The 4 Wise Men of the Founding Era (3)

The speaker discusses the Four Wise Men of the Founding Era, focusing on Patrick Henry and Luther Martin. They compare the Confederacy of 1860 to the Anti-Federalists of 1788 and 1789. The speaker highlights the efforts to erase the history of the Anti-Federalists, including Luther Martin, and mentions his moral character and defense of states' rights. Luther Martin's role in the Constitutional Convention is discussed, including his opposition to the election of members of Congress based on population and his authorship of the Supremacy Clause. The speaker raises concerns about the perversion of the clause's intent and Martin's belief in the importance of a jury of the people in the Supreme Court. Luther Martin's legacy and burial in an unmarked grave are mentioned. ლელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელე� Well, welcome folks to Chapter 3 of the Four Wise Men of the Founding Era. And Chapters 1 and 2 have been on Patrick Henry, and I wanted to bring Patrick out first because Patrick was, without a doubt, the most vocal of the men that I'm going to talk about, and members of the Four Wise Men. So as we look at this, I begin to realize, and just the thought hit me, that the Confederacy of 1860 was nothing but an extension of the Anti-Federalists of 1788 and 1889. The purposes were very much the same, and when we look at the predictions, especially Patrick Henry's prediction about the states committing suicide, which they most obviously have done from all of the history that we have. And when we think back about how they're silencing or trying to destroy any mention or reference to the Confederacy of the South, and attempting to just take that away from us, that history. But then, again, we go back and look at the Anti-Federalists, the Anti-Federalists suffered in many ways the same fate. Now they didn't have monuments and stuff to go out and tear down, and streets named after them, and all of the other things that the Southerners have, including military installations. They didn't have that to get rid of. But what the establishment, the wealthy aristocracy had to do was to have us just completely forget, or at least history to forget, the Anti-Federalists. So from the 1830s, early 1830s, all the way for over 100 years, until the 1950s, Anti-Federalists weren't mentioned in any noted publication in academia or anywhere else. And it took the 1950s and Professor Cecilia Kenyon to write a paper called, Oh, Ye Men of Little Faith. And then suddenly people started going, who is she talking about? And so then especially Professor Herbert Storing went in and started doing a grand investigation. He published a seven-volume set called The Complete Anti-Federalist, although unfortunately it's not The Complete Anti-Federalist. But when we talk about silencing people, desecrating their graves, and all of the things that have happened, our next wise man that I'm going to touch on has suffered just such a fate. He wasn't like Patrick Henry. He never professed his Christianity, but he had a morality. Now sometimes I look upon these, and especially with today's world, when we see what so-called Christians are doing in their 501c3 churches, I really wonder if a moralist like Luther Martin might have been better. You know, I can't talk about his salvation or anything else. But he was a moral man, and he insisted on morality throughout his life. Now yes, he was known to be a heavy drinker. You know, there's even a book about him that's called The Forgotten Founder and the Drunken Prophet. Well, you know, all we have to know about that, about his drinking issues, is the fact of what we are told. Of course, there's no eyewitnesses around today, but we do know this, is that this man, Luther Martin, the longest-sitting U.S. state attorney in our history, and then he was at the Constitutional Convention as a delegate, and then he challenged, he left in disgust in late August along with fellow Marylander John Francis Mercer. And they left the convention in disgust because they saw what was happening. They saw that a monarchy was being created. And John Francis Mercer even sends a letter to Luther Martin telling him, but if you don't believe that Luther Martin is attempted to be hidden today from us in this country, just put his name into a search engine. And you put in Luther Martin, and it's going to come back Martin Luther. They twist it around. You will go through a myriad listings of what Martin Luther did without a mention of Luther Martin. I have also asked attorneys, I worked for a group of attorneys for two years as a consultant, and I don't know, I can't remember one attorney that had ever heard of Luther Martin. And so Luther Martin today is buried in an unmarked grave, and then it has been paved over. So no one is exactly sure where he is interred, and his history has almost been completely stolen from us. So let's jump in and see if we can understand a little bit more about the morality and the man who was Luther Martin. Luther Martin was born in New Jersey in 1748, and he graduated from what is now Princeton University with honors in 1766. And then Luther quickly moved to Maryland to teach, study for the law, and to become a lawyer, a position he used on many occasions to prosecute those throughout Maryland that were called loyalists to the king, for Martin was a strong advocate for the independence of the colonies. Now there are many more interesting facets concerning Luther Martin's life, including his rabid animosity with Thomas Jefferson, which was personal more than political, and his legal defense of those whom Jefferson sought to prosecute for various reasons, including Federalist Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase, and of course Aaron Burr. But considering the focus of where we would like to go with Luther Martin and his exploits during the founding era, we'll just kind of leave those certain things behind until we get to what I feel like is the proper