On June 5, 1788 Henry spoke again in the Virginia Convention on this subject: "I rose yesterday to ask a question, which arose in my mind. When I asked that question, I thought the meaning of my interrogation was obvious: the fate of this question and of America may depend on this. Have they said, We, the states? Have they made a proposal of a compact between states? If they had, this would be a confederation: it is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, sir, on the expression, We, the People, instead of, the States of America. I need not take much pains to show that the principles of this system are extremely pernicious, impolitic and dangerous. Is this a monarchy, like England - a compact between prince and people: with checks on the former to secure the liberty of the latter? Is this a confederacy, like Holland - an association of a number of independent States, each of which retains its individual sovereignty?
There were many anti-federalists who didn't believe the Constitution provided enough protection from big-government tyrants (such as Henry Clay and Abraham Lincoln turned out to be.) The framers never envisioned a usurper could navigate past so many barriers, particularly when the powers of the federal government were distinctly listed and defined. But slick rhetoricians, who can also act out the part of sincerity (like Clay and Lincoln,) can easily fool the masses.
James Madison ran into that kind of slick rhetoric on the floor of the House as early as 1791 (probably much earlier) in the form of abuse of the "general warfare" clause:
No argument could be drawn from the terms "common defence and general welfare." The power as to these general purposes was limited to acts laying taxes for them; and the general purposes themselves were limited and explained by the particular enumeration subjoined. To understand these terms in any sense that would justify the power in question, would give to Congress an unlimited power; would render nugatory the enumeration of particular powers; would supersede all the powers reserved to the State Governments. These terms are copied from the Articles of Confederation; had it ever been pretended that they were to be understood otherwise than as here explained?"
"It had been said, that "general welfare'' meant cases in which a general power might be exercised by Congress, without interfering with the powers of the States; and that the establishment of a National Bank was of this sort…"
"If Congress could incorporate a bank merely because the act would leave the States free to establish banks also, any other incorporations might be made by Congress. They could incorporate companies of manufacturers, or companies for cutting canals, or even religious societies, leaving similar incorporations by the States, like State Banks, to themselves. Congress might even establish religious teachers in every parish, and pay them out of the Treasury of the United States, leaving other teachers unmolested in their functions. These inadmissible consequences condemned the controverted principle."
[U. S. House Debate on creating a Bank of the United States, Feb 2, 1791]
The misuse of clause was front and center again in 1792:
"It would be absurd to say, first, that Congress may do what they please, and then that they may do this or that particular thing; after giving Congress power to raise money, and apply it to all purposes which they may pronounce necessary to the general welfare, it would be absurd, to say the least, to superadd a power to raise armies, to provide fleets,&c. In fact, the meaning of the general terms in question must either be sought in the subsequent enumeration which limits and details them, or they convert the Government from one limited, as hitherto supposed, to the enumerated powers, into a Government without any limits at all… it was always considered as clear and certain, that the old Congress was limited to the enumerated powers, and that the enumeration limited and explained the general terms." [Ibid. U. S. House Debate on Cod Fisheries, Feb 6, 1792, p.362]
Madison also mentioned the abuse in a letter to Edmund Pendleton a couple of weeks earlier:
"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions. It is to be remarked that the phrase out of which this doctrine is elaborated is copied from the old Articles of Confederation, where it was always understood as nothing more than a general caption to the specified powers, and it is a fact that it was preferred in the new instrument for that very reason, as less liable than any other to misconstruction. If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions. It is to be remarked that the phrase out of which this doctrine is elaborated is copied from the old Articles of Confederation, where it was always understood as nothing more than a general caption to the specified powers, and it is a fact that it was preferred in the new instrument for that very reason, as less liable than any other to misconstruction." [To Edmund Pendleton, Philadelphia, Jan 21, 1792, in James Madison, "Letters and other writings of James Madison Vol I." J. B. Lippencott & Co., 1867, pp. 546-547]
The agenda items that Lincoln ran on for public office were unconstitutional abuses of the general terms, from the time he first ran until his death. He convinced many people that he was operating within the limits of the constitution (still does,) when practically everything he did was a usurpation.
Mr. Kalamata