Help support alternative media by visiting our advertisers

Founders / Framers Minute: Article I, Section 2, Clause 3b

The death knell of slavery was sounded and the decennial census was founded.

Founders / Framers Minute:
Article I, Section 2, Clause 3b

by Cornel Rasor

Article I.

The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five and Georgia three.”

Debating in the Massachusetts ratifying convention of January 1788, founder Nathaniel Gorham allowed that should the constitution survive, within 100 years there would be 1.400 – 1,500 Federal representatives. It was understood that the “more numerous” branch would grow with the population. As we showed in the last Founder’s / Framer’s Minute, the number of representatives was fixed in 1909 and 1911.

Much debate centered around the mode of taxation. Should the land be taxed or the people? It would be very difficult it was decided, to ascertain land values but population could be relatively easy to determine once an official census was commissioned. Thus population became the basis for both taxation and representation. Interestingly, in this convention, it was noted that Georgia with it’s slave population was content with the three representatives allotted.

The main content of the federal convention debate and the Federalist Papers addresses the first section of Clause 3. Not much is said about the deliberate numbering of representatives. Much more was said about the idea of direct taxation replacing tariffs and excises. Once the founders settled on representation as a function of population viz. one representative per 30,000 citizens, it remained only to decide on initial representation. As mentioned, the 3/5th’s clause was the vehicle for this decision.

The population of North Carolina counting slaves was 393,751 in 1790 and they were given 5 representatives. Pennsylvania with a population of 434,373 was given 8 even though the difference in population was only 40,622, or about one representative. This speaks well of the carefully crafted compromise that was designed to end slavery. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1 disallowed Congress from banning slavery before 1808. True to form, in 1807 a statute was introduced that banned the importation of slaves. Also, Article 5 of the constitution prohibited an amendment interdicting this plan.

Thus, a beginning was made for taxation and representation in the new nation. The death knell of slavery was sounded and the decennial census was founded.

View Fullscreen

Minute 1: Article I, Section 1

Minute 2: Article I, Section 2, Clause 1-2

Minute 3: Article I, Section 2, Clause 3a


Please support our coverage of your rights. D//onate here:

Editor’s note: minor autocorrect corrections. 8/9/2018

10 Comments on Founders / Framers Minute: Article I, Section 2, Clause 3b

  1. And the slavers get away once again with false history. Slavery is always against the real, truth based, moral, law.

    Slavery was outlawed under the voluntary (not slavery) Federation (confederation) of independent republics.

    It was the slave traders who wanted a consolidated (involuntary) nation state to replace the voluntary federation, altering the moral, voluntary, government from the moral, voluntary, form, and altering the government into subsidized slavery under the color of law.

    That was how the soul of America was lost, and that was how the Revolutionary War was lost; yet people still regurgitate the lies told by the slave traders.

  2. I find it difficult to believe that so many people have been hoodwinked for so long, yet the mountains of evidence proving the facts in this matter still preserve that capacity for people to simply wake up.

    “Part of Garrison’s opposition to continuing the Union stemmed from a desire to avoid the corruption that came from participating in a government created by the proslavery Constitution. But this position was also at least theoretically pragmatic. The Garrisonians were convinced that the legal protection of slavery in the Constitution made political activity futile, while support for the Constitution merely strengthened the stranglehold slavery had on America. In 1845 Wendell Phillips pointed out that in the years since the adoption of the Constitution, Americans had witnessed “the slaves trebling in numbers—slaveholders monopolizing the offices and dictating the policy of the Government-prostituting the strength and influence of the Nation to the support of slavery here and elsewhere—trampling on the rights of the free States, and making the courts of the country their tools.” Phillips argued that this experience proved “that it is impossible for free and slave States to unite on any terms, without all becoming partners in the guilt and responsible for the sin of slavery.”

  3. “Gen. SAMUEL THOMPSON exclaimed, Mr. President, shall it be said that, after we
    have established our own independence and freedom, we make slaves of others? O!
    Washington, what a name has he had! How he has immortalized himself! But he holds those in slavery who have as good a right to be free as he has. He is still for self; and, in my opinion, his character has sunk fifty per cent.” – The Massachusetts Ratification Convention (1788)

    Although all 13 State’s did Ratify the Constitution in five of the States the percentage of dissenting votes was over 40%; it was a close call.

