I really do not have a dog in this hunt that I discuss today. None of us do. There is absolutely nothing that can be done to change something that happened over 235 years ago. I am not even sure I would want to change the final outcome anyway. I just want to go back in time and try to understand the reasoning of WHY the founders chose to do what they did with what information may be available.
Why did the founding fathers decide to completely ditch the Articles of Confederation instead of making needed changes to it? They were highly intelligent, motivated, patriotic people. They had spent a couple years on the Articles drafting what they believed they wanted for the new nation. They had a vision and executed on the vision. Why totally dump it less than a decade later? How could they have gotten it so wrong the first time?
Could it be that the misgivings Patrick Henry had about the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were valid? He refused to sign both documents despite being a very influential leader and founding father. He could not stand the thoughts of states’ rights being restricted by a federal government that could become as the British were.
I smell a major conspiracy, but presently have no concrete evidence it actually existed. It could have been as it actually appears; a bunch of popular, bull headed patriots who had the upper hand politically using their prominence and power to make things go their way.
Again, I am not saying it was the wrong or right thing to do. I just find it curious that they did it, when the stated original intent of the assembly was to amend the Articles as desired and needed. I see historical articles and statements that the Articles were just too hard to amend, that the framework was not right, that delegates of states just could not find common ground, etc. Yet, General Assemblies (and equivalents) of seven states wanted everything left as is when their representatives first walked into the door of that assembly hall. There is one source linked below that gives the writer’s assessment of the primary reasons many founders wanted it changed. There are many such reports you can access, but most give similar reasoning that never get to the meat of “why” they chose to can the Articles instead of amend.
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/10-reasons-why-americas-first-constitution-failed
Did the Articles of Confederation actually fail? Seems to me that some of what was perceived to be failure was actually working as they originally intended when they approved them. Suspicious Cat wants to know why this governing document was suddenly perceived as so bad and why they could not make the changes that were desired and necessary to the existing governing document.
So do other conspiracy theorists…
Here is a good short summary of the differences in the two documents.
Did you catch the founders wanted Canada in the fold even back in those days?
It seems one of the major unresolved issues was the same one Shay’s Rebellion represented. The federal and some state governments had lost the trust of the common man who had fought in the war. Not honoring the agreement to provide pensions to these patriot war fighters led to rebellions and much unrest in the new nation, especially when veterans lost homes and farms in the process. The primary problem appears to be that the Articles did not provide for the mandatory funding of the federal government by the states to honor the payments to veterans as well as to put down internal rebellions and other necessary federal functions. As it was it took private funding and sourcing of fighters to even put down Shay’s Rebellion as an example. That method could not be counted on throughout the thirteen states and a group of the founders were fearful that this problem could worsen and seriously endanger the nation.
It was a big deal.
The Newburgh Conspiracy
Just what was the Newburgh Conspiracy anyway? More importantly why did it scare the breeches off many of our founding fathers including the great George Washington?
Rock meet hard place. Just as we previously discussed with Shay’s Rebellion, so we now discuss a serious incident that occurred before Shay’s as the war ended in 1783. As always we will do what has to be done – follow the money. Or as in this case, figure out how to find some money.
The truth is that our new nation’s central government was dead broke and the states were also in bad financial shape from the war debts and mangled economies. The problem was that Robert Morris and others had offered lifetime pensions of half their active military pay for all retired war fighters to entice them to enlist. The bill came due to start paying. The vets needed the cash to help restart their lives and take care of their families since the fighting was done.
Oopsie, the federal treasury had about $125 K in cash versus about $6 million in debt. This was not good. The individual states were tapped out as well and starting to levy new and larger taxes to repay their own debts. The Articles of Confederation gave no taxing powers to the federal government. Its operation depended on requested, voluntarily paid state contributions from the same states that were nearly underwater fiscally.
The military members who were being stiffed were upset. They wanted what they had been promised, it was their blood that was spilled on the battlefields along with destruction of many of their farms and properties. The majority were even willing to cut what was due down to settle. None of the states would agree to compromise and solve the problem. Sorry, we have a bad connection, check back with us later were their attitudes. The Articles gave each the authority to operate their own states independently. They were in a superior position over the federal government.
The overall situation and response influenced a loose group of military discontents to get active discontenting and it was likely that George Washington’s old nemesis, Horatio Gates, was involved. Add in that some major founding fathers were very much in favor of finding ways for the war fighters to receive what was due. Some members of the Confederation Congress supported the funding; such as Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Gouverneur Morris, and Robert Morris. Robert Morris basically said that if there was no pay for the veterans, then he was out of there. The government withheld from public release that he had resigned because they were afraid of the impact the news would have on the young nation. From that nasty disagreement we see one of the first major cover-ups in American history. Which is something that the feds have perfected over the years.
