[BroJoeK]

woodpusher: "And whatever you quoted was not the next paragraph.
Or the one after that.
Here is my quoted paragraph, and the rest of the document.
Your quote does not seem to appear in the Virginia Bill of Rights or the Virginia Constitution."

FRiend, we all make mistakes and can all sympathize when we see glaring mistakes from our "debate partners".
In this particular case, the words you claim here are not found in the "next paragraph", are in fact both quoted and highlighted by you, exactly as I said, in the next paragraph.

Like I said, we all make mistakes, so I won't rub this one by you in... too much. ;-)

woodpusher: "In have not seen it and generally do not take Broadway or Hollywood as historically accurate.
For example, there are many stirring examples of congressional dabate in the Spielberg movie, Lincoln.
Not a word of it was taken from the verbatim records of the actual debates."

In both examples, the dramatized words catch the essence of historical events.
In the case of the Lee's song, it's the fact that Congress requested a declaration from Virginia, to which Virginia responded,

"...in compliance with a recommendation of the general Congress, do ordain and declare the future form of government of Virginia "

Standard histories of the time put it this way:

"In 1775, Richard Henry Lee and John Adams began to explore how a new form of government could replace the colonial structures.
The two men were in Philadephia at the Continental Congress.
They discussed how authority could be divided among executive, legislative, and judicial branches, reducing the excessive concentration of power that made colonial governors a threat to liberty.

Lee arranged to have an anonymous handbill published that shared his ideas, while Adams published his own Thoughts on Government.
The proposals reassured reluctant revolutionaries that there would be continuity after independence, not chaos.
Colonial authority could be replaced by state authority without a massive disruption of the decision making process.
A new form of government could be established, and Virginia would not be in a "state of nature" after declaring independence from Great Britain.2

Virginia's Fifth Revolutionary Convention, meeting in the Capitol at Williamsburg between May 6-July 5, 1776, was the first in North America to write a constitution.
It defined the shape of an independent state government, one that owed no allegiance to King George III.

On May 15, 1776, the convention delegates decided in a unanimous vote to instruct Richard Henry Lee and the other Virginia delegates at the Second Continental Congress to propose that the colonies declare themselves to be independent of Great Britain.
The Fifth Revolutionary Convention also appointed a committee to draft a new form of government for the colony, and that led to adoption of Virginia's first constitution....

Jefferson prepared three drafts of a constitution for Virginia, and even proposed the Virginia delegates to the Continental Congress in Philadelphia return to Williamsburg to participate in the debate and decision process.
According to him, creating a good alternative to the royal form of government was: 'the whole object of the present controversy'. "

My point is: leadership here came from Congress and Virginians acted "in compliance" with Congress's wishes.
One historical question is whether RH Lee himself was in Virginia on May 15, 1776?
Jefferson's intentions, and, of course, the musical's lyrics, suggest he was.

[woodpusher]

woodpusher: "And whatever you quoted was not the next paragraph. Or the one after that. Here is my quoted paragraph, and the rest of the document. Your quote does not seem to appear in the Virginia Bill of Rights or the Virginia Constitution."

[BroJoeK] FRiend, we all make mistakes and can all sympathize when we see glaring mistakes from our "debate partners".

In this particular case, the words you claim here are not found in the "next paragraph", are in fact both quoted and highlighted by you, exactly as I said, in the next paragraph.

Like I said, we all make mistakes, so I won't rub this one by you in... too much. ;-)

I wish to address this seperately as the error is all mine and I own. I just wish to explain what the error was as it was not the error you almost unavoidably concluded it was.

Note that I stated, "Here is my quoted paragraph, and the rest of the document." And yet, the rest of the document does not appear at my #508. And, as you correctly noted, I quoted, in boldface the specific content I just stated was not there.

