39 votes

James Madison - Federalist #46 - Required 25 to 1 Power Ratio Citizen Militia Superiority Over US Military (Standing Army)

Federalist #46: James Madison - Complete Quote Text ( http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm ):

James Madison: "...The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterrupted succession of men ready to betray both;

that THE "TRAITORS" should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment;

that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and " continue to supply the materials", "until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads", must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.

The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men.

"TO THESE" (The United States Military) WOULD BE "OPPOSED" A (CITIZEN) "MILITIA" amounting to near half a million of "CITIZENS" with "ARMS IN THEIR HANDS", OFFICERED BY MEN CHOSEN FROM "AMONG THEMSELVES" (CHOSEN BY THE LOCAL CITIZEN'S - NOT MILITARY OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT), fighting for their (THE CITIZEN'S) common liberties, and united and conducted by government"S" (LOCAL) possessing their (THE CITIZEN MILITIA'S) affections and confidence.

It may well be doubted, whether a (CITIZEN) MILITIA "thus circumstanced" (25 to 1 ARMED POWER RATIO) could ever be conquered by such a (SMALL) proportion of "regular troops" (i.e. federal US ARMY, NAVY, AIR FORCE, MARINES).

Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it.

Besides the advantage of (THE CITIZENS) being armed, which the Americans (CITIZENS) possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of "subordinate governments", to which the people are attached, and by which the (CITIZEN) MILITIA officers are appointed (officered by men chosen among themselves), forms a barrier against the "enterprises of ambition", more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.

Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes.

But were the people to "possess" the additional advantages of "LOCAL" governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the (CIVILIAN) militia, by these (LOCAL) governments, and attached both to them and to the (CITIZEN) MILITIA, it may be "affirmed with the greatest assurance", that the throne of "every tyranny in Europe" would be "speedily overturned" in spite of the legions which surround it.

Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in "ACTUAL POSSESSION", than the "debased subjects of arbitrary power" would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.

Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the "long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it"."

APP: This should alarm any US Citizen, as our present condition of Citizens NOT armed with a 25 to 1 superiority over our own standing army;

and the fact that our "Citizen Militias" officered by men "chosen among themselves" do NOT exist in any number near this in military capability or armament, is CLEAR EVIDENCE that the "long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it" have "ALREADY OCCURRED".

Also read the Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788 for more on Citizen Militias and state powers that you may not know:

In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/americanpatriotpartynewsl...

And the need for localized republics and representation for adequate representation: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/americanpatriotpartynewsl...

American Patriot Party.CC

Educate Yourself. Educate Others.

American Patriot Party is now on Facebook:

Remember to Hit the "Like" Our Page; and Share Article Links.

Comment and vote up to keep the post in the public eye. Even to simply say Dito. These are important definitions to the meaning of the words, rights and general phrases to the Constitution. As well as, important limits to federal powers.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Look no further than

Look no further than Switzerland where the ratio of civilian militia to professional soldier is 20:1.

But would libertarians accept conscription into a militia? The only way to make a militia work is probably with conscription.


The Issue is the Definition of MILITIA - defined here by Madison

The Issue is the Definition of MILITIA - defined here by Madison:

"Officered by men chosen AMONG THEMSELVES"; Not by government or military.

First, to do this you must have VERY small republics, as was intended by the founders; As seen by the small size of the original 13 states;

See: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/americanpatriotpartynewsl... regarding this local representation.

These would be like the size of counties in the central and western states;

Then the understanding was, that Militias were represented by smaller local towns.

This makes for the local "Representation" and control the founders intended for a MILITIA as defined here.

The important thing here in there was no real "conscription", as it was "SELF PRESERVATION".

So having the freedom to come and go as you wish; (which was one of the points that irritated Col. Greene in numerous battles when the militia simply went home when they thought the battle was over) You relied on the responsibility to protect your family and friends;

This, when your own family's personal freedom and well being was at stake (as it in fact continues today), was not so much an issue. When you could make it to practice, (after chopping wood, milking the cow, plowing the field and hunting for deer) you showed up for MILITIA practice

(hunting deer could be considered as much as militia practice to hone skills).... Local: i.e. "behind every blade of grass".