time to throw those in there. But Luther Martin was appointed to the position of Attorney General in Maryland in 1778, and would hold that position for near three decades. As Attorney General, Martin would join the Baltimore Light Dragoons during the Revolutionary War, but unfortunately, depending on how you look at it, he saw very limited duty because he was constantly being called back into Maryland to perform his duties as Attorney General, and those came as, believe it or not, just mandates from the governor, get back here, we've got this to take care of. So in late May of 1787, Luther Martin and four others from Maryland were commissioned as delegates to the Constitutional Convention of that year in Philadelphia. Because of the short notice and performance, required performance of his duties in Maryland, Luther Martin was a few days late arriving in Philadelphia, but became immediately concerned with the proceedings because of the rules that had been established before his arrival. Now fortunately, unlike many others, we have Martin's written words addressing these concerns. And here they are, and I quote, before I arrived, a number of rules had been adopted to regulate the proceedings of the convention, by one of which seven states might proceed to business, and consequently four states, the majority of that number, might eventually have agreed upon a system which was to affect the whole union. By another, the doors were to be shut, and the whole proceedings were to be kept secret, and so far did this rule extend that we were thereby prevented from corresponding with gentlemen in the different states upon the subjects under our discussion. A circumstance, sir, which I confess I greatly regretted. I had no idea that all of the wisdom, integrity, and virtue of the state of Maryland, or of any of the others, were centered in this convention." So Martin didn't like the fact that it was secret, and I think to not be able to discuss it with the people back in their home states I think is most revealing. But anyway, moving along, Luther Martin, being a very strong advocate for states' rights, would be strongly opposed to the election of the members of Congress based on population. He believed this would tend to leave the powers of legislation in the states with the most people. This was a most valid concern then, as it is now. But that being said, the Congress of the United States has ignored the requirements listed in the Constitution of one representative for every 30,000 people. Today in America we have each representative allegedly representing 776,000 constituents. So much for that consent of the governed, right? That is nothing but an illusion. Anyone who believes that one person could represent the wishes and what is best for three quarters of a million people is absolutely insane. But during the course of his time spent at the convention, Martin would be the author of Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the new Constitution, which would become known as the Supremacy Clause. Now listen to the whole thing here, folks, before you jump in the river on Luther Martin. While fellow Anti-Federalist Samuel Bryan very adroitly points out in his essays that Paragraph 1 of the Article VI was written to cover the embezzlement of millions of dollars under the administration of Robert Marsh as the chief financial officer of the government from 1781 to 1785, Paragraph or Clause 2, if you will, dealt with other matters. Now later in the convention, Luther Martin would become disgusted, as I mentioned before, with the proceedings at Philadelphia and leave with John Francis Mercer. And they did so in protest, and we aren't taught that for sure. When the finished product of the Constitution was signed and then made public, Luther Martin would become upset and concerned at how the wording and the intent of Article VI, Clause 2 had been perverted to mean something much different than what he had intended when he wrote it. Could this also have been schemed at the hands of the Committee of Style, as was possibly the necessary and proper clause, and perhaps even more yet undiscovered? Well, according to Luther Martin, what had he wanted to define with Article VI, Clause 2? His later writings and public speeches would reveal he believed that the trials in the Supreme Court should have a jury of the people to rule on the proceedings of that court, and the absence of said jury would gravely endanger freedom. That's what he said. It would gravely endanger freedom if the Supreme Court were allowed to be the absolute final arbiters for the people. He believed that the people should be the final arbiters, and that kind of kicks that we the people thing in the backside, doesn't it? But that is true. Martin's intent for the Supreme Court was that it only be engaged when state Supreme Courts ruled in a contradictory manner over the same issue. So here we learn, folks, that originally proposed at that convention, and left sitting within the Committee of the Whole, was the fact that the Supreme Court would have a jury to decide its decisions, but the Supreme Court would only be active, or only be involved, when two states could not agree on the same legal matter. And even then, there would be a jury of the people to decide on the Supreme Court's decision. Now Luther Martin would vigorously oppose ratification of the Constitution of 1787, both in print and in the spoken word. He made an address to the legislature of Maryland, and because of this, was severely criticized by the Federalists for violating the oath of secrecy, and actually discussing what took place at the convention before the 50-year ban had expired. So folks, this is proof positive. They didn't want the people to know what they were doing, and they clouded the whole thing in that simple phrase, we the people, because it was we the aristocracy, the wealthy aristocracy. But Luther Martin pointedly mentions why two delegates from New York left the proceedings. Now one of