reply to post by Voxel
Originally posted by donwhite
As just one of the many pro-slavery compromises made in 1787 by the Founding Fathers, they agreed to change the unicameral legislature of the earlier
Articles of Confederation under which we had fought and won the Revolutionary War, to a bicameral legislature. The upper chamber of the new
legislature - reminiscent both of the British House of Lords and the classic Roman Republic - was denominated the Senate.
This is a popular lie. The creation of the senate was in response to the creation of a stronger federal government than was outlined under the
articles of confederation.
I assume you are referring to my accusatory remark the FFs moved from a UNICAMERAL legislature to a BICAMERAL legislature to CREATE a sinecure for
State’s Rights which was then and is now CODE words for State’s WRONGS. I do not know how popular my remark is but I’m pretty sure it is not a
The most significant defect in the Articles was that it had NO executive branch! No PIC. Person In Charge. The Continental Congress served as the
Executive and made executive decisions in committee fashion. That defect could have been easily remedied. The SLAVE dependent states saw a golden
opportunity and took 200% advantage!
Call it what you may it was SLAVE rights, or rather the RIGHT to own slaves that was the primary motive for the bicameral legislature.
It has also been suggested by some that there were small state versus large state concerns, trying to avoid the stigma of another PRO slavery
compromise made by our Founders. But here’s the skinny on that. From the US Con Article 1: “ . . until such enumeration shall be made, the state
of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six,
New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.”
Large states would have been Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia. Five in all. Small states would have been Rhode Island and
Delaware. Two small states. The two states, New Hampshire and Georgia, would be “in between” in my not arbitrary division. The four remaining
states, Connecticut, New Jersey, North Carolina and South Carolina would as it happens, be set-off states. The two Carolinas setting off against the
two northern states. Slave versus free.
Yes, I know slavery was legal in most states in 1787 - only in Pennsylvania was it not - but it was the basis of the economy only in states south of
the Mason-Dixon line.
I cannot see any logical way to support the claim that the Senate was designed to accommodate concerns of small states.
For me, it is impossible to separate SLAVERY from STATES RIGHTS. Therefore I repeat the creation of the senate was a pro slavery compromise calculated
to give the slave states a veto over any legislation.
The reason was to ensure that the sovereignty of the states could never be overruled by a tyranny of the masses . . As far as I know, no state ever
voted to give the federal government control over what substances may or may not enter a person's body.
If that reason be true, then how can you fit that in with US Con Article VI? “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States
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
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.”
I admit that especially in the South most elected state officials routinely violate this provision of the US Con - despite their oath to the contrary
- but that remains to be dealt with at another time.
It should take an amendment to the constitution for the federal government to have the power to regulate something not even mentioned in the
constitution. Any power not specifically delegated to the federal government in the constitution is in the domain of the states. Jon
Wishing it so does not necessarily make it so. If that argument be true, then how can you fit it in with US Con Article 1, Section 8? That part begins
with "The Congress shall have power . . " and ends with this "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the
foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."
See below for the full text of Article 1, Section 8.
US Constitution, Article 1. Section 8. The Congress shall have power
Clause 1. to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,
to pay the debts and
provide for the common defense and
general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Clause 2. To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
Clause 3. To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
Clause 4. To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
Clause 5. To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
Clause 6. To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
Clause 7. To establish post offices and post roads;
Clause 8. To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
respective writings and discoveries;
Clause 9. To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
Clause 10. To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
Clause 11. To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
Clause 12. To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
Clause 13. To provide and maintain a navy;
Clause 14. To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
Clause 15. To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
Clause 16. To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of
the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the
discipline prescribed by Congress;
Clause 17. To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of
particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all
places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards,
and other needful buildings;--And
Clause 18. To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this
Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Section 9. The migration or importation of such persons
as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by
the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars
for each person.
E N D
I threw in Section 9 as yet ONE more compromise the Founding Fathers made to SLAVE owning interests. Note that SLAVE or SLAVERY as a word is never
mentioned in the US Con and that intentional omission is yet ONE more PRO slave compromise. And etc.
[edit on 1/27/2009 by donwhite]