Today's arsenal of high powered weaponry such as hand held surface to Air and surface to surface hand held systems, would make a very efficient civilian defense. Add the 25 to 1 in tanks, armament, missiles and aircraft, and the defense would be complete.


The fact remains that citizens, and states have the right to import arms without imposition or consulting congress.

Where does it say this?

Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788:
In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/americanpatriotpartynewsl...

John Marshall: "...To me it appears, then, unquestionable that the state governments can call forth the militia, in case the Constitution should be adopted, in the same manner as they could have done before its adoption.

Gentlemen have said that the states cannot defend themselves without an application to Congress, because "Congress" can interpose!


I will show{420} that there could NOT be a combination, between those who formed the Constitution, to take away this power.

All the restraints intended to be laid on the state governments (besides where an exclusive power is expressly given to Congress) are contained in the 10th section of the 1st article. This power is NOT included in the restrictions in that section.

But what excludes every possibility of doubt, is the last part of it that "no state shall engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay." When invaded, they "CAN" engage in war, as also when in "imminent danger". This clearly proves that the states can use the militia when they find it necessary...." ---

"...If Congress neglect our militia (citizens), "we can arm them OURSELVES".

CANNOT Virginia "import arms?> >Cannot she put them into the hands of "HER" militia-men?

He then concluded by observing, that the power of governing the militia was NOT vested in the states by implication, because, being "possessed of it" > "antecedent to the adoption of the government, and "not being divested of it" by any grant or restriction in the Constitution, they must necessarily be as "FULLY possessed of it as ever they had been.>

And it could NOT be said that the states derived ANY powers from that (the federal government or Constitution) system, "but RETAINED them," >>>>>>>>"though not acknowledged in ANY part of it". "


Now Stop and give that one some thought...

The federal government has stated that guns crossing national or state boarders gave them powers granted from "interstate commerce" to prohibit or restrict arms transport;

But as you can plainly read here, that is NOT the intent or the case.

Because the "RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS" prohibits regulating any arms.

And, in the same VA Convention 6-16-1788, http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/americanpatriotpartynewsl...

the federal Government "...can make "NO REGULATION" THAT (EVEN) "MAY" "EFFECT" the Citizens of the "UNION AT LARGE"...

Give that one some serious thought as well...(social security, government programs, crimes etc.)

American Patriot Party.CC

Educate Yourself. Educate Others.


RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.

Heh? My post was just to

Heh? My post was just to point out that the Swiss have a model militia and very small professional army. So the proposition of a US militia would seem doable based on something like theirs which I think was the intent of both the AoC and the USC.

But the Swiss use conscription. So will libertarians accept conscription for the sake of having a militia? If not, why bother?

The solution to the problem of a militant nation like the US is to change the political structure to be accountable to the people (not the oligarchs) which is even more formidable than trying to re-institute the militia...

Hello Greg, thank you for your comments

I Just wanted to post more on the foundations.

If we followed the political structure we have as it was intended and defined, there would be no reason to make changes;

The problem with altering the political structure outside that of the Original (limited) Constitutional Compact, is that in doing so, the Compact as a "republic" dissolves, This is because we are not a democracy, nor are we "one nation";

James Madison establishes very clearly both in the Ratifying conventions and very clearly in the Virginia Resolutions.

This principle of this "Dissolution of Government" is explained by Locke on Civil government - See Locke #211 on...

In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/Locke_Civil_Government/lo...

Locke #212: "When any one, or more, shall take upon them "to make laws" whom the people "have not appointed so to do", they make laws "without authority", which the people are not therefore bound to obey; by which means they come again to be out of subjection, and may constitute to themselves a new legislative, as they think best, being in "full liberty to resist" the force of those who, without authority, would impose anything upon them. Every one is at the disposure of his own will, when those who had, by the "delegation" of the society (i.e. Original Compact to create the Society), the declaring of the public will, are excluded from it, and others usurp the place who have no such authority or delegation....."

Samuel Adams: Absolute Rights of the Colonists 1772:

In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/Rights_of_the_Colonists/r...