those will be in this series, because he is the, you know, not by numerical importance, but he is the fourth wise man of the founding era, and it will be just a fantastic task to get into all of his teachings. But Luther Martin would later follow up his letter to the legislature, and he would publish what he said in a follow-up piece, and that is, and I will read that for you, pardon me for stammering around there for a second, but anyway, the Speaker of the House of Delegates of Maryland, Sir, I flatter myself the subject of this letter will be sufficient apology for this publicly addressing it to you and through you to the other members of the House of Delegates. It cannot, pardon me, have escaped your or their recollection that when called upon as a servant of our free State to render an account of those transactions in which I had had a share in consequence of the trust reposed in me by my State, among other things, I informed them that some time in July the Honorable Mr. Yates and Mr. Lansing of New York left the Convention, and that they had uniformly opposed the system, and that, I believe, despairing of getting a proper one brought forward, or of rendering any real service, they returned no more. Pardon me again, unquote. You cannot, Sir, have forgotten, for the incident was too remarkable not to have made some impression. But then upon my giving this information, the zeal of one of my Honorable colleagues in favor of this system, which I thought it my duty to oppose, impelled him to interrupt me, and in a manner which I am confident his zeal alone prevented him from being convinced was not the most delicate, to insinuate pretty strongly that the statement which I had given of the conduct of these gentlemen and their motive for not returning was not candid. So here, folks, at his very own State Legislature, when he brought up the truth about John Lansing Jr. and Robert Yates leaving the Convention in protest, when he brought that up, he was challenged as being a liar by Mr. Carrollton, who was also a delegate to the Convention. So this, in my opinion, is proof positive that these people did not want the people to know the truth about what they were about to ratify. Just lends more credence, folks, into my position that this entire thing was nothing but a criminal conspiracy to create the Constitution that many hold in such reverence today. Well, these, going back to what Luther Martin said to the Legislature, and what he also printed later, said, Those Honorable Members have officially given information on this subject by a joint letter to His Excellency Governor Clinton. Indulge me, sir, in giving an extract from it that it may stand contrasted in the same page with the information I gave, and may convict me of the want of candor of which I was charged, if the charges were just. If it will not do that, then it should silence my accuser. And then he stated, Thus circumstanced, this is a quote from the letter from John Francis Mercer and Robert Yates to the Governor of New York, as is now quoted by Luther Martin. So let's make sure we have that squared away. Quote, Thus circumstanced, under these impressions, to have hesitated would have been to be culpable. We therefore gave the principles of the Constitution, which has received the sanction of the majority of the Convention, our decided and unreserved dissent. We were not present at the completion of the new Constitution, but before we left the Convention, its principles were so well established as to convince us that no alteration was to be expected to conform it to our ideas of expediency and safety. A persuasion that our further attendance would be fruitless and unavailing rendered us less salacious to return. Now back to what Luther Martin was saying. These, sir, are their words. On this I shall make no comment. I wish not to wound the feelings of any person. I only wish to convince. I have the honor to remain with the utmost respect your very obedient servant, Luther Martin. Well, Luther Martin also spoke against the outcry claiming the Articles of Confederation must be replaced by a new Constitution, because the Articles lacked the necessary energy. Luther Martin would write eloquently of his objections, using an allegory of Aesop, in which was drawn the image of the people being frogs, and those frogs trading their known log for an unknown crane which would devour them all. This is fantastic, folks. It's a little long, but I've got to read it. Has not Luther Martin's prediction come to exact fruition? Listen and make up your own mind. There are also persons who pretend that your situation is at present so bad that it cannot be worse, and urge that as an argument why we should embrace any remedy they might propose, however desperate it may appear. Thus do the poor, erring children of mortality, suffering under the presence of real or imaginary evils, have recourse to a pistol or a halter for relief, and rashly launch into the untried regions of eternity, nor wake from this delusion until they wake in endless woe. Should the citizens of America, in a fit of desperation, be induced to commit this fatal act of political suicide, to which by such arguments they are stimulated, the day will come when laboring under more than Egyptian bondage, compelled to finish their quota of brick though destitute of straw and of mortar, galled with your chains, and worn down by your oppression, you will, by sad experience, be convinced, when that conviction shall be too late, that there is a difference in evils, and that the buzzing of gnats is more supportable than the sting of the serpent. From the wisdom of antiquity we might obtain excellent instruction, if we were not too proud to profit by it. Aesop has furnished us with a history of a nation of frogs, between which, and our own, there is a striking resemblance. Whether the catastrophe be the same, rest with ourselves. Another out of pure good nature, wishing to do them as little injury as possible, on being asked for a