I did not see it in my initial reading. I went to the link and ran a text search on "the general Congress" and it retured no result. I did it again to make sure. Same result. I copied the whole thing and put it into my reply at #508. In proof reading I noticed the problem which I had caught and corrected on 3 Aug 2020 when I posted my #508. The original linked source contains an error, a stray parenthesis before the word general.

http://www.nhinet.org/ccs/docs/va-1776.htm

We therefore, the delegates and representatives of the good people of Virginia, having maturely considered the premises, and viewing with great concern the deplorable conditions to which this once happy country must be reduced, unless some regular, adequate mode of civil polity is speedily adopted, and in compliance with a recommendation of the (general Congress, do ordain and declare the future form of government of Virginia to be as followeth:

Having noticed my error, I went back and edited my draft response to eliminate the long (now irrelevant) quote of the Virginia constitution and only quoted the the first two paragraphs, and emphasized the part to which you referred with boldface.

I somehow failed to remove the paragraph referring to the error I had caught, and the rest of the document which I had deleted from my draft. I apoligize for the error, which was all mine. I am sorry for the confusion.

[woodpusher]

woodpusher: "In have not seen it and generally do not take Broadway or Hollywood as historically accurate.

For example, there are many stirring examples of congressional dabate in the Spielberg movie, Lincoln.

Not a word of it was taken from the verbatim records of the actual debates."

In both examples, the dramatized words catch the essence of historical event.

That was the excuse of the gay, liberal writer.

It was ahistorical nonsense. Thaddeus Stevens' most forceful reparteé occurred with an opponent who did not get within a hundred pages of him in the actual transcripts. The alleged debates occurred when Congress was not in session.

For dramatic purposes, two of four Connecticut congressmen voted against the 13th Amendment. In real life all four Connecticut congressmen voted for it. Writer Kushner explained that he changed the names of the two congressmen so no action would be ascribed to them that they had not performed. The essence of the real event was that Connecticut voted all in favor, not a 2-2 dramatic split. The typical viewer would never realize he was conned.

I had provided links to the official Journals of the Continental Congress and asked for a link, cite, quote to the relevant matter.

Standard histories of the time put it this way:

There is not even an oblique reference to the actual records, but to an anonymous Virginia source. As support for you contention, is is sorely wanting.

Virginia's Fifth Revolutionary Convention, meeting in the Capitol at Williamsburg between May 6-July 5, 1776, was the first in North America to write a constitution.

It defined the shape of an independent state government, one that owed no allegiance to King George III.

On May 15, 1776, the convention delegates decided in a unanimous vote to instruct Richard Henry Lee and the other Virginia delegates at the Second Continental Congress to propose that the colonies declare themselves to be independent of Great Britain.

The Fifth Revolutionary Convention also appointed a committee to draft a new form of government for the colony, and that led to adoption of Virginia's first constitution....

Jefferson prepared three drafts of a constitution for Virginia, and even proposed the Virginia delegates to the Continental Congress in Philadelphia return to Williamsburg to participate in the debate and decision process.

According to him, creating a good alternative to the royal form of government was: 'the whole object of the present controversy'. "

My point is: leadership here came from Congress and Virginians acted "in compliance" with Congress's wishes.

Your "point" is to creatively render the passage to something it emphatically is not. It says not one thing about what the Continental Congress did or did not do. It states that the Virginia Fifth Revolutioary Convention delegates decided to do something, that said Virginia delegates to said convention appointed a committee to draft a new form of government for the colony of Virginia, and Jefferson, a very prominent Virginian, prepared three drafts of a constitution for Virginia for that Convention, and Jefferson even proposed that the Virginia delegates to the Continental Congress in Philadelphia return to Wiliamsburg, Virginia to participate in the debate and decision process in Virginia.

There is not a word about the leadership of the Continental Congress on the issue.

I gave you the direct links to the records of the Journals of the Continental Congress. Your using an unrelated narrative source seems to be an admission that you could not find any agreeable record of the matter in those records. It does not involve a great deal of reading. It is only about a month and a half of proceedings.

I also provided a link to John Adams Notes of Debates in the Continental Congress, 13–15 May 1776.

[from the Diary of John Adams]

(footnotes omitted - some interesting content but subject to copyright)

[Notes of Debates in the Continental Congress, 13–15 May 1776.] 1

Mr. Duane moves that the Delegation from N. York might be read.2

When We were invited by Mass. Bay to the first Congress an Objection was made to binding ourselves by Votes of Congress.