The link below provides a good summary of the event and conditions on the ground.
https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/newburgh-conspiracy
As we learn from the story, impending disaster was averted. I loved the description of George Washington’s acting chops. His timing and words worked to defuse the situation, such was the respect the military had for this great man. However, it did not resolve the injustice as Shay’s Rebellion demonstrated later. Per the information in the links and many other sources it was agreed that the Articles of Confederation had a serious flaw relating to how the states could refuse to pay the federal government the money it needed to honor the pension agreement and other federal debts and responsibilities.
We still need to know more.
Back To Articles Versus Constitution
So why did the states not just agree to strengthen the Articles to provide financially for the role of the federal government’s responsibilities that are stated in the document’s enumerated powers? An amendment(s) to do so was all that was needed to solve the immediate problems. Why did the states who wanted to remain large and in charge of their fates in accordance with the Articles agree to terminate it and go the route of the new Constitution? Inquiring minds want to know because it is still puzzling.
Oddly enough, I actually found the most logical answers sans conspiracy theories at the following linked government website.
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution/how-did-it-happen
This part from the link revealed much…
The founders set the terms for ratifying the Constitution. They bypassed the state legislatures, reasoning that their members would be reluctant to give up power to a national government. Instead, they called for special ratifying conventions in each state. Ratification by 9 of the 13 states enacted the new government. But at the time, only 6 of 13 states reported a pro-Constitution majority.
The Federalists, who believed that a strong central government was necessary to face the nation’s challenges, needed to convert at least three states. The Anti-Federalists fought hard against the Constitution because it created a powerful central government that reminded them of the one they had just overthrown, and it lacked a bill of rights.
I believe we have found our answer as to “why” they abandoned the Articles in favor of a new document. A powerful segment of founders would not accept modification of the Articles because a number of states did not want to lose their authority and power in the process. So the Federalists did a legal end run and called ratifying conventions in each state to elect representatives for the purpose. We can only speculate how they jockeyed to get more of their supporters appointed or elected to be delegates. As we later learned, all of these state delegates locked themselves into a hot assembly room and argued over the situation for three months before coming to a hard fought consensus and agreement to hammer out the details.
In reality the initially stated purpose of their attendance in the assembly was to amend the Articles of Confederation as needed. The delegates met for one purpose and a different purpose was escorted into being. The Federalists used the situation to undercut the current legal status quo to achieve their goals of creating a new governing document that was more suited to accomplishing their vision and goals for the country.
We need to understand what their end goals were and how to rationalize that it was prudent to do an end run around the state governments and the existing governing document. The mental gymnastics would need to include the fact that seven states up to that point were not pro-Constitution. So to get to nine in favor to make the change effective per the ruling Articles, the Federalists needed to flip three states.
I am not passing judgment on how it all worked out. However, it is clear the Federalists were very fearful of a weak federal government that could not respond appropriately to enemies and pressing issues of the nation. They wanted it to have the authority over the states to fund (tax) and enforce. States withholding funds at will was a big problem that needed fixed. The key for compromise was coming to an agreement about what enumerated powers the Constitution would have and addressing the authority for same. The Antifederalists were adamant in their beliefs that the federal government would supplant states’ rights in the process. They wanted no part of a British type government oppression to rear its ugly head again. Both sides eventually came to an agreement that included the Bill of Rights to protect the rights of citizens, but gave the Federalists what they wanted for central authority..
Knowing politics like I do, I wonder what horse trading was done to move people to one side or the other. Politics was as dirty then as it is now. Who received what to drop their opposition and go along? It is something we will probably never fully know, but it would be interesting to hear the gritty details and not the varnished view of lap dog historians.
Over the years that have followed we have seen the Constitution succeed and fail. Many of the failures were tied to omissions, some of which led to additional amendments. Many of the fears of the Antifederalists about civil liberties, oppressive taxation, and potential corruption in the federal government were realized. But so were the fears of the Federalists with the Civil War and other abuses. None probably foresaw a third branch of government, the judiciary that was charged with arbitrating disputes and law interpretations, going rogue to criminal to asset unauthorized power at times. But alas, that is exactly what has happened with politicization of branches and areas within government. We have reached the point that some of the ten listed weaknesses accorded the Articles of Confederation in the linked story now apply to the Constitution. It even seems that a few of those stated weaknesses of the Articles are now or could become strengths.
Or as stated by an Antifederalist on January 31, 1788 in Brutus 11 . “Is it prescience, or has the system always been the same?