king, had thrown down into their pond a log to rule over them, under whose government, had they been wise enough to know their own interest and to pursue it, they might to this day have remained happy and prosperous. with the noise, and affrighted by the violent undulations of the water, they for some time kept an awful distance, and regarded their monarch with reverence, but the first impression being in some measure worn off, and perceiving him to be of a tame and a peaceable disposition, they approached him with familiarity, and soon entertained for him the utmost contempt. In a little time were seen the leaders of the frogs croaking to their respective circles, on the weakness and feebleness of the government at home, and of its want of dignity and respect abroad, till the sentiment being caught by their auditors, the whole pond resounded with, O Jupiter, good Jupiter, hear our prayers, take away from us this vile log, and give us a ruler who shall know how to support the dignity and splendor of government. Give us any government you please, only that it be energetic and efficient. The thunderer, in his wrath, sent them a crane. With what delight did they gaze on their monarch, as he came majestically floating on the wings of the wind. They admired his uncommon shape, it was such as they had never seen before. His deformities were in their eyes the greatest of beauties, and they were heard like Aristides, to declare that, were they on the verge of eternity, they would not wish a single alteration in his form. His monstrous beak, his long neck, and his enormous poke, even these, the future means of their total destruction, were subjects of their warm approbation. He took possession of his new dominions, and instantly began to swallow down his subjects, and it is said that those who had been the warmest zealots for crane administration fared no better than the rest. The poor wretches were now much more dissatisfied than before, and with all the possible humility applied to Jupiter again for his aid. And in vain he dismissed them with this reproof, that the evil of which they complained they had foolishly brought upon themselves, and that they had no other remedy now but to submit with patience. Thus forsaken by the God, and left to the mercy of the crane, they sought to escape his cruelty by flight. But pursuing them to every place of retreat, and thrusting his long neck through the water to the bottom, he drew them out with his beak from their most secret hiding places, and served them up as a regale for his ravenous appetite. This present federal government is, my fellow citizens, the log of the fable. The crane is the system now offered to your acceptance, the Constitution. I wish you not to remain under the government of the one, nor to become subjected to the tyranny of the other. If either of these events take place, it must arise from your being greatly deficient to yourselves from your being like a nation of frogs, a discontented, variable race, weary of liberty and fond of change. At the same time, I have no hesitation in declaring that if the one or the other must be our fate, I think the harmless, inoffensive, though contemptible log infinitely to be preferred to the powerful but efficient, all-devouring crane." How beautiful. What an analogy. But let's ask ourselves a question. Why does Luther Martin matter when it comes to the Constitution of 1787, and his obvious objections to the ratification of that government created with that Constitution? Luther Martin provides a unique perspective from many of the other Anti-Federalists, because he, well, along with Robert Yates, was actually an attendee at the convention in Philadelphia. Now it is true, as I said, that other Antis were there, Robert Yates, John Lansing, Jr., and George Mason, but Luther Martin actually got into the nuts and bolts of the convention with the legislature of the state of Maryland, which chose him as a delegate, and provides that perspective which we don't get from the others except in the case of Robert Yates. It should be noted that Martin received severe criticism from the Federalists for violating the Code of Silence the delegates adopted. But thankfully, Martin had more devotion to his state and its people than did those who sought to keep their political machinations secret, even from those who sent them to Philadelphia. Of course, you know, Luther Martin also was there late, and he didn't take the oath when it was given at the beginning, so he was able to remind them of that, but some 32 years later, Luther Martin would caustically remind Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Marshall, of his attendance in Philadelphia. In the case called McCulloch v. Maryland, Martin, as Attorney General for the state of Maryland, was lectured incessantly by Marshall on the intent of the Framers when they created the Constitution. Luther Martin would reply, and I quote, with all due respect, Mr. Chief Justice, I was there, you were not, unquote. That is the character of Luther Martin. The Maryland legislature would ask Luther Martin to provide them with the details of his attendance at that convention. You know, there's a bunch, and I would highly recommend a thorough study of his words, folks, and it's not, like I said, his name's hard enough to find, his works are even harder to find. But Luther Martin would begin the proceedings on December the 28th, 1787, to the legislature of the state of Maryland, and with the following explanation, and I quote, Mr. Speaker, since I was notified of the resolve of this honorable house that we should attend this day to give information with regard to the proceedings of the late convention, my time has necessarily been taken up with legal business, and I have also been obliged to make a journey to the eastern shore. These circumstances have prevented me from being as well prepared as I could wish to give the information this body requires. However, the few leisure moments I could spare I have