  4. Boyd White, do you fail to see the con game? The original counties, original states, and the original federation was not majority rule, or any other profitable monopoly power, it was consent of the governed under the common law.

    The conspirators knew, on the official record no less, that they had ignored the original federal agreement when they set in motion this thing called rat-ification. Rhode Island refused to attend the con con, so the conspirators had no legal standing to start the ratification of a new government that replaced the original federation. They had no authority to do so, as specified in the original agreement that formed the United States (plural) of America.

    The failure by the people was such that those having the power to investigate, indict, and then try the conspirators at the first Con Con, did not do so. Everyone, according to the real common law, has the power to investigate, indict, and then try an presumed to be innocent criminal: in principle.

    In practice the common law only works when enough people use it.

    That is not majority rule over and above the government, it is trial by the country, where the country through the jury must agree unanimously: consent of the governed. This unanimity in the original federation shows how the original federation was formed below the principles of the common law, whereby every single state had to agree to change the government: not powerful states doing whatever they want to less powerful states.

    From the original agreement to join defensive forces into a con-Federation of independent states under the common law:

    “Every state shall abide by the determinations of the united states in congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united states, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every state.”

    Crime scene evidence:

    “Resolved, That the proceeding Constitution be laid before the United States in Congress assembled, that is should afterwards be submitted to a Convention of Delegates, chosen in each State by the People thereof, under the Recommendation of its Legislature, for their Assent and Ratification; and that each Convention assenting to, and ratifying the Same, should give Notice thereof to the United States in Congress assembled.”

    If it takes another con-man to figure this out, then that evidence can be added to the well established fact that these people were criminals when these people made slavery legal.

    In simple layman terms the states insisted upon having “equal footing” for their mutual protection: very sound reasoning. The same sound reasoning is evident in trial by jury and the real common law. The sound reasoning is to nullify power hungry tyrants by out-lawing absolute majority rule, out-lawing absolute minority rule, and outlawing any other segment of the population gaining absolute power to do whatever they want to any other individual, or any other group. Power by people over people (absolute), against their will, was known to corrupt (absolutely), it is now known to corrupt, it even corrupts the best people, so don’t allow it in the first place.

    Congress did not agree to change the government, the people who remained at the Con Con agreed to do so, and Rhode Island did not attend. Furthermore, many who attended the Con Con refused to sign the slave trading agreement, some walked out.

    The slave traders had to resort to deception to gain the absolute power over people that they still command today, and the lie still works well enough to this day on the majority.

    “But a faction, acting in disguise, was rising in America; they had lost sight of first principles. They were beginning to contemplate government as a profitable monopoly, and the people as hereditary property. It is, therefore, no wonder that the “Rights of Man” was attacked by that faction, and its author continually abused. But let them go on; give them rope enough and they will put an end to their own insignificance. There is too much common sense and independence in America to be long the dupe of any faction, foreign or domestic.

    “But, in the midst of the freedom we enjoy, the licentiousness of the papers called Federal (and I know not why they are called so, for they are in their principles anti-federal and despotic), is a dishonor to the character of the country, and an injury to its reputation and importance abroad. They represent the whole people of America as destitute of public principle and private manners.”

    To the citizens of the United States by Thomas Paine
    November 15, 1802

    A profitable monopoly is not a voluntary mutual defense association under the common law, the later (Articles of Confederation) was useful enough to drive off the largest criminal military power then on the planet: The British Monarchy, and that criminal military power, the former, still is a profitable monopoly.

  5. “The failure by the people was such that those having the power to investigate, indict, and then try the conspirators at the first Con Con, did not do so.”

    That is probably the sad truth, Joe Kelley. Even though by 1786 the Articles of Confederation could not obtain a quorum that cold hard truth is there was a lot of opposition to the creation of the Constitution. This short video is one of the best I have seen on the enmity; it pits Benjamin Franklin and Patrick Henry talking about the Con Con and why Patrick Henry would not be attending; and boy do these actors go at hard:

    Two Good & Noble Men

    “Power by people over people (absolute), against their will, was known to corrupt (absolutely), it is now known to corrupt, it even corrupts the best people, so don’t allow it in the first place.”