“They will give the sense of every article of the constitution, that may from time to time come before them. And in their decisions they will not confine themselves to any fixed or established rules, but will determine, according to what appears to them, the reason and spirit of the constitution. The opinions of the supreme court, whatever they may be, will have the force of law; because there is no power provided in the constitution, that can correct their errors, or controul their adjudications. From this court there is no appeal. And I conceive the legislature themselves, cannot set aside a judgment of this court, because they are authorised by the constitution to decide in the last resort. The legislature must be controuled by the constitution, and not the constitution by them. They have therefore no more right to set aside any judgment pronounced upon the construction of the constitution, than they have to take from the president, the chief command of the army and navy, and commit it to some other person. The reason is plain; the judicial and executive derive their authority from the same source, that the legislature do theirs; and therefore in all cases, where the constitution does not make the one responsible to, or controulable by the other, they are altogether independent of each other.
The judicial power will operate to effect, in the most certain, but yet silent and imperceptible manner, what is evidently the tendency of the constitution: – I mean, an entire subversion of the legislative, executive and judicial powers of the individual states. Every adjudication of the supreme court, on any question that may arise upon the nature and extent of the general government, will affect the limits of the state jurisdiction. In proportion as the former enlarge the exercise of their powers, will that of the latter be restricted.”
“This power in the judicial, will enable them to mould the government, into almost any shape they please.”
Yup. Predicted then, subsequently observed multiple times, and it still continues to this day. As an example we can see the daily totals of fraud and abuse of tax payer funding from DOGE, yet, we are led to believe that We the People do not have standing with federal courts to pursue claims against the criminal elements within our own government and citizenship. The same tactic was used with the 2020 election cheat. The judiciary has insulated themselves within webs of legal trickery and collusion. Take a look at this explanation on “standing” and try to understand it as an average American citizen.
Not worth your time, was it?
My hope is that readers will see that our nation has always lived in contentious times, much of it by design. What we see today is not unique. The Constitution has its obvious flaws like all documents. Enforcement and the abuse of same is still a huge issue. However, the principles espoused are still the best mankind has ever produced. We just need to be willing to put in the work to not only support its continuance, but to pursue the improvements it needs through amendments to make it even better for the good of the nation today as well as the future, just like our founding fathers were willing to do.
We are not finished with this discussion. It turns out there was a pre-war condition on the ground with this conflict between Federalists and Antifederalists that is still being fought over today. It would be unfair to delay the answer even if it is too soon to discuss it in more detail. So, Spoiler Alert – the reason for much of the conflict between the two was that ugly word – taxes.
Some will probably have a good idea how that part will go since Alexander Hamilton was Washington’s Treasury Secretary charged with funding the new Constitutionally governed America. Seems there are many current references to Hamilton’s methods lately.
On to a couple more signers.
Caesar Rodney
Born on the family plantation known as Byfield in Dover, DE in 1728, Caesar Rodney was the oldest of two children of Caesar and Elizabeth Crawford Rodney. His maternal grandfather had immigrated to America in the early 1680’s and developed the plantation. After his death the Rodney family assumed control. His father had immigrated from England in the early 1680’s with William Penn and he owned a plantation with slaves at the time of Caesar’s birth. The Rodney family ancestry goes back to 1095 in England. His mother was the daughter of an Anglican rector of Christ’s Church in Dover. His father had also served as speaker of the Colonial Assembly in DE in 1704.
Like so many other signers, Caesar was informally homeschooled and had some training through local clergy until he left home to attend a Latin school as well as the College of Philadelphia (Penn) in his teen years. When his father died in 1746, DE Supreme Court Justice Nicholas Ridgely became his guardian.
Just living was not easy for Rodney. The following paragraph from the applicable Descendants site describes and also provides the words of John Adams, who knew him well.
No portrait of Caesar Rodney exists. We know that he was tormented throughout his life by asthma, and that his adult years were plagued by a facial cancer. He experienced expensive, painful, and futile medical treatments on the cancer. The clearest account of his appearance is found in John Adams’s diary of September 1774: “Saturday . . . this forenoon Mr. Caesar Rodney of the lower counties on Delaware River, was introduced to us. Caesar Rodney is the oddest-looking man in the world; he is tall, thin, and slender as a reed, pale; his face is not bigger than a large apple, yet there is sense and fire, spirit, wit and humor in his countenance.”
From this it is easy to see why he never married or had children, so he threw himself into his work. He was appointed sheriff of Kent County at age 27 and from that point on was elected and served in many offices. Eventually he was elected to serve in the First Continental Congress and signed the failed Olive Branch Petition seeking reconciliation with Britain. The next year he was made Speaker of the state’s Assembly when counties began declaring their independence.
The dramatic process of approving the Declaration for DE is well documented. The state had left it up to the decisions of McKean, Read and Rodney. McKean was for independence and Read against. That let Rodney to break the deadlock. He is reported to having rode horseback or via carriage all night in a torrential rain to arrive in Philadelphia to break the tie for the vote for independence in DE. In his words, “I arrived in Congress (tho detained by thunder and rain) time enough to give my voice in the matter of independence . . . We have now got through the whole of the declaration and ordered it to be printed so that you will soon have the pleasure of seeing it.”