devoted to refreshing my memory by looking over the papers and notes in my possession, and shall with pleasure, to the best of my abilities, render an account of my conduct. It was not in my power to attend the convention immediately upon my appointment. I took my seat, I believe, about the 8th or 9th of June. I found that Governor Randolph of Virginia had laid before the convention certain propositions for their consideration, which have been read to this house by my honorable colleague, and I believe he has very faithfully detailed the substance of the speech with which the business of the convention was opened, for though I was not there at that time, I saw notes which had been taken of it. The members of the convention from the states came there under some different powers. Well, the different powers that Luther Martin was speaking of were the authorizations from the states which were provided delegates to the convention. Here is established there was no authorization to the delegates from their respective states to totally abandon the Articles of Confederation and to prepare an entirely new document of governance. Back to Luther Martin. The greatest number, I believe, under powers, nearly the same as those of the delegates of this state, some came to the convention under the former appointment of the Annapolis Convention, authorizing the meeting of delegates merely to regulate trade. Those of Delaware were expressly instructed to agree to no system which should take away from the states that equality of suffrage secured by the original Articles of Confederation. One state, one vote. Well, Luther Martin then launched into his description of the rules that had been established before his arrival, and we've talked about those. But then Martin details the objects of the Virginia Plan as introduced by Governor Randolph from Virginia, but written at least a month prior to the beginning of the convention by James Madison and transmitted by post to George Washington and Alexander Hamilton, being proof positive people of the intention of the leading Federalists were a complete and total annihilation of the Articles of Confederation in direct violation of the authority provided by their respective states. In other words, very simply put, in Appalachian plainspeak, nobody told them they could do that. But now, in another description, Martin outlines how Virginia sought to gain more influence along with Pennsylvania and Massachusetts in a plan wherein the states with the most population would achieve controlling interest in the government. Now, ironically, we are seeing the exact same dynamic in this country today with the move by various states to elect the president by a completely popular vote, but abandoning the Electoral College, which also has a lot of faults. But let's get back to Luther Martin. The object of Virginia and other large states to increase their power and influence over the others did not escape my observation. The subject, however, was discussed with great coolness in the Committee of the Whole House, for the Convention had resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole to deliberate upon the propositions delivered by the Honorable Member from Virginia. Hopes were formed that the further we proceeded in the examination of the resolutions, the better the House might be satisfied of the impropriety of adopting a new system, and that they would finally be rejected by a majority of the Committee. If on the contrary, a majority should report in their favor, it was considered that it would not preclude the members from bringing forward and submitting any other system to the consideration of the Convention, and accordingly, while those resolves were the subject of discussion in the Committee of the Whole House, a number of the members who disapproved them were preparing another system, such as they thought more conducive to the happiness and welfare of the states. The propositions originally submitted to the Convention having been debated and undergone a variety of alterations in the course of our proceedings, the Committee of the Whole House, by a small majority, agreed to a report, which I am happy, sir, to have in my power to lay before you. It was as follows. Well, let's think for just a second before I get into that. It is easy to discern from the description that I just gave of Luther Martin that the subterfuge that was taking place in the Convention, even aside from the obvious intention of leaving the restrictions of the Articles of Confederation in the heat and the dust of Philadelphia, was their primary reason for being there. So let's take a look at the proposals for the new government which Martin spoke of and related to the legislature of the State of Maryland. Number one, resolve that it is the opinion of this Committee that a national government ought to be established consisting of a supreme legislature, judiciary, and executive. Number two, that the legislative ought to consist of two branches, that the members of the first branch of the national legislature ought to be elected by the people of the several States for the term of three years to receive fixed stipends by which they may be compensated for the devotion of their time to public service, to be paid out of the national treasury, to be ineligible to any office established by a particular State or under the authority of the United States, except those particularly belonging to the functions of the first branch during the term of service and under the national government for the space of one year after its expiration. Number four, that the members of the second branch of the legislature ought to be chosen by the individual legislatures to be of the age of thirty years at least to hold their office for a term sufficient to ensure their independency, namely, seven years, one-third to go into biannually to receive fixed stipends by which they may be compensated for the devotion of their time to public service, to be paid out of the