Why Was The Convention In Philadelphia Secret?
The Painful Truth About The Writers Of The CONstitution.
Produced for the victors, this famous painting gives a wrong impression of what happened in the 1787 Convention in Philadelphia, a convention authorized to improve the Articles of Confederation but instead tore up the Articles.
Please allow me to go back to the year 1786 in our race’s and our country’s history, and let us tour a short, historic chain of events, which was the actual overthrow of the 12-year successful government under the Articles Of Confederation.
But first, one introductory question:
Is this subject old, dead, and not important today as we strive to overthrow the enemies who rule over us?
No, it is vital. Why? Because we must understand this shocking historic chain of events, and who committed the high crimes and misdemeanors, so as not to ignorantly repeat any of those mistakes. With all our might we must endeavor to establish a new and proper government for the security of our people, for the future of our race, and for a mighty country never again to be a world villain nor a victim to any anti-White force.
The Confederation of 13 States
In 1776, the colonies declared themselves independent States and united in a fight against corrupt British rule. (With relatively few changes, The Declaration Of Independence can fit our situation today.) Soon after that, a group of the Founding Fathers wrote and signed the Articles Of Confederation as their constitution, the framework for the union, the basic law by which all must abide.
Although Maryland was slow in signing on, the 13 united states fought through the subsequent war against Great Britain (headquarters in London, England) and emerged victorious.
Following the war’s end, the Confederation, the united states, continued successfully though with some deficiencies arising from the limitations of the Articles Of Confederation.
Note: What did “confederation” mean? The meaning of “federation” and “confederation” meant a joining for mutual benefit but while retaining each member’s status as an otherwise independent State. This term, from which the adjective “federal” was born, is very important. By the end of this article, the reader will know who co-opted this term, usurped this term, and reversed its meaning so as to confuse the public and demonize their opponents.
Hamilton’s Annapolis meeting of 1786
Actually, Hamilton was no “federalist.” He was a leader of the group who usurped that term, who co-opted that term. Hamilton was instrumental in wiping out the truly federal government of the original United States.
One year before the so-called Constitutional Convention was held in Philadelphia, Alexander Hamilton (a lawyer, previously a member of Congress, and a bank founder from New York) and a relatively small group of both famous and obscure men held a meeting in Annapolis, Maryland. This appears to have been a secret meeting, but whether it was secret or not, it is a very interesting event in the chain of events that resulted in the Constitution replacing the unanimously adopted Articles Of Confederation.
My searches thus far have turned up scant documentation of the Annapolis meeting. Various government and university sites offer bits, and Wikipedia (owned and operated by jews) offers a list of attendees. The sites variously describe either Hamilton or James Madison as the head of the meeting. Yes, that Madison is the James Madison Jr. who went on to play the role of referee in the so-called Constitutional Convention, at which Hamilton was also a key figure.
Here, before I provide that list of attendees at Annapolis, I should explain why I say the “so-called Constitutional Convention.” It was originally called simply a convention to consider options for enhancing the Articles Of Confederation. After the convention, the misleading, half-truth title “Constitutional Convention” was attached. One other note: The many quotes in this article can speak for themselves, therefore I have allowed myself to add colorful commentary based on my knowledge, which is justified toward countering the bias we have been fed our whole lives.
The attendees at the Annapolis meeting were, according to Wikipedia:
New York: Egbert Benson and Alexander Hamilton
New Jersey: Abraham Clark, William Houston, and James Schureman
Pennsylvania: Tench Coxe
Delaware: George Read, John Dickinson, and Richard Bassett
Virginia: Edmund Randolph, James Madison, Jr., and St. George Tucker
From what we gather while reading the documents I refer to in this article, the main powers at that time were the States of Virginia (Number One), Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts. Notice that Virginia and Pennsylvania are represented above, with Virginia having Governor Edmund Randolph and the ever-present Madison.
I think we must add New York to the group of main powers because of New York City, and of course Hamilton was a New York delegate.
The Annapolis Report
James Madison Jr., a leader with Hamilton at Annapolis and then most prominent in the Convention in Philadelphia.
Link to the Report.
By all the accounts I have found, Hamilton wrote the final “Report” that resulted from the Annapolis meeting. We are told that the Report was delivered to their five State legislatures, the confederation’s Congress, and to the other States’ governors.
What are the most important pieces of that Report?
Hamilton referred to himself and the attendees as “Commissioners to Remedy Defects of the Federal Government.”
Given the list of attendees above, we know that the other eight States had no representative at this Annapolis meeting. Hamilton reported:
“That appointments of Commissioners have also been made by the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and North Carolina, none of whom, however, have attended; but that no information has been received by your Commissioners, of any appointment having been made by the States of Connecticut, Maryland, South Carolina or Georgia.”
Hamilton decorated his little group’s agreement with the term “unanimous” and went on to exaggerate the number and import of “defects in the system of the Federal Government.” However, despite the supposed seriousness of the many defects, Hamilton identified none of them because to identify them would have been “a useless intrusion” of information into his report:
“Your Commissioners decline an enumeration of those national circumstances on which their opinion respecting the propriety of a future Convention, with more enlarged powers, is founded; as it would be a useless intrusion ….”
As shown by the last quote immediately above, and others in the Report, Hamilton pressed for “enlarged powers” for the next attempt to remedy defects or deficiencies in the Articles Of Confederation.
Hamilton actually called for a particular time and place for the next attempt:
“to meet at Philadelphia on the second Monday in May next, to take into consideration the situation of the United States, to devise such further provisions as shall appear to them necessary to render the constitution of the Federal Government adequate to the exigencies of the Union; …”
Finally, Hamilton also laid out a process, one he later urged avoiding. The future group was to write out their remedy “and to report such an Act for that purpose to the United States in Congress assembled, as when agreed to, by them, and afterwards confirmed by the Legislatures of every State, will effectually provide for the same.
