Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1858-08-17
- THE RICHMOND ENQUIRER.
TIRsnAx M0KNING. AUGUsT ~, 1885
,CHARLESrON "MERCURY"-THE "MoTIIEK
OF THE CONSTITUTION"

CHARLESTON" MERCURY"-THE MOTHER
OF THE CONSTITUTION"
= Beloy-wf1 bs6annd the reply Of the Mercury TO
ourfemarks of the RI inst We cannot afford to fol-
low our contemporary any further in this discussion
Land as our conteupdfa "recolections" are liable
to be- very much in error, submit the proof upon
(which our assertions were based. In the "Cou.
s,i,u,pnal History Of the United States" by" Will
slaArcher Cockss' of Richmond. at page So will
be found the following -" These Randolph's resclu-
'1ons we're the fret offered to the consideration of the
Convention. They embody the principles Of free
government. though somewhat Objectionable in
several of their details Whilst other plans were offer
ed by different members, especially by Charles finck
ney and HamItos, the plan offered by Randolph was
taken immediately under discussion, and formed 'ne
bass which our Constitution was erected. AGAIN.
O.hsr plans were, however, submitted 10 me con-
sideration of the Convention" Hence " the books,
as LAWYERS say, show our contemporary and not
ourselves TO have made many errors," when it al
l.g.s that Alex Hamilton submitted TO the Convex
,ou no plan at al-ior 90 page Oh our contemporary
will find the synopsis of "a paper containing bis
tHamlltons) ideas Of a Suitable plan of government
for the United States" Again, it appears from the
books that we were right in asserting that "Vir-
GINA supported Randoph's resolutions in pre-
ference TO Ham;on's plan, and thus II appears
from "tbe books" that Hamilton did not write plan
az VIZ ayerred Our contemporary seems TO Do dis
cus.ing the significance of mere words-the dlfie-
renee seems to be between "a paper and "a PLAN
We have used the word in the meaning OF the au
thor 1t was not intention to have represented
him tRspdoph IS being both for and against the Con-
situation in the Virginia Convent'on but that ne was
against the Constitution 10 the Convention that framed
it, and for it in the Virginia Convention And ID this
",he books" again sustain US: Edmund Randolph,
who had taken bold and active part in the Federal
Convention, ." was likewise in the Virginia Con
vention He had refused, along with Mason, to sign
the Constitution. Itwas expected that Ran
doIph and Mason, whose influence would probably
have turned the decision of the Convention, would
have been arrsyed against the Constitution. They
did not surrender the opinions entertained thiy
were willing adopt because they feared Its re]ec'
ton might blast the hopes of Virginia" (See same
work of Mr.. Cocke-The Constitutional History OF
the Urited Statss.l We can recommend to our con-
temporary the perusal of this work. 1t is mastery
exposition Of the State Rights school Of politics. and
ia q complete answer to the Federalism of Curtis.
W. receive the recommendation of our contempt.
rary in the spirit OF generous and elevated coure
sy" II is painful to US ever to disagree with our
contemporaries of the State Rights school, We ao
knowledge the same faith we are struggling Tor the
same great end, and We hope our contemporary will
vet acknowledge Va Ito be fearless and faithful
yindcator of the rights liberties and institutions OF
the South" Our contemporary will always find in
US that patriotic spirit Of resistance to oppression
which "msds Washington the greatest disupionist
that all time records
From the Charleston Mercury.
VIRGINIA THE MOTHER OF THE CONSTITUTION.