    And this is another solid observation, Joe Kelley. Our Republic is not doing a very good job in defending the idea the humans can make good law (hell, they have indentured the entire populace of the USA)…and they have every advantage to do so…no one can dictate to them bad law…all they have to do is law good. The obvious answer being just like you said, “Don’t allow it in the first place.”

    And this clause, even though it did not make it into the final draft of the Constitution, shows the mindset of at least some of the participants at the Con Con of 1787.

    Federal Convention 1787
    Monday, August 20. In Convention
    “The U.S. shall be for ever considered as one Body corporate and politic in law, and entitled to all the rights and privileges and immunities, which to Bodies corporate do or ought to appertain.”

  6. Boyd White,

    I will attempt to establish a working definition of what a republic is, as in “Our Republic,” so as then to attempt to find out why you make such a claim; perhaps you refer to whatever good government the people are able to manage on their own despite having a FAKE Republic in place stealing everything that can be stolen from the people.

    “”What is called a republic is not any particular form of government. It is wholly characteristical of the purport, matter or object for which government ought to be instituted, and on which it is to be employed, Res-Publica, the public affairs, or the public good; or, literally translated, the public thing. It is a word of a good original, referring to what ought to be the character and business of government; and in this sense it is naturally opposed to the word monarchy, which has a base original signification. It means arbitrary power in an individual person; in the exercise of which, himself, and not the res-publica, is the object.

    “Every government that does not act on the principle of a Republic, or in other words, that does not make the res-publica its whole and sole object, is not a good government. Republican government is no other than government established and conducted for the interest of the public, as well individually as collectively. It is not necessarily connected with any particular form, but it most naturally associates with the representative form, as being best calculated to secure the end for which a nation is at the expense of supporting it.

    “Various forms of government have affected to style themselves a republic. Poland calls itself a republic, which is an hereditary aristocracy, with what is called an elective monarchy. Holland calls itself a republic, which is chiefly aristocratical, with an hereditary stadtholdership. But the government of America, which is wholly on the system of representation, is the only real Republic, in character and in practice, that now exists. Its government has no other object than the public business of the nation, and therefore it is properly a republic; and the Americans have taken care that this, and no other, shall always be the object of their government, by their rejecting everything hereditary, and establishing governments on the system of representation only. Those who have said that a republic is not a form of government calculated for countries of great extent, mistook, in the first place, the business of a government, for a form of government; for the res-publica equally appertains to every extent of territory and population. And, in the second place, if they meant anything with respect to form, it was the simple democratical form, such as was the mode of government in the ancient democracies, in which there was no representation. The case, therefore, is not, that a republic cannot be extensive, but that it cannot be extensive on the simple democratical form; and the question naturally presents itself, What is the best form of government for conducting the Res-Publica, or the Public Business of a nation, after it becomes too extensive and populous for the simple democratical form? It cannot be monarchy, because monarchy is subject to an objection of the same amount to which the simple democratical form was subject.

    “It is possible that an individual may lay down a system of principles, on which government shall be constitutionally established to any extent of territory. This is no more than an operation of the mind, acting by its own powers. But the practice upon those principles, as applying to the various and numerous circumstances of a nation, its agriculture, manufacture, trade, commerce, etc., etc., a knowledge of a different kind, and which can be had only from the various parts of society. It is an assemblage of practical knowledge, which no individual can possess; and therefore the monarchical form is as much limited, in useful practice, from the incompetency of knowledge, as was the democratical form, from the multiplicity of population. The one degenerates, by extension, into confusion; the other, into ignorance and incapacity, of which all the great monarchies are an evidence. The monarchical form, therefore, could not be a substitute for the democratical, because it has equal inconveniences. ”

    That is from Rights of Man by Thomas Paine, page 176 in my copy.

