Some plain, honest men got together in Philadelphia and began the process by which the Constition of the United States of America
was born. 55 men representing the 13 colonies spent almost four months within the confines of Independance Hall, in the hot and humid Philidelphia summer and drafted one of the most amazing documents ever written.
On May 25th, these men convened with the determination to repair the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation. Among these men were several who were extreme nationalists wanting a strong central government that would rule supreme and in fact displace the state governments. Among these men were several who wanted a weak and inneffectifve central government that was subordinate to those of the state. The rest fell somewhere in between those two extremes.
Throughout that summer, these 55 men were able to discuss, argue, agree, disagree but ultimately reach the compromise that resulted in our original constitution. They were able to overcome strong differences on the role of the state versus the central government. They were able to overcome stronger differences on representation. The larger states wanted proportional representation, the smaller equal. They overcame this with a bicameral legislature that had proportional representation in the house and equal representation in the Senate.
They argued over a president or a monarch; over an appointed president, a committee, a hereditary position, a strong executive, a weak executive, a judiciary subservient to the legislature, lenght of terms, etc. These 55 men, some wealthy, some not, some eagerly (Madison) some requiring much persuasion (Washington) met for almost 120 days, keeping their discussions and their deliberations secret. And, in the end, they came up with one of the most marvelous of handbooks on how a government of the people should be formed.
It would take until June of the following year to be ratified. It took effect in March of 1789, with George Washington becoming our first president under our current republican form of government. The first 10 ammendments, proposed in September of 1789 were ratified finally in December 1791 and became our Bill of Rights.
It is a rather short document, really. Yet it is the basis for our continuance as a nation for 222 years since it's inception.
From the Preamble
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
We can use some more Plain Honest Men (and Women) in Washington today. Men and women who are able and willing to set aside personalities and self and put the USA first. Men and women who recognize and understand and are willing to continue in the same vein as the framers.
20 Comments on 222 Years Ago Today- In Order to Form a More Perfect Union ........
So true! We have come a long way in the wrong direction since then. Every once in a while you come across a politician that you feel is sincere and has the country's interest at heart, but they usually don't get much attention. Very disturbing times we are living in. Thanks for the post.
Mike,
As I was reading thru this post I was thinking that you would have had numerous comments but, alas, I was was wrong. You make a very good point about needing more men & women in or federal government that are willing to lay aside personal agenda and take care of the business of running the country and listening to those that elected them to their positions. I believe that you called them Plain and Honest Men (and Women).
Mike ~ It seems that to most of our leaders the constitution means no more than a nice exhibit in a museum
Seems like most of our leaders nowadays just want to "promote the general welfare" by giving out more and more handouts. The rest of the Constitution gets set on the shelf and ignored.
Mike...
A fantastic document that has stood the test of time with relatively few amendments. Thanks for the history lesson and tying it to today! Well done.
Amen to that Mike! Yes, we really are in dire need of plain, honest men in many places in America.......DC does need them the most however! ; )
Beautifully written! Hope you don't mind....I shared a link on my facebook page. This is something more people need to read.
We must remember our roots and start to put the good of the people first All the people not a select few. Thanks for this reminder Mike.
Mike, of course you know I loved this post.
It is so important to know how history and what our Founding Fathers went through. The limited powers is straight from the bible.
James Madison
At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, James Madison proposed the plan to divide the central government into three branches. He discovered this model of government from the Perfect Governor, as he read Isaiah 33:22; “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our law giver, the LORD is our king; He will save us.”
Baron Charles Montesquieu, wrote in 1748;
“Nor is there liberty if the power of judging is not separated from legislative power and from executive power. If it [the power of judging] were joined to legislative power, the power over life and liberty of the citizens would be arbitrary, for the judge would be the legislature if it were joined to the executive power, the judge could have the force of an oppressor. All would be lost if the same … body of principal men … exercised these three powers."
Madison claimed Isaiah 33:22 as the source of division of power in government.
Almost all of the Founding Fathers quoted from the Bible in thier memoirs. It was a strong reference point for them.
Mike,
I believe if we would remember our history and remember the amazing things that have been achieved we would be much better off. Our Children need to know and understand that we are a blessed Country because of amazing Men like our founding fathers. I just reblogged this post. It was amazing. Thank you!!!
Sandra - we go back and forth but the general direction appears to be away from what the framers came up with.
Don - it came from the book, Plain, Honest Men, but yes, I am surprised at the lack of comment also
Hugh - I think that is because they view the constitution as a living document, when in reality it is not. It is designed to be changed, but only by great determination and effort.
Rob - Obaman, like FDR, wants to revise the bill of rights to include healthcare, jobs, income, etc.
Richard - I have found it a most interesting subject. Too bad I didn't feel that way in high school and college.
Pam - thanks for sharing the link, I don't mind
Paddy - absolutely, all the people, thanks
Missy - Madison was certainly one of the major influences and driving forces behind this. I am very glad, though, that he did not get all that he really wanted. We would be a much different nation, and I am not certain the better one.
Kevin - the majority, if not all, of the framers of the constitution had very strong religious/spiritual beliefs. In their private lives and their memoirs they attributed this document to the hand of God. However, they took great care to 1) use an almost purely secular process to draft the document, even voting down motions to open every day with prayer; 2) and to make this a purley legal document, trending toward the secular rather than the religious. And yet their intention was merely to make sure that the government did not raise one religion over another. They never really intended to remove religion and God from all things U.S.
Alice - I am afraid it is not being taught to any degree of depth in order to really remember it.
Mike - Thanks for this post. One area that people today forget to done with the Constitution is to read and understand when it was written, why it was written, and to understand what the words that were used in it meant at the time it was written.
Brian - I guess it's more important to know all the details of the American Idol contestants.
3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)
"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country.
A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit.
Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation,
therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men.
We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely
controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world.
No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by
conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by
the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."
- Woodrow Wilson 1916, 3 years after he helped create the Federal Reserve.
"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand
our banking and monetary system, for if they did,
I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."
- Henry Ford
Ryan - but this is not about banks but rather the process of getting the constitution written.
Very True. I didn't mean to seem off topic. I just thought it was relevant since one of the reasons and inspirations for the Constitution was to distance the country from the banking institutions which ruled Europe at the time and was written so the people would control and rule the country. People fought hard for this piece of paper after its inception, many died, including a few Presidents right up until 1913 when the Banking families finally succeeded in illegally implementing the Federal Reserve System which goes against everything the constitution was written for. These same criminals have also completely destroyed the constitution over the past 8 years. But don't feel alone, the same has happened to every other "Democratic" country around the world.
Ryan - I can find no place in the constitution that makes banks unconstitutional. And, true, some founders, especially Jefferson, were anti bank, others were not.
Internet forums are sometimes not the best way to communicate because it's easy to misinterpret comments. I didn't mean to say that the concept of the bank is unconstitutional. What the constitution did say was that your government has the power and legal right to print and distribute it's own currency. So why doesn't it do that? Having a private banking corporation print/issue your currency and set your monetary policy is completely unconstitutional.