Below, we shall see why Hamilton did not want to write down his group’s topics of discussion, and we shall see why he and his fellows later feared putting their Constitution’s fate in the hands of State legislatures.
Congress Issues Orders, February 1787
Hamilton’s Annapolis meeting ended in September 1786. In the following February, the year being 1787, Congress authorized a meeting to which all States were invited to send delegates. The orders followed Hamilton’s prescription. The meeting’s official opening, however, was delayed as Hamilton and others waited for the arrival of what they, themselves, decided would be a sufficient number of States represented short of 13. Congress said:
” Resolved, That in the opinion of Congress, it is expedient, that on the second Monday in May next, a convention of delegates, who shall have been appointed by the several States, be held at Philadelphia, for the sole and express purpose of revising the articles of confederation, and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures, such alterations and provisions therein, as shall, when agreed to in Congress, and confirmed by the States, render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of government, and the preservation of the Union.”
(source: a U.S. government publication looking back on that period in history, as quoted in the Robert Yates book to be cited and linked below.)
It is very important to note Congress’s stated purpose for the convention. From the above quote: “for the sole and express purpose of revising the articles of confederation” to “render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of government, and the preservation of the Union.”
That does not say to replace the Articles Of Confederation. It says to revise them, which means to enhance them, improve them, in light of known deficiencies.
Invitations and Refusals
Each State had the right to send delegates to the planned convention set for less than three months later (the wait was from mid February to mid May). How the States chose them, I don’t know. But a most noteworthy invitee absolutely rejected the invitation. He refused to attend.
Patrick Henry. This image is from a U.S. government archive. A photo of a color painting of Henry is in the banner atop this website.
Patrick Henry is that Founding Father from Virginia who refused to attend the convention to begin in May 1787 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He opposed the secrecy and he opposed a much stronger central government. That’s plenty — the secrecy being enough reason. But personally, I suggest there were more reasons, as Henry surely had heard of the Annapolis meeting, and he knew well some of the men involved.
Henry’s conviction on secrecy, as later expressed in debates in Virginia, was very clear:
“The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.”
(source: this page on www.constitution.org)
Patrick Henry wasn’t the only one who refused or declined. Another famous name, Samuel Adams, from Massachusetts. Willie Jones was another decliner, from North Carolina.
Rhode Island never sent anyone to attend. Oh, little Rhode Island is a very interesting subject, home of the main port of the immensely profitable, barbaric, jew-owned slave trade from Africa, yet also home to men such as William West who led an armed protest of more than a thousand men into the State’s capital on the Fourth Of July, 1788. Let us remember William West when we arrive, below, at a conclusion about this chain of events.
Others refused to attend. This teachingamericanhistory.org page offers the following:
73 delegates were appointed to the Constitutional Convention. 18 declined their appointments: Richard Henry Lee (Virginia), Thomas Nelson (Virginia), Patrick Henry (Virginia), Abraham Clark (New Jersey), John Neilson (New Jersey), Richard Coswell (North Carolina), Willie Jones (North Carolina), George Watson (Georgia), Nathaniel Pendleton (Georgia), Henry Laurens (South Carolina), Francis Dana (Massachusetts), Gabriel Duvall (Maryland), Robert Hansen Harrison (Maryland), Thomas Stone (Maryland), Charles Caroll (Maryland), Thomas Sim Lee (Maryland), John Pickering (New Hampshire), and Benjamin West (New Hampshire).
Surely, each of those 18 decliners mentioned above had a group of allies in their States. Our national media, academia, and government publishers have flushed them down the Memory Hole.
Introducing Mr. Robert Yates and Mr. John Lansing
New York’s very well known delegate was Alexander Hamilton. But two other New York delegates unknown nowadays were Robert Yates and John Lansing, who are now prominent in my mind. Allow me to offer very brief introductions.
Robert Yates was born in Schenectady, New York, in 1738, and became a lawyer, worked in the state capital of Albany, and earned the nickname “the honest lawyer” as even then, of course, such a man was rare in high places — especially in New York. When the revolutionary war broke out, Yates was already in government and continued to serve there. At the time he attended the Convention in Philadelphia, he was a 49-year-old justice on New York State’s Supreme Court, and later became Chief Justice. He died relatively poor, as do many good men who honorably shun, as did he, taking advantage of position. (No image of Yates. My searches turned up conflicting images labeled as Robert Yates, with most main biography sites having no image at all.)
John Lansing. One source says he had a small speech impediment.
John Lansing, identified as a junior in some accounts, was born in Albany, New York, in 1754. Thus, Lansing was 16 years younger than Yates, who was related by marriage. During the revolutionary war, he was a military secretary for a general. Later, from 1780 to 1790, he served mostly as a member of the State legislature, including a term as Speaker. Also during that decade, he served a term in Congress and some years as mayor of Albany.
The Main Event: Convention In Philadelphia
Let me begin by starting at the end, but very briefly. When the convention ended in September 1787, the group still in attendance voted to make all notes of the convention secret, and they put them in the hands of the president of the convention, George Washington. Yes, secret. And even the great men opposed to the Constitution honored the secrecy agreement. Why? Honor. Honor poorly placed. Apparently, nothing was published until 1821.
James Madison’s Notes On The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 is the most popular publication of notes on who said what during the convention in Philadelphia. I have read every word of it, while taking notes, and read it all again on a different website to compare versions. (Both sites are linked below.) When I quote from Madison’s Notes, I will say so. Madison’s publication was not the first.
A different publication, which preceded the Madison publication and surely spurred the Madison publication as a defensive reaction, is this:
The title page of the historic publication of the notes of Robert Yates. I believe it was first published in 1821, as the page signed by the editor carries that date. But this page says 1844, perhaps a later edition.