    When someone arbitrarily excludes segments of the population (the public) from access to government, then said individuals are perpetrating a crime against the public, a treasonous crime. That was done in 1789, excluding all the people of Rhode Island, so as to usurp the existing republic (public thing), and then excluding all the slaves, and excluding all the people who work effectively at freeing any slaves: a government service within an actual republic.

    So where is this republic that is ours? Is it those rare cases when a jury is allowed to render a moral verdict in a trial by the country case: actual consent of the governed?

    Have you looked at, read, the Judiciary Act of 1789, the Naturalization Act of 1790, and the creation of the First Bank of the United States, along with the National excise tax in place to create the demand for a Central Bank Scam? These Acts are precisely how fake government creates a target population, a method by which each target is found, placed on a list, and then wealth extracted from each individual source of power. The legalese, a euphemism itself for doublespeak, more precisely fraud, as in a confidence scheme – the legalese – is as if it were cut and pasted from the British criminal Empire’s Parliament.

    What is the meaning of “Enumeration,” as in “The actual Enumeration shall be…”?

    “…the action of mentioning a number of things one by one…”

    Slavers brand their slaves, keep track of them, otherwise how can the slavers calculate the profits of their monopoly? If it isn’t a monopoly, then the slaves can enslave the slavers, all is fair in free markets and all; a criminal application of the Golden Rule. Here is your constitution, it works so well for everyone, well, except the slaves of course.

    • Joe Kelley, point well taken.

      How do you reconcile the “Having Things” aspect of life? Because, even though a lot of the products we have are cheaply made and don’t have a life span over a decade and the probability the monetary/economic malfeasance will lead to severe corrections, the USA is plumb full of Things. We are at the apex of “Having Things”.

      So, while your philosophy is honest and sound…some might say idealistic though that is not a bad thing…how does that translate into practice in your worldview? Yes, policies like Lysander Spooner’s “Cooperation Amongst Equals” allow for a Corporate Private Navy or Security Force to protect merchant trade to bring products from afar…there are a lot of dynamics involved which tend to trample idealism. Yes, that trampling is a crime…and yes that is why Mutual defense pacts are valuable…but sometimes the Criminals win and subjugate free people.

      Was the Constitution a criminal act against Slaves? What honest person would not say that is so? That being said, the USA through the Patent protection in the Constitution:
      “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;” Article I, Section 8, Para 8

      …has given a great boost to the world by encouraging people with the idea that they can profit by inventing better ways to do things.

      So, how do you, reconcile “Having Things” in the USA with the position the U.S. Constitution is the worst thing since the laws of Draco?

  7. Boyd White,

    In the first place, the criminals in power since 1789 did not follow this thing people keep calling “the U.S. Constitution.” To suggest that they are, or to prove that they are, misses the point, nothing is done to hold them accountable, unless they (those in power criminally) see the need to throw someone under the bus, to maintain that color of law.

    On to things, how about whiskey? Whiskey is a thing made by veterans of the Revolutionary War, those veterans that were not consumed in that pogrom, the same pogrom set in motion by the Criminal British, and their Tory sympathizers, the same one’s who were at work in the first Con Con Con Job.

    There is that thing, whiskey, which is an adaptation (correction) to the Central Banking Fraud, whereby the thing called money is monopolized, counterfeited, and used to transfer all the power that can be stolen, in due time; all the power flowing from anyone who produces anything worth stealing, and all that power flows to those same criminals who take over governments. See: Gresham’s Law.

    There is that thing, one of many things, created from grass-roots, out of necessity, adaptively, so as to maintain the power to prosper, made by the Veterans, and other producers and that thing was then immediately “taxed,” so as to – again – create the demand for the criminal issue of the fake money produced by The First Bank of the United States.

    I’ll shut up and let someone else explain this one thing since we do agree that it is important to deal with “Having Things.” But before quoting (to help answer your question) it is the color of law, not the real thing, and so what are the rules when trying to have things while the criminals run the former government?

    1. Don’t get caught
    2. Especially don’t get caught with some THING worth stealing: like whiskey, or voluntary defensive government, or gold, or children.

