what many pledge allegiance to, and believe me, the politicians in power love to hear that pledge and know that it exists in practice. Exactly how this comports to a government which operates “with consent of the governed” is the unanswered question.

Imagine, if you will, had the Sons of Liberty; Samuel Adams, John Hancock, Paul Revere and friends, sworn allegiance to “one nation…indivisible” back in 1765; there would never have been an America; we would all be English subjects.

I have mentioned the founders Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry, but there are other founders whose names are seldom heard who contributed vitally to the discussion of a centralized government (nation) as opposed to a government of the states. I will quote them one by one:

First of all, there is George Bryan of Pennsylvania in 1787:

“It is the opinion of the greatest writers, that a very extensive country cannot be governed on democratical principles, or any other plan, that a confederation of number of small republics, possessing all the powers of internal government, but united in the management of their foreign and general concerns. It would not be difficult to prove, that anything short of despotism could not bind so great a country under one government; and that whatever plan you might, at the first setting out, establish, it would issue in a despotism.”

Now, John Dickinson of Delaware, also in 1787:

“We cannot have a limited monarchy…our situation will not allow it—Repubs [Republics] are for a while industrious but finally destroy themselves—they were badly constituted—I dread a consolidation of the states.”

Theophilus Parsons of Massachusetts, 1787:

“Any law…of the United States, for securing to Congress more than a concurrent right with each state, is usurpation and void.”

Archibald Maclaine of North Carolina, 1787:

“If the gentleman will attend, he will see this is a government for confederated states; that consequently, it can never meddle where no power is given.”

David Caldwell of North Carolina, 1787:

“Mr. Chairman, if they mean We the people… the people at large, —I conceive the expression is improper. Were not they who framed this Constitution the representatives of the legislators of the different states? In my opinion, they had no power from the people at large, to use their name, or to act for them. They were not delegated for that purpose.”

William Richardson Davie of North Carolina, 1788:

“If there were any seeds in this Constitution, which might, one day, produce a consolidation, it would, sir, with me, be an insuperable objection, I am so perfectly convinced that so extensive a country as this can never be managed by one consolidated government. … If the state governments vanish, the general government must vanish also. … The state governments can put a veto, at any time, on the general government, by ceasing to continue the executive power.” (Obviously, Lincoln, and his past and present day shills would ignore this one.)

Rawlings Lowndes of South Carolina, 1788:

“The treaty of peace [Treaty of Paris 1783] expressly agreed to acknowledge us as free, sovereign and independent states, which privileges live at present in the exercise of. But this new Constitution at once swept those privileges away, being sovereign over all; so that this state would dwindle into a mere skeleton of what it was; its legislative powers would be pared down to little more than those now vested in a corporation; and he should value the honor of a seat in the legislature in no higher esteem than a seat in the city council.”

Now, before you get all excited and state our Constitution provided for a consolidated government, please remember, several states only ratified the Constitution with a promise of amendments. Of those ratified amendments in 1791, the Tenth Amendment amended the Constitution and reestablished the power and sovereignty of the states and of the people. Of course this was destroyed with the unconstitutional, not ratified, according to Article V, 14th Amendment.

James Lincoln of South Carolina, 1788:

“… What is Liberty? The power of governing yourselves. If you adopt this Constitution, have you this power? No: you give it into the hands of a set of men who live one thousand miles distant from you. Let the people but once trust the Liberty out of their own hands and what will be the consequence? First, a haughty, imperious aristocracy; and ultimately, a tyrannical monarchy.”

Can anyone say “executive orders” and “signing statements?”

John Lansing of New York, 1788:

“… the state governments will always possess a better representation of the feelings and interests of the people at large, it is obvious that those powers can be deposited with much greater safety with the state than the general government. … a consolidated government, partaking in a great degree of republican principles, and which had in object the control the inhabitants of the extensive territory of the United States, by its sole operations, could not preserve the essential rights and liberties of the people.”

There are many more of our seldom-heard-from founders who contributed to this principle of governance, but I will not take the time and space to quote them all. But, they should be mentioned by name so that you can take the time to research them on your own, should you so desire.

They are: Melancton Smith and John Williams of New York, George Mason, Edmund Pendleton, Patrick Henry and Henry Lee of Virginia.

A good place to begin your research of this topic would be the “Documents relating to the Colonial History” of each one of the original 13 states.

Please invest the time and effort to study what the founders of our country intended and what they chose to ratify. Do this before you blindly vote for a candidate of any political party and especially before you stand and robotically chant a pledge to the exact opposite form of government which our founders intended!

Remember this also when you hear a politician for any local or state office pontificate in public that he/she has no power or authority to challenge the central government. Voting for such persons is exactly what has led us to this point in our history. Want to know how we got in this mess? Look in the mirror.

In Rightful Liberty

“We Americans are the ultimate innocents. We are forever desperate to believe that this time the government is telling us the truth.” ~Sydney Schanberg

Join the Conversation

1 Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. “One national … indivisible” is supposed to mean we as united would never allow tyranny. United we stand, divided we are conquered. Race riots, anyone?