national treasury, to be ineligible to any office by a particular State or under the authority of the United States, except those peculiarly belonging to the functions of the second branch during the term of service and under the national government for the space of one year after its expiration. Number five, that each branch ought to possess the right of originating acts. Number six, that the national legislature ought to be empowered to enjoy the legislative rights vested in Congress by the Confederation and, moreover, to legislate in all cases to which the separate States are incompetent. I still have a big problem with that. How does the Feds decide the States are incompetent and are able to rule when the States, when they find the federal government to be incompetent, have zero authority or power? Well, let me continue with these points here. Or in which the harmony of the United States may be interrupted by the exercise of individual legislation to negative all laws passed by the several States, states, right? Yeah, right, contravening in the opinion of the legislature of the United States the Articles of Union or any treaties subsisting under the authority of the Union. Number seven, that the right of suffrage in the first branch of the national legislature ought not to be according to the rule established in the Articles of Confederation, but according to some equitable rate of representation, namely, in proportion to the whole number of white and other free citizens and inhabitants of every age, sex, and condition, including those bound to servitude for a term of years, and three-fifths of all other persons not comprehended in the foregoing description, except Indians not paying taxes in each State, that the right of suffrage in the second branch of the national legislature ought to be according to the rules established in the first, in other words, population. That a national executive be instituted, this is number nine, that a national executive be instituted to consist of a single person to be chosen by the national legislature for the term of seven years, with power to carry into execution the national laws, to appoint to offices in cases not otherwise provided for, to be ineligible for a second term, and to be removable on impeachment and conviction of malpractice or neglect of duty, to receive a fixed stipend by which he may be compensated for the devotion of his time to public service, to be paid out of the national treasury. Number ten, that the national executive shall have a right to negative any legislative act which shall not afterwards be passed unless by two-thirds parts of each branch of the national legislature. Number eleven, that a national judiciary be established to consist of one supreme tribunal, the judges of which to be appointed by the second branch of the national legislature, to hold their offices during good behavior, and to receive punctually, at stated times, a fixed compensation for their services, in which no increase or diminution shall be made, so as to affect the persons actually in office at the time of such increase. Number twelve, that the national legislature be empowered to appoint inferior tribunals. Number thirteen, that the jurisdiction of the national judiciary shall extend to cases which respect the collection of the national revenue, cases arriving under the laws of the United States, impeachments of any national officer, and questions which involve the national peace and harmony. Number fourteen, resolve that provision ought to be made for the admission of states lawfully arising within the limits of the United States, whether from a voluntary junction of government territory or otherwise, with the consent of a number of voices in the national legislature less than the whole. Resolve that provision ought to be made for the continuance of Congress and their authority and privileges until a given day after the reform of the Articles of Union shall be adopted, and for the completion of all their engagements. The next one, that a republican constitution and its existing laws ought to be guaranteed to each state by the United States. Well, we certainly don't have that. Number seventeen, that provision ought to be made for the amendment of the Articles of Union whensoever it shall seem necessary. Eighteen, that the legislative, executive, and judiciary powers within the several states ought to be bound by oath to support the Articles of the Union. Nineteen, that the amendments which shall be offered to the Confederation by this Convention ought, at a proper time or times after the approbation of Congress, to be submitted to an assembly or assemblies recommended by the legislatures, to be expressly chosen by the people to consider and decide thereon. So, taking all of those proposals, what were Luther Martin's thoughts on these, which were sanctioned by the majority of delegates present in that committee? Let's not forget for a second here now that the vast majority of delegates at that convention were Federalists, Nationalists, or benign Monarchists, and they even said they wanted a monarchy, but not in so many words, and a great number believed they would participate in the government that they themselves were creating. So here's what Luther Martin said himself, and I quote, These propositions, sir, were acceded to by a majority of the members of the committee, a system by which the large states were to have not only an inequality of suffrage in the first branch, but also the same inequality in the second branch, or the Senate. However, it was not designed the second branch should consist of the same number as the first. Now it was originally proposed that the Senate should consist of twenty-eight members, formed on the following scale. Virginia would have five Senators, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts four Senators each, South Carolina, North Carolina, Maryland, New York, and Connecticut two Senators, and the states of New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, and