Secret Proceedings And Debates of the Convention Assembled at Philadelphia, 1787. (We find the long title often abbreviated different ways on websites.) This book, published in 1821, credits Robert Yates as the author (see brief bio above).
Yates had died, his wife had put control of his notes in the hands of another, and John Lansing (see brief bio above) decided that the time had come to publish the truth about what had gone on in that Convention. Remember, Yates and Lansing were both delegates from New York having no choice but to be in the company of Hamilton.
Lansing copied the complete set of notes by Yates and put it all in the book along with a powerful section by Luther Martin, a delegate sent by Maryland to the Convention in Philadelphia. My opinion is that this Yates-Lansing-Martin book is more reliable than the subsequent Madison version of events. Most of my quotes in this article will come from the Yates book and will say so. Teachers should only teach what is good and correct. The Yates book should be taught to every student of our nation.
Let us enter the room with Luther Martin, 39 years old, and see what he sees has already been done. This is from the Yates book, where we find the full presentation Martin gave to his Maryland legislature about his experiences at the Convention. Martin entered through the guarded door and into the historic room of high ceiling, wooden furniture, and some “illustrious men”:
“It was not in my power to attend the convention immediately on my appointment. I took my seat, I believe, about, the 8th or 9th of June. … 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; …”
Martin was shocked, as you will soon know for certain by further quotes below. Let us restate those two points very plainly.
- Although 13 States made up the country, the group at the Convention decided that they needed only Seven States in attendance to reach conclusions. And since a majority of Seven is Four, a group of Four States would be able conclude whatever they so desired. A mere Four States could produce a new Constitution and attempt to impose it on the entire country.
- The secrecy rule meant that the attendees could not discuss any of the Convention’s issues with any wise men outside those doors, back in their State capitals, nowhere.
From both Yates’ and Madison’s notes, we learn that the first big business on the issues had been the unveiling of a plan that basically said what the U.S. Constitution says now! It had been written already. (This may remind the reader of the huge Patriot Act, written before 9/11 and then presented after 9/11 as if it had been written as a “patriotic” reaction to the terror events of that day.) The governor of the most powerful State, Gov. Edmund Randolph of Virginia, gave a long speech and then presented the plan to the attendees.
Yates, in his notes for that day of May 29th, reported of Randolph:
“He candidly confessed, that they were not intended for a federal government; he meant a strong, consolidated union, in which the idea of States should be nearly annihilated.”
The next day, May 30th, Randolph moved for the approval of the following conclusions:
“1. Resolved, That a union of the States, merely federal, will not accomplish the objects proposed by the articles of the confederation, namely, common defence, security of liberty, and general welfare.
“2. Resolved, That no treaty or treaties among any of the States, as sovereign, will accomplish or secure their common defence, liberty, or welfare.
“3. Resolved, That a national government ought to be established, consisting of a supreme judicial, legislative, and executive.”
I ask the reader to note the use of the word “federal” in Resolve 1, which is the proper usage. Randolph and his allies of Madison, Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, and others, are here against the federal Articles Of Confederation. They are the anti-federalists. But later, they deceitfully usurp the term “federalists” and label Patrick Henry, Yates, Lansing, Martin, and others as “anti-federalists.”
Resolve 2 says that no agreement among the currently sovereign States under the Articles Of Confederation will accomplish their goals.
Resolve 3 uses the term “national” government, which was clearly understood by the Founding Fathers as a government that would “annihilate” State governments and eventually reign tyranny upon them.
The Randolph plan, later known as the Virginia Plan (and the “national” plan, and the “system” plan), would overthrow the current country’s government. Congress had authorized them to improve the Articles Of Conferation of the current country, not tear up the Articles and replace them with a different kind of government. It was a plan of overthrow by a set of leaders. What is another common, historic name for such a thing? Treason.
George Washington, at 45 years old.
Did any Founding Father in the room at that time point out the obvious? Not George Washington.
An aside: Washington is famously quoted as having said that “an armed society is a polite society.” And as the later Aaron Burr versus Alexander Hamilton gun duel showed, insults that went beyond a man’s ideas to strike the man personally could result in a call to duel and death. The infamous Burr killed the infamous Hamilton, but far too late for the good of the country. So, in Philadelphia, the men endeavored to remain polite.
Charles Pinckney, however, a delegate from South Carolina, spoke out. (South Carolina had two Pinckneys, the other being Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, and the notes are not exactly clear about them. Here, I believe it was C. Pinckney rather than C.C. Pinckney.) As reported by Yates, C. Pinckney said that if they were to vote in favor of the very first resolution, Resolve 1,
“it appeared to him that their business was at an end; for, as the powers of the House in general were to revise the present confederation, and to alter or amend it, as the case might require, to determine its insufficiency or incapability of amendment or improvement, must end in the dissolution of the powers.”
Immediately following that, Yates added:
“This remark had its weight, and, in consequence of it, the first and second resolves were dropped, and the question agitated on the third.”
Then, Resolve 3, for the “national” government, was somehow seen as acceptable to discuss and possible to approve without putting “their business at an end.”
Who voted for this Resolve 3 of the Randolph plan, this Virginia plan, this BigStates’ “national” “system” plan? As reported by Yates:
“For the resolution,—Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina.
Against it, —Connecticut, New York divided, New Jersey, and the other States unrepresented.”
The big three were for the overthrow: Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts, along with three others. New York would also have been for it if Hamilton had got his way, but New York was “divided” because Yates and Lansing were also from New York and voting against Hamilton.
So, “national” government won and “federal” government lost. Yet, the convention did not end there.
The honorable men did not quit in disgust. Not yet. Did they think they could persuade enough others to turn the tide? Did they simply want to witness the full extent of what the majority would concoct?