    “But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding national debt, Hamilton envisioned the Congress setting aside a portion of tax revenues to pay each year’s interest without an annual appropriation. Redemption of the principal would be left to the government’s discretion. At the time Hamilton gave his Report on Public Credit, the national debt was $80 million. Though such a large figure shocked many Republicans who saw debt as a menace to be avoided, Hamilton perceived debt’s benefits. “In countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and the object of established confidence,” explained Hamilton, “it assumes most of the purposes of money.” Federal stock would be issued in exchange for state and national debt certificates, with interest on the stock running about 4.5 percent. To Republicans the debt proposals were heresy. The farmers and planters of the South, who were predominantly Republican, owed enormous sums to British creditors and thus had firsthand knowledge of the misery wrought by debt. Debt, as Hamilton himself noted, must be paid or credit is ruined. High levels of taxation, Republicans prognosticated, would be necessary just to pay the interest on the perpetual debt. Believing that this tax burden would fall on the yeoman farmers and eventually rise to European levels, Republicans opposed Hamilton’s debt program.

    “To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that because “[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise law,” such taxes would be little used by the national government. In power, the Secretary of the Treasury soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter.”

    Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy 1
    by William Watkins

    It was once a thing, a good thing, for people to discuss these things, now, well, it looks like just us.

    • Joe Kelley, there are some acute thoughts in your post. And I agree, what is more important that striving to find an equitable solid world view?

      I have an old hat from about 2003 with the phrase “Own Your Money” on it from the Liberty Dollar movement championed by Bernard Von Nothaus. If you don’t own your money…then, who does?

      18 U.S. Code § 8 – Obligation or other security of the United States defined

      The term “obligation or other security of the United States” includes all bonds, certificates of indebtedness, national bank currency, *** Federal Reserve notes ***, Federal Reserve bank notes, coupons, United States notes, Treasury notes, gold certificates, silver certificates, fractional notes, certificates of deposit, bills, checks, or drafts for money, drawn by or upon authorized officers of the United States, stamps and other representatives of value, of whatever denomination, issued under any Act of Congress, and canceled United States stamps.

      It is codified that the Federal Reserve Note is an obligation of the USA and not something you can personally own.

      There were private minters in the 1780’s so, yes, there was really no need for the U.S.G. to get into the money business except to centralize power. Besides the fact there was a dearth of gold and silver on the Eastern Seaboard to the extent the “Foreign Coin Acts of 1806” and “Foreign Coin Acts of 1834” monetized Spanish, Dutch and French coins as legal tender in the USA.

      A couple observations:
      * The Coinage Act of 1792 set the standard for the early USA’s money regardless of what the First Bank of the United States or Alexander Hamilton did.
      * It was the U.S. Constitution that made the hard turn to Gold and Silver as money. Truth be known, the original Patriots like Sam Adams, John Adams, James Otis and the Sons of Liberty were very inclined to be friendly with Paper Money. (Reference back to the dearth of gold and silver on the Eastern Seaboard) The British had to pass currency laws in the 1750’s and 1760’s saying the American colonists had to pay with Gold and Silver and not passing the Colonial Script off to British merchants as money.

  8. “It is codified…”

    Say’s you and what army?

    ” The Coinage Act of 1792 set the standard for the early USA’s money regardless of what the First Bank of the United States or Alexander Hamilton did.”

    Washington assembled an army larger than any army he commanded in the Revolutionary War to then invade Pennsylvania to enforce Alexander Hamilton’s required extortion fee, so as to create the demand for Alexander Hamilton’s Central Banking Fraud. That is a fact that matters to any competitor in an otherwise free market of things, such as any form of exchange agreed upon by any exchangers under the sun, and that fact is recorded, if not codified, on the official National (fake federal) record.

    Then you mention the “domestic terrorist” who dared to follow the same course as the Revolutionary War veterans, this Liberty Dollar fellow. For the crime of offering competition in money markets, the competitors will meet a similar fate as the Revolutionary War veterans in Shays’s and the so-called Whiskey Rebellion. I see what happened to Nothaus as further proof of a different kind of terrorism, a terrorism running amok throughout history as despotism, tyranny, empire, or just plain old organized crime (under or not under the color of law), codifying, codifying, codifying, merrily along, along with all the dead people who dared to question all that codifying.