Georgia one Senator. Upon this plan, the three large states, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts would have thirteen Senators out of twenty-eight, almost half of the whole number. Fifteen Senators were to be a quorum to proceed to business. Those three states would therefore have thirteen out of that quorum. Having this inequality in each branch of the legislature, it must be evident, sir, that they would make the laws they pleased, however disagreeable or injurious to the other states, and that they would always prevent the other states from making any laws, however necessary and proper, if not agreeable to the views of those three states. There were, not only, sir, by this system to have such an undue superiority in making laws and regulations for the Union, but to have the same superiority in the appointment of the President, and judges, and all other officers of government. Hence, those three states would, in reality, have the appointment of the President, judges, and all other officers. The President and these judges so appointed, we may be morally certain, would be citizens of one of those three states, and the President, as appointed by them, and a citizen of one of them, would espouse their interest and their views when they came in competition with the views and interests of the other states. This President, so appointed by the three large states, and so unduly under their influence, was to have a negative upon every law that could be passed, which, if negative by him, was not to take effect unless assented to by two-thirds of each branch of the legislatures, a provision which deprived ten states of even the faintest shadow of liberty. For if they, by a miraculous unanimity, having all of their members present, should outvote the other three, and pass a law contrary to those wishes, those three large states need only procure the President to negative it, and thereby prevent a possibility of it ever taking effect, because the representatives of those three states would amount to much more than one-third, almost one-half, actually, in the representatives of each branch. And sir, this government, so organized, with all this undue superiority in those three large states, was, as you see, to have a power of negativing the laws passed by every state legislature in the Union. Folks, when have you ever heard this? When were we ever taught this? I know I wasn't, but, you know, and how many of us again were ever taught about the brilliance of Luther Martin? Well with just this much being said about Luther Martin, it should become obvious to almost everyone of why he is buried in an unmarked grave paved over for a parking lot. His legal brilliance was just without comparison, in my opinion, as far as legal brilliance, not oratorical skills, but I think even his knowledge of the legal system was even more than perhaps even Patrick Henry. But a quote from Luther Martin in his address to the legislature of his home state of Maryland, explaining the events that took place at the Constitutional Convention, led me years ago to question much of what I and others have been taught about the founding era of this country, our Constitution, and its intended purpose, and who and what motivated those who composed it. We know the roots of the Convention in 1787 are to be found at the meeting at Mount Vernon in 1785, followed by the Annapolis Convention of 1786. Both of these meetings were openly described as an attempt to further the commercial interest of the country following the end of the Revolutionary War. How then can the theory the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was pursued on the same grounds by many of the same participants be ever discounted? They just kept going and they found out that they had to have George Washington or they just wasn't going to get this thing pushed over. But at no time at either Mount Vernon or Annapolis were the tenets of liberty and freedom a primary objective, or was it even mentioned as being necessary. Since the attendees at all three meetings were considered, of course, the wealthy aristocracy of the day, it would only stand to reason their purpose was the pursuit of their own interest. Could this not make the addition of a Bill of Rights superfluous, and perhaps, as they would later claim, completely unnecessary? Well, in the previous decade, where the primary interest was a separation from England, was not the concern for liberty and freedom the primary focus? Therefore, documents such as the Declaration of Independence focused more on the aspects of liberty than they did on the commercial interests of the wealthy and the well-born. We have all most likely read the Declaration of Independence on many occasions. But how many are aware of the part of the original draft that Jefferson was pressured to remove that indicted and condemned King George for the introduction of black slavery into the colonies? Well, if you haven't heard it before, or you haven't read it, this paragraph that he was forced to delete, I am about to read it for you. And I quote, He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating the most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people, who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation tither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain, determined to keep the market where men could be bought and sold. He has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce, and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die. He is now exciting these very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has denied them himself, by murdering the people upon whom he has also obtruded them. He is thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of others. So why would such wording in a document of secession cause such consternation by many of those we call founders? Jefferson in his later life would claim it was the delegates from South Carolina and Georgia who objected