“Warmth” on Suffrage for Congress
The Articles Of Confederation had provided for Congress to be one house of representatives from the States. But the new, “national” government plan called for Congress to have two houses of representatives. This division of representation for each State gave rise to long and repetitious debates over the months of the convention, often stirring delegates to speak with great “warmth.” Nowadays, we think speaking with warmth means speaking with gentleness and likely affection. But in 1787, “warmth” was a polite term for “fire.” Indeed, there was shouting, to the brink of fisticuffs and duels.
Although Yates reported a simple and debateless approval of the basic idea of a two-house Congress, Luther Martin reported that he, Martin, “warmly” opposed it, and in his presentation to the Maryland legislature, Martin destroyed it. James Madison argued that a second house was needed to “check and balance” the first house, and vice-versa.
I say that Madison’s argument is ludicrous, and it is a great way to build a gigantic, expensive government in conflict with itself. Further, it smells of “divide and conquer,” doesn’t it? I would distill the issue this way:
If your main house of representatives needs to “checked” by a second house, then your method of choosing the representatives failed. Fix that.
If you divide one rotten apple, you get two rotten halves. Pick a new and healthy apple.
By all accounts — by Madison, Yates, and Martin — the fire roared in debates over the following necessities:
- Who would choose the representatives for each house of Congress?
- And how many votes would each State have in each house of Congress?
Let us focus on the second question. That issue of how many votes for each State was referred to as “suffrage” in the Convention. Nowadays, we think of “suffrage” as the right of every adult citizen to vote. But in relation to Congress, it was an issue of how many votes each State would have on each and every proposed law and treaty.
The Articles Of Confederation had each State as an equal with every other State in Congress. Each State had one vote. That is “equal suffrage.” This Convention in Philadelphia also had equal suffrage, as each State, with no matter how many delegates in attendance and no matter how wealthy various delegates were, had exactly one vote.
Luther Martin, in agreement with Yates, Lansing, others, and Congress, wanted to keep and enhance the Articles Of Confederation. They said: “[I]n a federal government, the parties to the compact are not the people, as individuals, but the States, as States; …”
On suffrage, Martin offered an example intentionally lopsided to make the principle clear:
“Suppose, for instance, ten individuals in a state of nature, about to enter into government, nine of whom are equally wise, equally strong, and equally wealthy, the tenth is ten times as wise, ten times as strong, or ten times as rich: if, for this reason, he is to have ten votes for each vote of either of the others, the nine might as well have no vote at all; since, though the whole nine might assent to a measure, yet the vote of the tenth would countervail, and set aside all their votes. …”
Martin, in a lengthy passage in his presentation to the Maryland legislature, thoroughly and persuasively applied that principle to the States. As individuals in the federal government, each State must be equal. Neither wealth nor population should ever enter into it.
Governeur Morris. An “expert in finance,” his personal dishonor brought him a pegleg. This image is either a sketch or a black-and-white version of a painting from 1753. If it is less than accurate, we can expect the inaccuracies to hide infamous jew features. Yet, the slant forehead, nose, distinctive lips and wide mouth suggest “jew.” Combining appearance with behavior, I conclude that G. Morris was a secret jew (the term is “crypto-jew”).
But the Madison-Hamilton group, and to that group we should add the important Governeur Morris (spellings vary; he was not a governor) from Pennsylvania, insisted for months that population and wealth should determine representation. And the other slave States joined them, making a majority, in a deal that counted the slaves as wealth — as assets. Slaves were very expensive. The slaves were never considered citizens. Some honorable men, who didn’t agree with counting wealth, argued: Why count slaves but not count horses and cattle? We shall see the “three-fifths” count of slaves appear below, which was added to the new Constitution as a compromise on how much wealth to count.
Now, I shall pile on one more piece of amazing evidence on the suffrage issue. In Madison’s Notes back on May 28th, in a mere footnote, he admitted:
“It was pressed by Governeur Morris and others from Pennsylvania, that the large States should unite in firmly refusing to the small states an equal vote, …” But Madison, from Virginia, then claimed this: “The members from Virginia, conceiving that such an attempt might beget fatal altercations between the large & small States, and that it would be easier to prevail … in the course of the deliberations, … discountenanced & stifled the project.”
Thus, Madison and his Virginians were with Morris and his Pennsylvanians. It seems obvious to me that they had planned before the Convention began to deny “equal suffrage.” But there in a footnote, Madison claimed, thus admitting, that the Virginians had advised a slower approach, flexing their power more subtly, feigning a desire to compromise, instead contriving and manipulating to make it “easier to prevail.” I describe their intentions that way because after we read both books, and after we read through the later debates in conventions in Virginia and Pennsylvania, we know they did it that way.
The delegates opposed to overthrowing and annihilating their own State governments prepared and proposed an alternative plan.
William Patterson (also “Paterson”) presented the Jersey plan, and then he was absent during the final month of the Convention, yet he returned to sign the Constitution. Later, President Washington put him on the Supreme Court, as pictured above.
Yates reported, on June 14, that Mr. William Patterson from New Jersey moved to postpone all till the morrow when he would submit “principles to form a federal system of government, materially different from the system now under consideration.” Note the word “system.” Yates, Lansing, Martin, and others began using the term “system” in the Convention, and later made it a very negative label for the “national” government plan of the big states and Hamilton.
Patterson’s motion to adjourn was agreed to, and the convention adjourned for the day.
On June 15, as reported by Yates, Patterson read his plan. It would enhance the powers of the federal government. With the Articles of Confederation at its core, his plan added authority to handle the complaints about commerce, etc. And following the BigStates’ plan, he added a limited Executive branch and a limited Judicial branch. (The full plan is given in the Yates book, as are the others.)
Madison immediately tried to divert attention from that plan by calling for a report from the committee that had been assigned to flesh out the BigStates’ “system” plan.