The area in DE he represented was loyalist dominated. As a result of his decision they refused to reelect him. However, the effects of war in the state changed that attitude and he was elected to President of Delaware for a three year term in 1778. Throughout the conflict he served as Brigadier General of the DE militia and engaged in battles at his friend, Gen. George Washington’s direction throughout the war. Washington held a high opinion of him and noted that when the state failed to provide for the militia as needed, Rodney did so out of his own financial resources.
He lived long enough to see the end of the war. In 1784 his frail body gave out and he passed away. The Descendant’s site gives this description of the man, “He was reported to be a temperate, forbearing and patient man. He was probably what we would today call a “consensus builder.” He was a pragmatic realist, with a wry and ironic sense of life and human nature. He inspired real affection among those who knew and worked with him.” I found no derogatory comments or accounts of the man in my research, a rarity.
Rodney had come to view slavery as something that should be abolished despite having 200 slaves on the Byfield plantation. With his death he made a proclamation that all should receive gradual emancipation.
There was a statute of this great patriot placed in Statuary Hall in the U. S. Capitol. We have all been blessed by the contributions of this great American patriot.
Samuel Chase
Samuel Chase was born in 1741 to Rev. Thomas Chase and his wife, Matilda Walker Chase in Princess Anne, MD. His father had immigrated to the area to serve a new church for the Church of England. Samuel’s mother passed away the year he was born. He was educated at home. At age 18 he went to Annapolis to study law under attorney John Hall. He was admitted to the bar in the 1761-63 time frame and opened a law practice there. It was during these years he was given the nickname of “Old Bacon Face” for how his complexion looked when he was angered or agitated.
In 1762 he married Anne Baldwin. They had seven children, with four surviving to adulthood. In 1764 he was elected to the MD General Assembly, which continued for twenty years. However, he was known to be foul mouthed and adversarial toward anything loyalist and Tory. He openly called them out and worked against everything they tried to accomplish. He helped start the local Sons of Liberty chapter with friend and fellow signer, William Paca. He was a vocal critic of the 1765 Stamp Act and all oppressive acts of the British through the Revolutionary War. He was an adamant proponent of boycotts to send messages to the British Parliament.
He wrote the following to John Duane, a delegate of NY in early 1775, “When I reflect on the enormous Influence of the Crown, the System of Corruption introduced as the Art of Government, the Venality of the Electors (the radical Source of every other Evil), the open and repeated violations, by Parliament of the Constitution . . I have not the least Dawn of Hope in the Justice, Humanity, Wisdom or Virtue of the British Nation. I consider them as one of the most abandoned and wicked People under the Sun . . . . Our Dependence must be on God and ourselves.”
When the battles of Lexington and Concord happened, he knew his fears were confirmed. Prior to the declaration of war he served on the Annapolis Convention and on the MD Committee of Safety in 1775. He was chosen as a delegate to both the first and second Continental Congress, during which time he approved and signed the Declaration. Not long after that his wife, Anne, died and left him to raise their four children. Years later he remarried a woman that was only four years older than his oldest child.
There is not enough time and attention span left to detail all of the activities and involvements of Chase from that point. It is an amazing story of extreme highs and lows. The link to the Descendants site is below for your review. To expedite I advise picking up his story at the point of signing the Declaration as you have time.
https://www.dsdi1776.com/signer/samuel-chase
There is one major point left I wanted to address that is in the link. Who was the one U. S. Supreme Court Justice that was impeached? Yup, Samuel Chase in 1804 at the direction of President Thomas Jefferson. He was acquitted of all charges. I wonder what Chief Justice Roberts would think of that happening to him after his most recent comments and lack of attention to pressing national defense issues coming through the court system? Impeachment procedures exist for good reasons. That they may be used in error or for abusive reasons is not the issue. That the procedures are available and used when legal and appropriate to do so is the benefit to American citizens. Judges are in public service. We the People are the public they serve, not personally aligned political parties and never those that cross our borders illegally who are not citizens.
It is equally important for We the People to have the ability to fire as it is to hire.
Samuel Chase passed away in 1811. This lightning rod of controversy and opinions will always be remembered for the strength of his convictions and willingness to stand on principle. He was an important American patriot in the cause for liberty and freedom.
Please remember Wolf’s rules for our community. https://wqth.wordpress.com/2019/01/01/dear-maga-open-topic-20190101/
In general that means to be respectful to each other and to pull no shenanigans that your mom might find offensive or otherwise cause jail time. That said, free speech is honored here.
Be blessed and go make something good happen!