"...When Men enter into Society, it is by voluntary consent; and they have a RIGHT TO DEMAND AND INSIST upon the performance of such conditions, And "PREVIOUS LIMITATIONS" (i.e. Limited Delegated Powers) as form an equitable "ORIGINAL COMPACT"(i.e. Original Constitution).--

Every natural Right not "expressly given up" or from the nature of a "Social Compact" "necessarily" ceded "remains".--

All positive and civil laws, should conform as far as possible, to the Law of natural reason and equity.--"

Though the Swiss have a model militia, it is not the type of Militia that the Founders intended or defined. Except for the fact that it is about the size of Maine (a smaller state) and would have more direct representation of the people because of this limited area; The State government central military (country) as a whole would still decide who would "officer" it's men, not the local community citizens themselves. Therefore the Swiss simply have an efficient military, not a "Militia" defined as the founders defined it.

I would agree that "libertarians" would not go in for out and out conscription;

But in reality, they are actually accepting a "type" of conscription by not acting against the present military "registration" we have in the US today. When one registers, they are "in"; Like it or not. And it will be in the Standing Army, not the militia.

What I was trying to illustrate, is that the militia as defined by Madison doesn't need a "formal conscription" because, officered by those you "very locally" choose, everyone has a hand in their own survival and freedom. So there is no need for a conscription; and as well no need for harsh penaltys which are associated with conscription.

This was discussed in the VA Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788 by George Mason:

Mr. GEORGE MASON. Mr. Chairman, "a worthy member has asked who are the MILITIA, if they be not the "PEOPLE" of this country, and if we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, by our representation? I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the "whole people", except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day.

If that paper (the Constitution being debated) on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day "MAY NOT" consist of all classes, high and low, and {426} rich and poor; but they may be confined to the lower and middle classes of the people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of the people.

If we should ever see that day, the most ignominious punishments and heavy fines may be expected. Under the present government, all ranks of people are subject to militia duty. Under such a full and equal representation as ours, "THERE CAN BE NO IGNOMINIOUS PUNISHMENT INFLICTED".

But under this "national", or rather "consolidated government", the case will be "different".

The representation being so "small and inadequate", they will have "NO FELLOW-FEELING" for the people.

They may discriminate people in their own predicament, and exempt from duty all the officers and lowest creatures of the national government.

If there were a more particular definition of their powers, and a clause exempting the militia from martial law except when in actual service, and from fines and punishments of an unusual nature, then we might expect that the militia would be what they are.

But, if this be not the case, we cannot say how long all classes of people will be included in the militia. There will not be the same reason to expect it, because the government will be administered by different people. We know what they are now, but know not how soon they may be altered...."


What brought about this statement by George Mason was this prior debate moments earlier in the same convention:


Mr. GEORGE MASON asked to what purpose the laws were read. The objection was, that too much power was given to Congress power that would finally destroy the state governments more effectually by insidious, underhanded means, than such as could be openly practiced.

This, said he, is the opinion of many worthy men, not only in this Convention, but in all parts of America.

These laws could only show that the legislature of this state could pass such acts. He thought they militated against the cession of this power to Congress, because the state governments could call forth the militia when necessary, so as to compel a submission to the laws; and as they were competent to it, Congress ought NOT TO HAVE THE POWER.

The meeting of three or four persons might be called an insurrection, and the militia might be called out to disperse them.

He was not satisfied with {416} the explanation of the word "organization" by the gentleman in the military line, (Mr. Lee.)

He thought they were "not confined to the technical explanation", but that Congress could "inflict severe and ignominious punishments" on the militia, as a necessary "incident to the power" of organizing and disciplining them.

The gentleman had said there was no danger, because the laws respecting the militia were less rigid in the other states than this.

This was NO conclusive argument.

His fears, as he had before expressed, were, that "grievous punishments would be inflicted", "in order to render the service disagreeable to the militia themselves", "AND INDUCE THEM TO WISH IT"S (THE CITIZEN MILITIA'S) ABOLITION,

>>>>>which would afford a PRETENCE for establishing a standing army.