to the above passage, but would also state many of the northern representatives felt a little tender on the subject because of the money they had personally acquired in the transportation and selling of slaves. They were also aware that King George had hired one of the ablest authors of the day, Samuel Johnson, to attack the colonists for their principled stand against the king and his slave trade. And this is what Samuel Johnson published. He said, and I quote, how is it we hear the greatest yelps for liberty among the drivers of Negroes? Unquote. Well, folks, hang on to that name, Samuel Johnson, because it's going one of those real anomalies is going to show itself as we move forward. Well, let's not forget that John Murray, the fourth Lord of Dunmore, who was the royal governor of Virginia, had issued Dunmore's proclamation declaring martial law, oh my, and granting freedom to the slaves in Virginia who would leave their masters and join the Red Coat Army in November of 1775. Now available records at the Library of Congress and at the National Archives indicate only two to three hundred slaves out of two hundred thousand in Virginia actually took advantage of Dunmore's offer, while other documents show a sizable number of blacks throughout the colonies signed on to fight with the Revolutionary Army. A book could and should be written about these American patriots, especially a gentleman named Salem Poore. This is going to be that old thing, history doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes. Wow, isn't that Dunmore's, you know, Emancipation Proclamation? Oh, moving along. Facts are facts, and an honest individual must accept the bitter as well as the sweet. The claim that the Constitution was inspired by a deity are in essence just absolutely preposterous. How could the Creator, referenced in the Declaration of Independence, who sanctioned the belief all men are created equal, have later inspired a document that would have made one race or class of people subservient to another? When the heated arguments referenced counting blacks toward representation in government occurred during the heat of the summer of 1787, were those divinely inspired men of the North who did not want the blacks to count at all during representation, but finally compromised with the delegates from the South and agreed on the three-fifths of the black population? Was it a divinely inspired Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts who asked if the South were allowed to count their slaves should the northern folks not be allowed to count their horses and cattle as voters too? Those who believe, even for a moment, that morality was more important to the delegates in Philadelphia than was their desire to establish a form of government would create a national union which they could use to protect their financial interests, just as the meetings at Mount Vernon and Annapolis had previously addressed are simply grasping at emotional illusions which have been created for you by none other than the Marxist education system in this country. Proof, you say? George Washington proposed in the Committee of the Whole that the President be vested with the power to veto all acts of Congress, even if the lawmakers unanimously disagreed with him. John Rutledge of South Carolina, who would later become the second Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, would declare openly at the Convention that, and I quote, religion and humanity have nothing to do with this Convention's proceedings. Hmm. Representatives from North Carolina would echo the thoughts of Rutledge, unfortunately. Oliver Ellsworth, a delegate from Connecticut, another future Supreme Court Justice, U.S. Senator and presidential candidate himself in 1796, would state at the Convention, and I quote, the delegates in Pennsylvania were there to make political, not ethical, decisions. To keep the Union of the States intact for commercial, not ethical, reasons, the Convention would agree to continue what Jefferson referred to as a disease in the public mind for twenty more years. Was this an effort to enhance morality or an effort to protect the commerce and financial interest of the people at the Convention? Was what some might call a catastrophic moral failure at the Constitutional Convention, a failure to deal with a moral issue which would lead to a massive war in 1861 in which almost a million Americans would lose their lives and divide a culture and a country forever? Was it divinely inspired or an effort by the wealthy aristocracy of that time to continue a profitable venture and to promote commerce favorable to them and their own banking interest? Well, when it comes to the claims, the Constitution itself or the delegates to that Convention were divinely inspired. You know, I think there are quite a few things, you know, that would just prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that, you know, the Constitution was divinely inspired by men who said it wasn't. Hmm. Okay. Well, that one kind of takes me over the edge there and this will be, you know, a subject that we will certainly be looking at as we move along. Well, folks, there's a lot more to be said about Luther Martin and we will continue that in lesson number four. I just want to thank you for reading my work and for supporting my work, if you possibly can, as a paid subscriber here at Substack. But I also want to issue an apology of sorts in that a good friend and someone I trust told me that when I first started back after my concussion doing these that I kind of stuttered and stammered over words and what have you. Folks, for that, I apologize. But I hope it didn't affect the bottom line of the information from original source documents that I feel that it is imperative that we all have as we look at the troubles that have originated from this document, which are now leading us into a, I believe, a political and to a financial abyss. Well, God bless you all. Look forward to number four.