Lansing responded by saying they ought to postpone all a day to prepare for the very important consideration of the Patterson plan in contrast with the “system” plan.
Hamilton then took a turn, saying he was not fond of either plan because they were both “federal” plans, which he didn’t want.
We know this Hamilton statement was insincere, to put it mildly, because Hamilton had voted all along for the BigStates’ plan. However, he was setting up for a maneuver soon to be revealed.
Following Hamilton, the convention voted to adjourn for the day.
I now turn to Luther Martin to describe what happened to the Patterson “Jersey” plan. Remember, Martin was speaking to the Speaker and full Legislature of Maryland at the time (bold added):
“The members who prepared these resolutions were principally of the Connecticut, New York [but not Hamilton -- jtl], Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland delegations. The honorable Mr. Patterson, of the Jerseys, laid them before the convention; …”
“The result of the reference of these last propositions to a committee was a speedy and hasty determination to reject them. I doubt not, Sir, to those who consider them with attention, so sudden a rejection will appear surprising; but it may be proper to inform you, that, on our meeting in convention, it was soon found there were among us three parties, of very different sentiments and views.
“One party, whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, …
“The second party was not for the abolition of the State governments, nor for the introduction of a monarchical government under any form; but they wished to establish such a system, as could give their own States undue power and influence in the government over the other States. …
“A third party was what I considered truly federal and republican; …”
Martin included himself in the third party, rightly so. Martin’s description fits very well with the results of the Convention that we all now know: The first party and the second party made deals — especially over suffrage, commerce, and slavery — to form an unbeatable majority. This majority, just as Madison and his Virginians had predicted, did “prevail” over the truly federal and republican Americans.
The Hamilton maneuver
On Monday, June 19, 1787, with 11 States represented (out of 13), which was most often the case, Alexander Hamilton exposed the purpose behind his previous insincere assertion that he favored neither of the main plans.
Hamilton presented his own plan. But before doing that, he gave a long speech. Among his tactics, he twisted the authority that Congress and the States had given the conventioneers by claiming:
“the institution of a good government must be the sole and express object of your deliberations.”
His “good government,” as everyone knew, did not include their federal government and its Articles Of Confederation.
Another tactic: Hamilton actually used Virginia, his ally, in a fearmongering ploy, saying that in the future Virginia may be so big and powerful as to “become indifferent to the concerns of the Union.” Thus, according to Hamilton, the central government must be supremely powerful and have “force” … “force of arms” to control any such tyrannical State.
As I mentioned before, the Madison-Hamilton group would usurp the popular term “federal” and would label as “anti-federalists” the group actually loyal to the federal government. In this long speech of 19 June, Hamilton began to usurp the principle of “equal representation”: He labeled the Jersey plan as proposing “unequal representation”!
Dear readers, may I insert an aside here to place Hamilton’s methods into the context of history? I will simply ask: What kind of people, in fact what race, is infamous in history for employing such methods as usurping terms and reversing the truth throughout the last 2,000 years?
Hamilton did not stop there. However, I must refer interested readers to the Yates book to learn more of Hamilton’s assertions.
The Hamilton plan
In hindsight, in the scheme of things, Hamilton offered a plan that went further than the BigStates’ “system” plan. It had no chance to be adopted. The motive behind it could have been none other than to construct the psychological ploy of giving the “system” plan a middle position, making the “system” plan look like the “moderate” plan or the “compromise” plan. Upon seeing details below, I beg the reader who disagrees (after reading all of the source documents mentioned here) to offer a plausible alternative explanation.
The reader may see the full Hamilton plan in the Yates book. Here, I will mention several noteworthy nuggets.
- Hamilton said a president would be less dangerous if elected for life rather than a mere several years.
- He would give the president the power to veto any and all laws approved by Congress.
- He would give the president the power to pardon all offenders, except for convicted traitors.
- He originated the “electoral” system that we now have a version of, now called the “Electoral College.”
- He said of his two-branch Congress: “I would give them the unlimited power of passing all laws, without exception.”
- The Senators were “to be elected by electors,” … and remain in office for “life.”
- He would put national government courts into each State with their rulings supreme over all State laws and courts.
- He would appoint a national government officer to serve in each State to veto any State law that conflicted with national law.
- He would put all of the militia in the States under national government control.
It may also be useful to note that Hamilton referred to his plan as “this plan,” but later he claimed that he had merely offered ideas at the Convention, not an actual “plan.”
Again, this plan was clearly a ploy to place a most-extreme plan on the table so that the extreme BigStates’ plan would look “moderate.” Can anyone plausibly disagree?
Jersey plan “not admissible”
On June 19, as a perfect cog in the machine of Virginia-Pennsylvania-Massachusetts-Hamilton, Mr. Rufus King of Massachusetts made a motion for the convention to reject the Jersey plan as “not admissible” and for them to return their focus to the BigStates-Virginia-system plan — which was now the “middle” plan of three.
“Mr. King’s motion was then put. For it, seven States; three against it; one divided. New York in the minority.”
Note: New York being in the minority, rather than being “divided,” likely means that Hamilton was not present for that vote, thus allowing Yates and Lansing to determine the New York vote.
At this point as I was reading the Yates book, I put the following reaction in my notes: “No man of honor ought remain here. They ought to at least leave, report to their States, and rally a group to arrest or kill the remaining conventioners.”
Please understand, a year or so ago when I read the Madison Notes for the second time, I already had enough knowledge to recognize and to note that the majority was creating a “Monster” central government. Therefore, when I was very recently reading the Yates book, my patience with the obvious treason of the Madison-Hamilton group was already depleted before reaching this passage in which seven of eleven States completely rejected the effort of the true Americans.