(APP Note: This has already happened)

He was convinced the STATE GOVERNMENT Sought to have the control of the militia, except when they were absolutely necessary for general purposes. The gentleman had said that they would be only subject to martial law when in actual service.

He demanded what was to hinder Congress from >>>inflicting it always, and making a >>>general law for the purpose (KEEPING A STANDING ARMY CONTINUALLY ON FOOT AND THEREFORE ALWAYS IN THE SERVICE OF THE NATIONAL ARMY.

(APP Note: And This has already happened)

If so, said he, it must finally produce, most infallibly, the annihilation of the state governments.

These were his apprehensions; but he prayed God they might be groundless.

Mr. MADISON replied, that the obvious explanation was, that the STATES were to appoint the officers, (A CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT AND SAFEGUARD NO LONGER OBEYED) and govern all the militia except that part which was called into the "actual service" of the United States.

He asked, if power were given to the general government, if we must not give it executive power to use it.

The vice of the old system was, that Congress could not execute the powers nominally vested in them. If the contested clause were expunged, this system would have nearly the same defect.

Mr. HENRY wished to know what authority the state governments had over the militia.

Mr. MADISON answered, that the "state governments" might do what they thought proper with the militia, when they were not in the actual service of the United States. They might make use of them to suppress insurrections, quell riots, and call on the general government for the militia of any other state, to aid them, if necessary. "...

There is much more, but as can see we are way beyond the limits set by the founders in respect of the intended definition of "Militia".

Mr. Corbin Responding to Patrick Henerys earlier statement that the french and other countries Citizens and Citizen Militias were "Enslaved by the hands of their "OWN PEOPLE"; Said this, which is true of today's people and their lack of understanding of our own laws and rights:

Mr. CORBIN: "...Animadverting on Mr. Henry's observations, that the French had been the instruments of their own slavery, that the Germans had enslaved the Germans, and the Spaniards the Spaniards, &c., he asked if those nations knew ANY THING OF (LOCAL WELL REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLICS) "REPRESENTATION".


More on this Virginia Ratifying Convention can be read in Full at:

American Patriot Party.CC

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.

James Madison was one of the

James Madison was one of the few greatest Americans ever.

Rose Colored Glasses - Also VA & KY Resolutions 1798

What becomes apparent when reading the Ratifying Conventions such as the one presented, Virginia 6-16-1788;

In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/americanpatriotpartynewsl...

Is that the Anti Federalists and Federalists did not see things so different;

But that the Federalists Such as Madison, could not comprehend (as Federalist 46 illustrates as well) that those representatives in the future would become so corrupt as to distort and fall prey to the same weaknesses shown of other countries and governments);

The Anti-federalists, such as Patrick Henry and George Mason cautioned that in time they would. And in fact was the case.

James Madison and others actually correctly described the limitations of the federal government its size and scope (All in the VA Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788 - Size Limited to 10 miles square, could only prosecute and define 4 crimes, and could collect taxes under the Welfare clause for 2 things defense and National Debt, and could not govern police outside the ten mile square - i.e. limit of the supremacy clause with regard to the federal government); but only ten years later the federal government made their first corrupt move in passing the Alien and sedition acts - by, as James Madison stated in the Virginia Resolutions, "Expounding on the "General Phrases" (such as the very limited "supremacy Clause") in the Constitution to give them powers "NO WHERE INTENDED";

When correctly applied, as intended, the Constitution maintains the states rights;

James Madison also established in the VA Resolution 1798 this understanding:

The VA Resolution 1798 is so Short, here it is in FULL -

...and by the way, this is a good short half page illustration and "Actual Example" of how simple it is for a state to "NULLIFY" un-delegated federal powers:

Virginia Resolution of 1798

James Madison:

"RESOLVED, That the General Assembly of Virginia, doth unequivocably express a firm resolution to maintain and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of this State, against every aggression either foreign or domestic, and that they will support "the government" of the United States in all measures "warranted" by "the former".

That this assembly most solemnly declares a warm attachment to the Union of the "States", to maintain which it pledges all its powers; and that for this end, it is their duty to watch over and oppose every infraction of those principles which constitute the "only basis" of that Union, because a faithful observance of them, can alone secure it's existence and the public happiness.