Congress ought not to determine a Point of this Sort, about instituting Government. What is it to Congress, how Justice is administered. You have no Right to pass the Resolution—any more than Parliament has.

How does it appear that no favourable Answer is likely to be given to our Petitions? Every Account of foreign Aid, is accompanied with an Account of Commissioners.3

Why all this Haste? Why this Urging? Why this driving?—Disputes about Independence are in all the Colonies. What is this owing to, but our Indiscretion?

I shall take the Liberty of informing my Constituents that I have not been guilty of a Breach of Trust. I do protest vs. this Piece of Mechanism, this Preamble.

If the Facts in this Preamble should prove to be true, there will not be one Voice vs. Independence.

I suppose the Votes have been numbered and there is to be a Majority.4

McKean. Construes the Instructions from N. York as Mr. Sherman does, and thinks this Measure the best to produce Harmony with G. Britain. There are now 2 Governments in direct Opposition to each other. Dont doubt that foreign Mercenaries are coming to destroy Us. I do think We shall loose our Liberties, Properties and Lives too, if We do not take this Step.

S. Adams. We have been favoured with a Reading of the Instructions from N. York. I am glad of it. The first Object of that Colony is no doubt the Establishment of their Rights. Our Petitions have not been heard—yet answered with Fleets and Armies and are to be answered with Mirmidons from abroad. The Gentleman from N. York, Mr. Duane, has not objected to the Preamble, but this—he has not a Right to vote for it.5 We cant go upon stronger Reasons, than that the King has thrown us out of his Protection. Why should We support Governments under his Authority? I wonder the People have conducted so well as they have.

Mr. Wilson. Was not present in Congress when the Resolution pass’d, to which this Preamble is proposed. I was present and one of the Committee, who reported the Advice to Mass. Bay.6 N. Hampshire, Carolina and Virginia, had the same Advice, and with my hearty Concurrence.

The Claims of Parliament will meet with Resistance to the last Extremity. Those Colonies were Royal Governments. They could not subsist without some Government.

A Maxim, that all Government originates from the People. We are the Servants of the People sent here to act under a delegated Authority. If we exceed it, voluntarily, We deserve neither Excuse nor Justification.

Some have been put under Restraints by their Constituents. They cannot vote, without transgressing this Line. Suppose they should hereafter be called to an Account for it. This Province has not by any public Act, authorized us to vote upon this Question. This Province has done much and asked little from this Congress. The Assembly, largely increased, will [not]7 meet till next Monday. Will the Cause suffer much, if this Preamble is not published at this Time? If the Resolve is published without the Preamble. The Preamble contains a Reflection upon the Conduct of some People in America. It was equally irreconcileable to good Conscience Nine Months ago, to take the Oaths of Allegiance, as it is now. Two respectable Members last Febru­ary, took the Oath of Allegiance in our Assembly. Why should We expose any Gentlemen to such an invidious Reflection?

In Magna Charta, there is a Clause, which authorises the People to seize the K[ing]’s Castles, and opposes his Arms when he exceeds his duty.

In this Province if that Preamble passes there will be an immediate Dissolution of every Kind of Authority. The People will be instantly in a State of Nature. Why then precipitate this Measure. Before We are prepared to build the new House, why should We pull down the old one, and expose ourselves to all the Inclemencies of the Season.8

R. H. Lee. Most of the Arguments apply to the Resolve and not to the Preamble.

The instruction to the New York delegates stated, “to concert and determine upon such measures, as shall be judged most effectual for the preservation and reestablishment of American rights and priviledges, and for the restoration of harmony between Great Britain and the Colonies.” The New York delegates were held to this restriction until July 9, 1776.

Note the Founder statement that if it passes, the people will instantly be in a state of nature. It does not state that they will become members of indestructible, indissolluble states united in an indestructible, indissoluble union with an undecided, unknown form of government. The leadership of the Convention was to affirm that they had not been authorized to vote on such a thing.

The Continental Congress was not the moving force. It was Virginia's adoption of a constitution, declaring its independence from Great Britain, that was the impelling force that got the Continental Congress to act.