Repeat: “A group to … kill the remaining conventioners.” Is that extreme? I refer again to William West of Rhode Island, who later led a large armed protest against ratifying the Constitution. Also, our founders had used their guns on the enemies under the British flag. That’s what “keeping and bearing arms” is all about, killing enemies. The Convention in Philadelphia was more than half full of enemies and they deserved to be killed.
Charles Pinckney had suggested, rightly so, that their business ought be at end. And others spoke likewise along the way, though I have not included quotes from them. And they spoke again later, very strongly.
Yates, on this same day of June 19, reported that Luther Martin spoke out, ending with this:
“Our accession to the Union has been by States. If any other principle is adopted by this convention, he [Martin] will give it every opposition.”
Why would any true Americans remain in that den of treason?
In my notes, as I read about the action day after day up to June 25, I wrote: “All that’s going on is the bad guys are keeping the others in the room and wearing them down, wearing them out, as best they can, so they get the Monster without igniting violent opposition.”
Honorables Yates and Lansing depart
On the 5th of July, Robert Yates and John Lansing left the convention, never to return. Luther Martin reported their departure. I will present a long quote by Martin, which includes that report. My reason is to also deliver what must come as a shock to most Americans.
Martin spoke of George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, as Martin had done previously with both politeness and frankness, but I have withheld such remarks until now. One more note in preface to Martin’s remarks: Franklin was at that time the President of Pennsylvania, though since then Pennsylvania changed their system and began using the term “governor.” Now, let us listen to Mr. Martin, as he reported his experiences to the Legislature of Maryland:
“Mr. Speaker, I think it my duty to observe, that, during this struggle to prevent the large States from having all power in their hands, which had nearly terminated in a dissolution of the convention, it did not appear to me, that either of those illustrious characters, the honorable Mr. Washington or the President of the State of Pennsylvania, was disposed to favor the claims of the smaller States, against the undue superiority attempted by the large States; on the contrary, the honorable President of Pennsylvania was a member of the committee of compromise, and there advocated the right of the large States to an inequality in both branches, and only ultimately conceded it in the second branch on the principle of conciliation, when it was found no other terms would be accepted. This, Sir, I think it my duty to mention, for the consideration of those, who endeavour to prop up a dangerous and defective system by great names.
“Soon after this period, the honorable Mr. Yates and Mr. Lansing, of New York, left us; they had uniformly opposed the system, and, I believe, despairing of getting a proper one brought forward, or of rendering any real service, they returned no more.”
If you read the Yates book in which Martin’s full report is given, you will get a better understanding of what Washington and Franklin did and did not do — especially Washington.
Why did Martin stay? He explained his and some others’ decision to stay in this way:
They wanted to “see what kind of a system would ultimately be formed…, yet reserved to themselves, in the most explicit manner, the right of finally giving a solemn dissent to the system, …”
Far too polite. Martin stayed, saw what kind of system was ultimately formed, and departed in disgust about two weeks prior to the Convention’s official end.
The Executive and Judicial branches
Since virtually all of the delegates were in favor of establishing Executive and Judicial branches of the country’s government, there is no need for me to use space on the debates about them. Suffice to say, however, that there were passionate debates regarding how to choose the president and judges, and how much power to give them. As the reports by Yates, Martin, and Madison show, the divisions were generally along the lines already established, with the delegates in favor of the new “system” pushing for maximum powers.
White is right
Very important to know is who specified “White” people and who did not. The original BigStates’ plan submitted by Virginia Gov. Edmund Randolph did not specify “White” people, nor does their Constitution, which is what we have now. The original plan said, in regard to suffrage in Congress:
“2. Resolved, therefore, That the right of suffrage, in the national legislature, ought to be proportioned to the quotas of contribution, or to the number of free inhabitants, as the one or the other may seem best, in different cases.”
“Free inhabitants” only. Later, this changed, though only temporarily, as we know from their final product.
But the Jersey plan, the true federal plan, submitted by Mr. Patterson and favored by Yates, Lansing, Martin, and others, did specify “White” people. This occurred in the clause about raising funds:
“3. Resolved, That whenever requisitions shall be necessary, instead of the present rule, the United States in Congress be authorized to make such requisitions 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; …”
We see “white” as first and paramount, and then “other free citizens and inhabitants” including the Whites bound to servitude but not the African race — the slaves. Slavery was a touchy subject which they did not want to name in governing documents. Most of the delegates were against slavery but were also against using force against their own brother States to get rid of slavery. For money-raising purposes, the Jersey plan called for the government to count “three-fifths” of the Africans. This “three-fifths” was later employed by the majority in a deal with the slave States to count the slaves as assets, as wealth, to increase the slave States’ representation in Congress.
Later, after many debates and votes had taken place on the BigStates’ plan, the “system” was rewritten in a committee and came out saying what the rejected Jersey plan had said. This would appear to have been an empty token of compromise. Quote:
“7. Resolved, 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 ratio 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.”
On August 6, with the majority marching along to victory, they issued a draft they called “Draft Of A Constitution.” A Committee Of Style (Hamilton was known to be a member of that committee) added a preamble in a sneaky step toward adding the wide open, generalized, undefinable preamble they put on the final product. This draft began (bold added):
“We the people of the States of New Hampshire, …” and continued listing all of the States. As we know, the final draft says only “We the people…” and deletes “the States” both symbolically and literally.
As for Whites, this Draft Of A Constitution included us specifically:
“Sect. 3. The proportions of direct taxation shall be regulated by 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 othor persons not comprehended in the foregoing description (except Indians not paying taxes); …”
As we know, the Convention’s final draft changed yet again, without any reported debate on “White” nor on many other important details, such as “We the people.” Here is the new preamble, and it is followed by the section where “white” has been silently deleted.
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, 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 of the United States of America.”
Patrick Henry later pointed out how wrong that preamble was, and he was right.