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the "plain sense and intention" of the instrument constituting the "compact"; as NO further valid that they are authorized by the grants "ENUMERATED" in "THAT COMPACT"; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said COMPACT, the STATES who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in DUTY bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the "EVIL", and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

That the General Assembly doth also express its DEEP REGRET, that a spirit has in sundry instances, been manifested by the federal government, to "enlarge its powers by FORCED constructions" of the constitutional charter which defines them; and that implications have appeared of a "design" to "EXPOUND" certain >>>"GENERAL "PHRASES"

(which having been copied from the very limited grant of power, in the former articles of confederation were the less liable to be misconstrued)

so as to destroy the meaning and effect, of the particular "ENUMERATION" which NECESSARILY EXPLAINS AND LIMITS THE GENERAL PHRASES; and so as to consolidate the states by degrees, into >>>>>>>>>ONE sovereignty (APP: i.e. ONE NATION NO WHERE INTENDED),

the obvious tendency and inevitable consequence of which would be, to >>>"TRANSFORM" the present "republican" system of the United States,

into "an absolute", or "at best" a mixed >>>"MONARCHY"

(APP: Which by the "One Nation" Phrase, and practice, we have become - Correct anyone who murmurers this phrase).

That the General Assembly doth particularly protest against the palpable and alarming infractions of the Constitution, in the two late cases of the "Alien and Sedition Acts" passed at the last session of Congress; the first of which exercises a power "NO WHERE DELEGATED" to the federal government, and which by uniting legislative and judicial powers to those of executive, SUBVERTS THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES of free government; as well as the particular organization, and positive provisions of the federal constitution; and the other of which acts, exercises in like manner, a power NOT delegated by the constitution, but on the contrary, expressly and positively forbidden by one of the amendments thereto; a power, which more than any other, ought to produce universal alarm, because it is levelled against that right of freely examining public characters and measures, and of FREE COMMUNICATION AMONG THE PEOPLE THEREON, which has ever been justly deemed, the ONLY effectual GUARDIAN of EVERY OTHER RIGHT

That this state having by its Convention, which ratified the federal Constitution, expressly declared, that among other essential rights, "the Liberty of Conscience and of the Press CANNOT be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified by "ANY" authority of the "United States","

and from its extreme anxiety to guard these rights from EVERY possible attack of "sophistry or ambition", having with other states, recommended an amendment for that purpose, which amendment was, in due time, annexed to the Constitution; it would mark a reproachable inconsistency, and criminal degeneracy, if an indifference were now shewn, to the most palpable violation of one of the Rights, thus declared and secured; and to the establishment of a precedent which may be fatal to the other.

That the good people of this commonwealth, having ever felt, and continuing to feel, the most sincere affection for their brethren of the other states; the truest anxiety for establishing and perpetuating the union of all; and the most scrupulous fidelity to that constitution, which is the pledge of mutual friendship, and the instrument of mutual happiness; the General Assembly doth solemnly appeal to the like dispositions of the other states, in confidence that they will concur with this commonwealth in declaring, as it does hereby declare, that the acts aforesaid, are unconstitutional;

and that the necessary and proper measures will be taken by each, for co-operating with this state, in maintaining the Authorities, Rights, and Liberties, referred to the "States respectively", or to the people.

That the Governor be desired, to transmit a copy of the foregoing Resolutions to the executive authority of each of the other states, with a request that the same may be communicated to the Legislature thereof; and that a copy be furnished to each of the Senators and Representatives representing this state in the Congress of the United States.

Agreed to by the Senate, December 24, 1798 "

The Kentucky Resolutions 1798 - Thomas Jefferson (one page longer) are a must read also;

Both are found in Full Here:

American Patriot Party.CC

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.



RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.

In a way yes in requiring the

In a way yes in requiring the balance between the feds and the states. Madison firmly opposed states rights.

There's only been a few great ones

Like Ron Paul

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown






Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?



Free includes debt-free!



RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.



RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.



RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.

Bump it up to Educate Others.

Bump it up to educate Others.

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.