The Richmond Enquirer" supports Gov. Wise in
b,s Insertion that Virginia ia the mother of the
Constitution in the person of Edmund Randolph and
Madison"
We do not intend to go over the ground by which
". proved. We think, very clearly, that this pre-
tension unsupported by the facts which took place
in The Convention that formed the Constitution OF
III. United States The Enquirer gays: 1T never
Wa. attended that his Edmund Randuph) plan was
IN form adopted il was the substance o his r-s"u
tions that WAS Incorporated into the Federal Conati-
tuition and that Is what constitutes virginia clam
Il, tho mother OF tho C"neti' u'io".' IL n-x'
asserts that "t due more 10 the cx.rlions o
Randolph and Madison than any other two men, tina
the Conv enton frat passed the Federal CONSTITUTIONS;
the nine States necessary 10: the adoption of the
Constitution would not have been obtained"
Nov We showed, from the purport OF MIR. Ran
dophs resolutions, that neither IN form nor substance
were they adopted into the present Constitution OF the
limited States That Mr. Randolph aud MIR. Madison
d! no, contribute. by their exeriions, more than any
other men in the Cow 10 the formation OF the
Constitution Of the United States, is fairly interabe
from the fact that the scheme OF constitution cup
ported by them was entirely rejected. Nor is ii true
fha nj n
States necessary for the adoption OF the constitution
would not have been obtained" Nine States rati
lied he constitution bofoIe Virginia ratified il; and
upon the ratification of the ninth Stats being received
ny Congress, the following proceedings in Congress
tuok place, on the I'd July. l7SS:
The State Of New Hampshire having ratified the
Constitution transmitted to them by the Act of the
18th September last aud Ia Congress their
ratification. and the same being read the President
reminded Congress that this Was the ninth ratihca-
,iou transmitted and laid before them: Whereupon,
On motion OF Mr.. Clarke, seconded by Mr.. Ed.
wards,
"OrderCd That the ratification of the Constitution
OF The United States transmitted TO Congress, be
f-rred 10 a committee to examine the game and report
sn Act 10 Congress putting the said Constitution into
operation, in pursuance of the resolutions OF Tue late
Federal Convention"
The ratification of Virginia bad not been received
q, this time. The truth ia. so grave matter in
volviDe such high pretensions for Virginia. the "En
1uirer very loose in s ace. For instance il states
that the Convention Of 81 had for its consideration
three plans propOsitiOns-one by Edmund Ran
dolph one by Charles PiDckney, and one by Aexan.
der Hamilton. Though other plans We're submitted,
these formed the three main plans for the considers
ton Ut the Convention, and that "Virginla supported
Randolphs resolutions an preference TO Hamon's
plan" Here are many errors. /. Alexander Hsmil.
ton submitted TO h' Convention no plan al oil. He
merely read his views to the Conventions but he never
laid them before the Convention nor were they over
before the Convention 10 any way 70. their action or
VlrJip Tia rnn pnf haV
supported in the Convention. Mr.. Rsndolphs resOlu
tons az preference TO Ilsmton's plan. 8. "Other
plans not submitted 10 lhe Convention, As the
Enquirer" asserts. One other plan only submit
ted and rejected az whole. with the aid of the vote
of Virginia. That plan WIS MIR Fater-on's. Of New
jersey proposed by the smaller States, and submitted
as counter State Rights project to that Of Mr.. Ran.
dolph's, which Virginia supported.
Again the Enquirer" Rpesks OF a "plan enbmtted
by MIR. Dickinson" Ar. Dickinson submitted no
plan. Again, it ssys Randolph and Madison appear.
ed in the Virginia Convention as the great advocates
OF tia adoption and under their percussion and against
the powerful eloQuence of Henry. Mason, Lee, Tyler
and others, the Constitution was ratified Butlower
down In liza editorial article the Enquirer" says:
"RnnG"lph and his colleague Mason, though they did
no. sgn the Constitution and though they advanced
powerful reasons against the Constitution yet without
surrrd-rng th-r opinions they were willing 10 adopt
the FCh.ti,utiou. tbs wise spirit that dictated 10
Randolph and Mason the waiver of their objections
the Federal Constitution seemed 10 have governed all
patriot fathers Of the Republic. Now, here MIR. Ma
sOD s represented IA being both tor and against the
Consultation IN the Virginia Convention although
Edmund Randolph after refusing 10 Sign the Consti.
tution OF the United States, supported it most Jealous
" in the Virginia Convention. George Mason. in the
Convention, consistently opposed its ratification by
Virginia throughout This ia our recollection Of the
ot these great men. But enough Of the En-
quirer's" errors.
The Enquirer" enormously supposing Mr. Ran
do pa ana Mr.. Mason were harmonious in their course
kcfiu aspirif N md
son. ID pleased to conclude its article in way quite
characteristic of it's late politics. I'VE commend,
therefore,, it says, "to our Charleston contemporary
long and research into that patriotic spirit
OF anlty that actuated the trainers OF the Federal
CONSTITUTIONS hoping that the perusal smsy rekinde
the fires OF patriotism which seem 10 have entirely
gone out i'll our contemporary" We. also, beg leave
To make u recommendation 10 our contemporary, in