Part 1 of 6: The Committee of Style wrote it in five days
toward the end of the 1787 constitutional convention in Philadelphia.
In our June 20, 2018 discussion, we will show the leap from
the convention’s draft preamble to the civic, civil, and legal proposition that
the U.S. established on June 21, 1788 and hides in 2019. It will be brief
comparison, because we prefer to accelerate U.S. achievable better future after
231 years’ suppression.
Limited, factual documents are available about the U.S.
preamble’s emergence. Scholars can only express opinion about the documents, since
the preamble’s authors are no longer living. Fellow citizens, like me, may form
opinions.
The Committee of Style had the responsibility to arrange the
Constitution, receiving the convention’s accomplishments on September 8, 1787
and producing the document on September 12 for signature on September 17.
Committee members were Alexander Hamilton, Rufus King, William Johnson, James
Madison, and Gouvernour Morris, representing New York, Massachusetts,
Connecticut, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, respectively. I do not admire
Madison’s influence, great as his political skills may have been (opinion).
Part 2 of 6: Next, 2/3 of the delegates signed the 1787
Constitution for the USA, ending four month’s politically astute debate.
With the styled constitution available for five days, 39 of
55 delegates from 12 of 13 states signed the 1787 Constitution with its civic,
civil, and legal proposition: the U.S. preamble. That’s 66% of the people’s representatives.
Some of the 34% dissenters planned to restore colonial dominance as future
politicians. The 1/3 dissention became evident as the Fist Congress began under
the U.S. preamble’s unpopular proposition: discipline of by and for the people
so as to hold their state and federal governments accountable. Americans could
end English tradition such as church-state partnership. England
constitutionally has a fixed number of Canterbury seats in Parliament.
Part 3 of 6: the Committee of Style and the signers
proposed to end oppressive colonial-British traditions in the U.S., such as
church-state partnership.
The Committee of Style’s five 1787 state constitutions inform
us about church-state partnering, but the U.S. preamble does not support the
partnership. Perhaps religion is implied, for example, in the U.S. preamble’s
words Tranquility and Liberty, but the words “religion” and “Christianity” are
absent.
Each of the five constitutions erroneously refers to
whatever-God-is, with hubris---without humility:
"laws
of nature and of nature's God", "the great Legislator of the universe", "the good providence of God", "Christian
forbearance, love, and charity", and "the great Governor of the
universe" with "right to worship Almighty God", respectively. It
is not clear that whatever-controls actual reality wants worship and praise.
Humans who impose worship and praise do so at their own risk, but the religious
tyranny may harm both the believer and the oppressor.
Perhaps to avoid imposer’s risk, the
U.S. preamble’s propositions leave theism or philosophy a private rather than
civic consideration. The U.S. preamble proposes responsible liberty as civil
and legal duties whether the individual pursues religion or not. Specifically,
civic integrity is expected whether the individual fears for a soul or not,
expects reincarnation or not and so on. The individual believer civically errs
to urge public collaboration on his or her God or none.
Part 4 of 6: Did the Committee of Style express 2019’s
citizens’ opportunity to end colonial-British dominance?
The collaborators represented in the Committee
of Style’s five state constitutions are: the good people of the state, a voluntary
association of individuals,
representatives of the people of the
state, free planters,
representatives of freemen, or tolerant English subjects. New York seemed to
defer to the Declaration of Independence (1776). The five purposes,
respectively, were “consent of the governed”, "an original, explicit, and solemn compact
with each other", “civil government” then
"rights and privileges derived from their ancestors", “rights to us
& our posterity”, and “promote [inhabitants'] safety and happiness".
“Posterity” expressed continuity in that living people claimed “privileges
derived from their ancestors.”
Virginia included the explicit
statement, "they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their
posterity, namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of
acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and
safety." Is hereditary privilege an English tradition?
Note that the individual state
constitutions consistently asserted representation of the people. The Articles
of Confederation, March 1, 1781, asserted representation of the states rather
than the people in their respective states. This distinction---representing the
people in their states rather than the states---makes the U.S. preamble
contentious for many politicians. We the People of the United States, during
past generations, have brooked this oppression of the civic, civil, and legal
power of the U.S. preamble, so the privilege of establishing We the People of
the United States remains. Our generation may either take that privilege or
leave it to the future.
Part 5 of 6: Inferences for collaboration by We the
People of the United States, hopefully more than 2/3 of fellow citizens.
Here are my observations about the
Committee of Style’s five’s representation of their individual state
constitutions and the 4 months’ convention results.
First, if a committee member
wanted to collaborate wording to specify whatever-God-is, he knew the others
were equally firm in their spiritual commitments: Negotiating God’s human specification was
futile. Thus, the U.S. preamble does not address religion as a civic, civil, or
legal provision by fellow citizens. The Massachusetts preamble’s theism did not
dictate the U.S. preamble. However,
religious convictions were in the room and would resume in the First Congress,
especially with James Madison’s religious influence on the Bill of Rights.
Second, representation of the
people of the state prevailed, and “good people” was expressed twice. “Civic”
seems more specific than “good” in that “civic” addresses individual safety
without spiritual debate. The 1774 Confederation of States gave way to a Union
of states under the people who adopted the U.S. preamble whether current or
future citizen and without reference to human characteristics including gender.
Third, Virginia’s comments on not
divesting posterity indicates that the relationship of parent to child and
beyond can be perpetual if there is fidelity from generation to generation. In
other words, “posterity,” while implying the future, retains the ancestral
past. The challenge a civic people perceives is retaining the good consequences
and not promoting the bad---not punishing children for their ancestor’s errors
and not creating inherited legal privilege.
Fourth, New York expressed the
notion that a civic citizen does not have divided allegiance including
allegiance to a church; extension of this principle to allegiance to state vs
nation is not addressed. The U.S. preamble’s propositions make religion a
private pursuit by not listing it among the public provisions.
Fifth, the U.S. preamble’s
proposition for the individual to collaborate for 5 public provisions for
freedom-from oppression so as to encourage responsible human liberty seems
novel. The U.S. preamble incorporates the citizens’ duty to both state and
nation to provide the 5 provisions so as to encourage each citizen to adopt
responsible human liberty. Thus, the U.S. preamble may have been a spontaneous
creation by the committee of five who perceived they were representing the
secret debates to terminate the 1774 Confederation of States in order to
initiate individual self-discipline of by and for the people.
Part 6 of 6: Conclusion
The Committee’s U.S.
preamble-proposition apparently represented the majority delegate sentiment,
because it was approved by the signers and ratified by the people’s representative
conventions in 9 of 13 states:
Sequentially, those factions of the colonial-British inhabitants of the
eastern seaboard globally established the USA. Subsequent negation of the U.S.
preamble’s civic, civil, and legal powers avails to each living generation the
privilege of establishing responsible human liberty in the USA. The present
generation holds that privilege.
Does 2019’s a civic people---We
the People of the United States who trust-in and commit-to the U.S. preamble’s
proposition---want that privilege? It’s a privilege that lasts only one
generation’s lifetime, perhaps twenty years. At today’s adult lifespan and the
time required for psychological maturity, the duration of the individual’s opportunity
also seems about 20 years.
Collective success requires
individual collaboration and totalitarianism is not possible: there will always
be fellow citizens who erroneously think crime pays. The U.S. preamble leaves
the choice to the individual citizen.
Published on our Facebook Page beginning May 26, 2019.
Copyright©2019 by Phillip R. Beaver. All rights reserved.
Permission is hereby granted for the publication of all or portions of this
paper as long as this complete copyright notice is included.