And here, their Constitution with “white” deleted:
“… shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to servitude for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons.”
What does the unopposed (as far as we know) removal of “White” from the CONstitution suggest to us?
First, it suggests to me that most of the true White members of the Founding Fathers took their Whiteness for granted in a country that had been founded and built by Whites for 11 years already. It also suggests to me that the true White men in that room were ignorant of the true threat of jewry. Neither the Madison Notes nor the Yates book makes any mention of “jews.”
Did the true Founding Fathers, that is, the White men, know there were jews among them? It seems certain that they knew of jews, though it may be that they did not know there were jews in the Convention.
- During the Revolutionary War, generals Benedict Arnold (the infamous traitor) and George Washington (who we are now better acquainted with, and who later made Hamilton the first Secretary of the Treasury) each had a jew as aide-de-camp (David Franks and Isaac Franks, both of the same extended jew family).
- Madison, a little man of less than 100 pounds, in 1771, had studied Hebrew at Princeton and reportedly became fluent in that jew language.
- Also, jews were known to be in finance and as merchants. Haym Salomon was a jew and financier whose name is on documents related to the revolutionary war and other transactions after the war. (However, don’t believe the jew lies that Salomon “saved” the American confederation by lending money to the war operations. He was a shark and a fraud who should have been imprisoned or executed. For the asking, I will supply a source for that, though it comes with a huge caution.)
Furthermore, could the Founding Fathers not have known that jews were the owner-operators of the massive slave trade? It seems beyond reason.
I should add here some comments about the famous quotes on jews attributed to Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin. I would like to believe them, but I no longer do.
- Washington and Jefferson spoke of bankers/financiers, and the word “jew” has been inserted. However, Jefferson did write in a letter (in 1813) that he agreed with another man’s assessment of the jews’ Talmud, the jews’ racial rulebook, as despicable, a “wretched depravity.” (At bottom, see two links to that letter.)
- In regard to Franklin, we are told that C.C. Pinckney recorded in his diary that he had heard Franklin say Franklin agreed with Washington in regard to the jews and that the jews should be banned from the country. I have had a link for years that opens an image of what looks to be the cover of the Pinckney diary, so I believe the diary existed/exists, but I haven’t seen the claimed entry. Franklin was so mind-poisoned by Christianity (or very well acted so), along with the fact I’ve read of Franklin’s contributions to all “churches” including the jew synagogue in Philadelphia, and the early and large jew population in Philadelphia, and Franklin’s performance in the CONvention in Philadelphia, I highly doubt that he would have said the jews must be “banned.”
There is much more evidence to weigh, and much evidence I have yet to see. I invite the reader to offer verified links to such evidence. Meanwhile, I tentatively conclude that some Founding Fathers were ignorant of jews, some other Founding Fathers were knowledgable about jews but likely thought their own “friend” jews were honest (this is also ignorance, and a historical, oft-repeated mistake), perhaps a few of the men were knowing accomplices, and of course some other so-called Founding Fathers were crypto-jews.
Alexander Hamilton and Gouverneur Morris were two of the crypto-jews. In this Convention, based on behavior alone, we could suspect Madison and Randolph. By names and which side they were on, we could suspect two or three more.
Nearing the conclusion of this article, it would be very useful to provide some key facts about the most famous men, the “illustrious names” as Luther Martin said he had thought of them and referred to them until experience removed the luster.
Alexander Hamilton. A crypto-jew. He was a financier. He was a ringleader for jewry in America. In 1784, he was a founder of the Bank of New York. He was instrumental in the Annapolis set-up for the CONvention in Philadelphia. He was instrumental in the con of the CONvention. He was appointed by Washington to be the first Secretary of the Treasury, and he promptly accomplished giving the country’s money system to jewry. He was killed in a duel with the traitor Aaron Burr, sparing the USA decades more of Hamilton’s treason.
George Washington. He is credited with commanding the American forces to victory in the Revolutionary War against the Brits. But he was very lax in treatment of General Benedict Arnold while Arnold was committing treason. Washington surely was an accomplice in the set-up for the CONvention. He was made chairman, and undoubtedly that was prearranged, the chairmanship allowing him to remain silent on all issues so as to not soil his reputation. Thus preserved, he was the shew-in first president under the new CONstitution, and he installed Hamilton atop the Treasury.
Ben Franklin. From the Notes of Madison, we learn nothing of great import about Franklin at the CONvention, which was held in Franklin’s Philadelphia. From Yates and Martin we learn that Franklin was, though nearing death, a near-silent power behind the overthrow of the Confederation. Also, Yates reported this Franklin fool’s gold: “… Franklin observes, that representation ought to be in proportion to the importance of numbers or wealth in each State; that there can be no danger of undue influence of the greater against the lesser States. …” Furthermore, on June 28, a day in which Martin and Lansing made a heroic offensive and Madison scrambled to control it, Franklin brought the day to adjournment with feeble nonsense. In response to that, in my notes, I wrote: “Franklin. A sickly, elderly, Christian-mind-poisoned man, obviously incompetent to deserve an official chair in a governmental meeting.” See the Yates book for more. Franklin served the CONspiracy well.
James Madison Jr. He is widely described as the “father” of the CONstitution. Prior to that treason, he had studied Hebrew at Princeton and reportedly became fluent in that jew language. Later, he served in the legislature of Virginia. He worked for “freedom of religion,” which is actually anti-White, since the major world religions are clearly anti-White. He was with Hamilton and cronies in the Annapolis set-up for the CONvention. He pretended to function as a referee in the CONvention, as especially portrayed in his own Notes. But in fact he was the ringleader using both bait and whip to advance the CON and defeat the true federalist Americans. Later, he became the fourth president (the third was Jefferson). From my own research in addition to the research I did for forensic scientist James Starrs, I offer the following: Under Madison, the War Department made life difficult for Jefferson’s great protege Meriwether Lewis, a national hero on track to future presidency. But Lewis was murdered while serving as the governor of the new Missouri territory. Madison’s government conducted no investigation, did nothing to secure the body, leaving the great American explorer, leader, and governor to be buried by locals in an unmarked grave in nowhere, Tennessee. Evidence made it obvious that there was a conspiracy involved. I have written about this before, though now I have a deeper understanding.