    A dearth of gold and silver? So…natural laws, such as what happens when criminals issue fake money, counterfeit (opposite) money, which can be paper or anything whatsoever, there isn’t anything inherently injurious to innocent people in the paper, not in paper money, and not in paper edicts from tyrants doing what tyrants must do so as to be tyrants. The army is issued orders, such as seize whatever you can while you murder all those people, and the paper suddenly is to blame for all the dead people? Gresham’s Law works to move out all good money, real money, honest money, accurately accountable money, in whatever form it may be agreed upon by the free traders, because foreigner won’t accept the counterfeit stuff, so anyone trading with foreigners must keep the criminal money, and give up the real money. Those foreigners insisting on real money have not yet been visited upon by the army of aggression for profit, or they have their own.

    Gresham’s Law in a nutshell: Homegrown tyrants running a counterfeiting extortion racket under the color of law drive out all the real money from the local population, as imports are paid with real money; leaving no real money locally.

    It isn’t the fact that the counterfeit money is paper, as you have noted, people like Benjamin Franklin, and later both free marketeers of fame Josiah Warren and Lysander Spooner forensically spelled out how paper money can be accurate exchange mediums, leaving no hidden third party extorting wealth during every transaction. Now there is digital accounting such as bitcoin: what happened to the original Pay Pal? See: PayPal Wars.

    A con game is one because there is a willful attempt to mark a victim, to convince the victim that a lie is not a lie, and then wealth, or some other power, is extorted by that willful application of fraud, and often force of some other form, even if the inspiring force is an empty threat.

    Then you move on to Sam and John Adams? Do you know what happened once Sammy made it to the big league in Massachusetts right after the pogrom known as the Revolutionary War? See: Shays’s Rebellion.

    As as for John Adams:

    To the citizens of the United States by Thomas Paine
    November 15, 1802

    “But a faction, acting in disguise, was rising in America; they had lost sight of first principles. They were beginning to contemplate government as a profitable monopoly, and the people as hereditary property. It is, therefore, no wonder that the “Rights of Man” was attacked by that faction, and its author continually abused. But let them go on; give them rope enough and they will put an end to their own insignificance. There is too much common sense and independence in America to be long the dupe of any faction, foreign or domestic.

    “But, in the midst of the freedom we enjoy, the licentiousness of the papers called Federal (and I know not why they are called so, for they are in their principles anti-federal and despotic), is a dishonor to the character of the country, and an injury to its reputation and importance abroad. They represent the whole people of America as destitute of public principle and private manners.


    “Others objected that the powers given to a President were too great, and that in the hands of an ambitious and designing man it might grow into tyranny as it did in England under Oliver Cromwell, and as it has since done in France. A republic must not only be so in its principles, but in its forms.

    “The executive part of the Federal Government was made for a man, and those who consented, against their judgment, to place executive power in the hands of a single individual, reposed more on the supposed moderation of the person they had in view, than on the wisdom of the measure itself.


    “If ever America lose sight of this principle, she will no longer be the land of liberty. The father will become the assassin of the rights of the son, and his descendants be a race of slaves.

    “As many thousands who were minors are grown up to manhood since the name of Federalist began, it became necessary, for their information, to go back and show the origin of the name, which is now no longer what it originally was; but it was the more necessary to do this, in order to bring forward, in the open face of day, the apostasy of those who first called themselves Federalists.

    “To them it served as a cloak for treason, a mask for tyranny. Scarcely were they placed in the seat of power and office, than federalism was to be destroyed, and the representative system of government, the pride and glory of America, and the palladium of her liberties, was to be over- thrown and abolished. The next generation was not to be free. The son was to bend his neck beneath the father’s foot, and live, deprived of his rights, under hereditary control.

    “Among the men of this apostate description, is to be ranked the ex-President John Adams. It has been the political career of this man to begin with hypocrisy, proceed with arrogance, and finish in contempt. May such be the fate of all such characters.”

    Loyalists are such, they get their pound of flesh?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.