George Mason University, Much More Than Basketball

Well I'll have to blame Walter Williams.

You might also want to check wikipedia before calling people patently dishonest.

You might also want to check wikipedia before calling people patently dishonest.

Whoa there!

I'm not calling any FReepers "patently dishonest," and I am certainly not calling the honorable Walter Williams "patently dishonest." I am merely questioning the source for this bit of information, as it doesn't line up with any primary sources from the period that I've read. If you have seen the primary sources where this information came from (Wikipedia doesn't count—it's far too easy to add "assumed" knowledge as fact there), I am extremely interested in hearing it. (I will also, in fact, be searching other primary sources for information on the topic, to see where this alleged "fact" came from.)

If finding out what the truth is is not an honorable pursuit for someone at FreeRepublic, then feel free to stop me, and I'll stop questioning the "assumed" knowledge.

I mean no disrespect in the least, so please don't take offense at my remarks.

Warmest regards,
~dt~

Totally routing for GMU.

I found something interesting in Eliot's Debates, Volume I—in the form of a letter listing all of Mason's early objections to the Constitution.

It's rather lengthy, so rather than post it here, I'll let you go read it if you're interested, and will post the bullet points here. According to Geo. Mason, the problems with the Constitution (as of the time this particular letter was written—the debates were still going on) were as follows:

No declaration of rights (as I've continuously said—this is Reason #1 for Mason!)
People not secured in the benefit of the common law
in the House: only the "substance" of representation
in the House: laws will be made by men little concerned in the consequences (how true!)
in the Senate: can adjust all money bills, but are not representative of the people (recall: this is in the original form of the Senate)
in the Judiciary: so construed and extended as to destroy the judiciaries of the several States
the President: no constitutional council
executive powers of vice-president blended with legislative powers of Senate
the President: unrestrained power of pardon for treason ("screen the punishment of those who he had secretly instigated to commit the crime" - very interesting and true)
All Treaties are declared the supreme laws of the land, the executive and the Senate have exclusive power of legislation (corrected by the 17th amendment)
Only a majority, not a supermajority, is required for commercial and navigation laws, the five Southern states will be ruined
General clause, their own construction, congress may grant monopolies in trade and commerce, et. cetera
No declaration preserving the liberty of the press, et. cetera
State legislatures restrained from laying export duties on their own produce
Congress is prohibited from prohibiting the further importation of slaves for twenty-odd years (until 1802, if memory serves), though such importations make the United States weaker
Both general and state legislatures prohibited from making ex. post facto laws, though no legislature currently has that power
will generally lead to monarchy

NONE of these reasons have anything whatsoever to do with the three-fifths clause. I will, however, continue to search. Perhaps it's listed elsewhere.

Until such time as I'm able to return, I remain,

Your humble servant,
~dt~

You have it already in your gloss, don't be glossing over your own dear gloss! Here's the full Masonic statement:

The state legislatures are restrained from laying export duties on their own produce; the general legislature is restrained from prohibiting the further importation of slaves for twenty-odd years, though such importations render the United States weaker, more vulnerable, and less capable of defence.

Thus Mason says Slavery is a sickness -- imho.

And also, from Volume Three, page 452-3:

Mr. GEORGE MASON. Mr. Chairman, this is a fatal section, which has created more dangers than any other. The first clause allows the importation of slaves for twenty years. Under the royal government, this evil was looked upon as a great oppression, and many attempts were made to prevent it; but the interest of the African merchants prevented its prohibition. No sooner did the revolution take place, than it was thought of. It was one of the great causes of our separation from Great Britain. Its exclusion has been a principal object of this state, and most of the states in the Union. The augmentation of slaves weakens the states; and such a trade is diabolical in itself, and disgraceful to mankind; yet, by this Constitution, it is continued for twenty years. As much as I value a union of all the states, I would not admit the Southern States into the Union unless they agree to the discontinuance of this disgraceful trade, because it would bring weakness, and not strength, to the Union. And, though this infamous traffic be continued, we have no security for the property of that kind [namely, "slaves"] which we have already. There is no clause in this Constitution to secure it; for they may lay such a tax as will amount to manumission. And should the government be amended, still this detestable kind of commerce cannot be discontinued till after the expiration of twenty years; for the 5th article, which provides for amendments, expressly excepts this clause. I have ever looked upon this as a most disgraceful thing to America. I cannot express my detestation of it. Yet they have not secured us the property of the slaves we have already. So that "they have done what they ought not to have done, and have left undone what they ought to have done."

As you can see, his argument is not with the three-fifths count, but rather that (a) the further importation of slaves weakens the nation, and (b) the Constitution, while prohibiting the Congress [or ANY amendment] from stopping the importation of slaves, does nothing to protect the so-called rights of slaveowners in their so-called property.

This still wouldn't qualify as his biggest reason for rejecting the Constitution, though. And he certainly does not come across to me as an abolitionist. How does it sound to you? Perhaps I'm reading it through different ears, and am missing that part.

Regards,
~dt~

Doesn't Walter Williams teach there?

I believe that he does teach Economics at George Mason. He is one of my favorite columnist and occasionally fills in for Rush on his radio show. He makes economics understandable and interesting.

Read my further post—his reasons for objecting to slavery can easily be understood, from an 18th-century perspective, as being that the greater proportion of African slaves imported increases the chance of servile insurrection, which is one of the greatest fears in the mind of the slaveowner of the era.

And as I said, while his objection to slavery (NOT to the "three-fifths" count, by the way) would certainly qualify as a reason for rejecting the Constitution, it is clear from his own writing that it is not the main reason for doing so—thus, to claim that George Mason didn't sign the Constitution solely because he objected to slavery is unsupported by the facts, and thus is merely a propagandistic statement made to cause a group of people ("liberals") to "feel good" about themselves.

I'll still continue to dig in other sources than Elliot's as I am able. This is quite an interesting topic!

I remain, steadfastly,
~dt~

(Oh, also—I didn't mean to gloss over that he openly stated that the importation of slaves is an anathema: if you look at my second citation, I believe from Volume III, you'll find that I highlighted that exact statement. Hope that helps to clarify my position. Most respectfully, ~dt~)

Mason said "weaken", not expose to insurrection and direct danger. You may have other support for your contention, but this statement of Mason's reads out as being against slavery for national moral reasons.

You are absolutely correct—I'm "reading into" his base statement additional information on 18th-century life I've gathered over the years. Notice how he openly declares that the importation of slaves is immoral (rightfully so), yet he immediately turns around and also declares that the Federal government does nothing to protect "property of that class?" That's not a typical abolitionist's position, thus my interpretation that it's a fear of domestic insurrection (Virginia had seen quite a few in her time, which probably influenced his thoughts on the matter greatly) that motivated him in this respect.

Nevertheless, have I done enough to prove my supposition that (a) objection to the three-fifths count never entered into Mason's arguments, and (b) while he did object to defects in the Constitution on the subject of slavery, this was not his primary motivation for rejecting the document? (Recall that he practically invented the modern bill of rights, in the Constitution of Virginia, so it would be natural for him to see a lack thereof in any other document as a defect, would it not?) I remain, with the utmost humility,

Respectfully,
~dt~

for a supposedly conservative school, their cheerleaders dress very immodestly.