Thomas Jefferson. This brilliant Founding Father was not in the USA throughout the CONstitution period. He was serving as our ambassador in France. Patrick Henry referred to Jefferson during the Virginia debates on the CONstitution, saying Henry had received a letter from Jefferson opposing ratification of it. Could it be that Hamilton, Madison, and cronies in the Annapolis meeting chose the date for the Convention based on the expectation of Jefferson’s continued absence? If Jefferson had been in the room, and if he had opposed Madison and Hamilton, I dare to say we would not have the CONstitution. Oh, jews would still have infiltrated, corrupted, and deceitfully seized much power, but their progress would have been slowed. Many States would still have “White” in their constitutions. The so-called “Civil” War, contrived and instigated by international jewry, almost certainly would not have happened. More recently, States would have been in control of their own militias and would have successfully opposed nonWhite immigration and integration — which presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy forced upon States at gun point. States could have prevented jew monopolization of the media. Many other jew-inflicted ills could have been prevented, stopped, or greatly slowed. My gosh, we would not have been on the wrong side in World Wars 1 and 2, killing our blood brothers, the offspring of our common ancestors. That said, I must further scrutinize the very large record of Jefferson — someday.
Now we know. On first knowing this shocking truth, it is mentally painful, isn’t it? It was for me. As you can see, I still hold onto some Founding Fathers as admirable. I won’t, yet, let Jefferson go. I hold to Patrick Henry, and now I have Robert Yates, John Lansing, and Luther Martin, too. There were others in every State, though much research would be required to sort out the pretenders from the true Americans.
Now that we know, we will not repeat their mistakes.
- We will not trust any jew. We will destroy all jews once and for all.
- We will not create a new monstrosity government to replace the current monstrosity. Instead, we will establish a new government based on White governments that worked in the past very well for our White race — and we will improve upon those models. The Articles Of Confederation are a base to use and enhance. Adolf Hitler’s governmental organization, in which he strove to establish an entire heirarchy based on merit alone — not wealth, not fame, not place of birth, but on merit alone — also provides a model to consider. (He didn’t expel the jews fast enough, nor thoroughly, thus leaving their traitor network in place, fatally poisoning Germany from within.)
- And our election aspect certainly will not include people voting for strangers. (See the Appendix page for more on Voting For Strangers. Link below.)
As I said at the top, I say again: With all our might we must endeavor to establish a new and proper government for the security of our people, for the future of our race, and for a mighty country never again to be a world villain nor a victim to any anti-White force. But that is Step Two. Step One is killing the jews.
Links to some sources consulted
Direct link to the pdf file of the Yates book: http://archive.org/download/secretproceeding00unit/secretproceeding00unit.pdf
- Gouverneur Morris, writing of the founding of the first (treasonous) Bank of North America: “The first bank in this country was planned by your humble servant.” (The source link is here, a very long URL to a long page claiming to be The Diary and Letter of Gouverneur Morris, pub. 1888. (I have yet to read much of this content.)
Wikipedia (jew-owned, jew-operated) claims for Morris the things for which I blame him. Link.
- A source for Benedict Arnold and G. Washington having jew aide-de-camps: The International Jew: The World’s Foremost Problem, by Henry Ford (link on WhiteSchool page, Item 8). See the chapters with “Benedict Arnold” in their titles.
- Madison’s Notes on the Convention in Philadelphia 1787 are freely available in the following two locations.
1. This site has the debates for each day on a separate text page, best for searching, best for reading offline: http://constitution.org/dfc/dfc_0000.htm
2. This site, devoted to Madison, has the debates broken into paragraphs and presented in an interactive format, in which you may choose to see definitions and descriptions of many terms and issues. However, the victors wrote the history, and the descriptions are skewed in their favor. http://context.montpelier.org/document/notes
- The Speeches Of Patrick Henry from the debates in the Virginia convention on whether to accept the new Constitution. The same site has the full record of the debates. In those debates, you also see the shameless double-reversal of Edmund Randolph, who had introduced the “system” plan at the CONvention, who had been in the victorious majority, but who suspiciously refused to sign the final document, and then in the Virginia convention he argued fully in favor of the new Constitution using the same deceitful exaggeration and fearmongering that he had employed in Philadelphia. http://www.constitution.org/afp/phenry00.htm
An alternate source with a handsome display of the Jefferson letter to Adams including criticism of the jews and their Talmud’s “wretched depravity.” http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl222.htm
Link to APPENDIX
- List of attendees on 25 May 1787 at the CONvention in Philadelphia.
- List of signers of the CONstitution on 17 September 1787 at the CONvention in Philadelphia. This includes a paragraph in which Alexander Hamilton was given special notice.
- List of the attendees (perhaps all of them) of the entire CONvention as published by the U.S. government in a later look back on the period. (These are images of three pages in the Robert Yates book. As images, they are not searchable.) Take note of the false impression given by such a list, as if all of those men favored and helped write the CONstitution. In fact, many of them fully opposed the CONstitution.
- A particularly remarkable speech by Mr. Gunning Bedford of Delaware in the CONvention, as recorded by Robert Yates in the CONvention.
- My own expansion on “Voting For Strangers,” and the correct principle to follow in any form of elections.
The white “W” is for “Whites.” We are the White race. The red “W” is for “Will.” We have the will. The blue “W” is for “Win.” Whites Will Win.