The Face of Urbanization and Urban

Poverty in Bangladesh: Explaining the

Slum Development Initiatives in the
light of Global Experiences Pranab
Kumar Panday
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-face-of-urbanization-and-urban-poverty-in-bangla
desh-explaining-the-slum-development-initiatives-in-the-light-of-global-experiences-pr
anab-kumar-panday/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Urbanization and Urban Governance in China: Issues,

Challenges, and Development 1st Edition Lin Ye (Eds.)

https://textbookfull.com/product/urbanization-and-urban-
governance-in-china-issues-challenges-and-development-1st-
edition-lin-ye-eds/

Global poverty : deprivation, distribution, and

development since the Cold War 1st Edition Sumner

https://textbookfull.com/product/global-poverty-deprivation-
distribution-and-development-since-the-cold-war-1st-edition-
sumner/

Knowledge Capitalism And State Theory: A “Space-Time”

Approach Explaining Development Outcomes In The Global
Economy Carlos Manuel Sanchez Ramirez

https://textbookfull.com/product/knowledge-capitalism-and-state-
theory-a-space-time-approach-explaining-development-outcomes-in-
the-global-economy-carlos-manuel-sanchez-ramirez/

New Regional Initiatives in China’s Foreign Policy: The

Incoming Pluralism of Global Governance 1st Edition
Matteo Dian

https://textbookfull.com/product/new-regional-initiatives-in-
chinas-foreign-policy-the-incoming-pluralism-of-global-
governance-1st-edition-matteo-dian/
Toward a Coordinated and Balanced Development New
Initiatives for the Development of Yangtze River
Economic Belt and Explorations in Jiangsu Changchun
Cheng
https://textbookfull.com/product/toward-a-coordinated-and-
balanced-development-new-initiatives-for-the-development-of-
yangtze-river-economic-belt-and-explorations-in-jiangsu-
changchun-cheng/

Global Poverty Global governance and poor people in the

Post 2015 Era 2nd Edition David Hulme

https://textbookfull.com/product/global-poverty-global-
governance-and-poor-people-in-the-post-2015-era-2nd-edition-
david-hulme/

Power, Property Rights, and Economic Development: The

Case of Bangladesh Mohammad Dulal Miah

https://textbookfull.com/product/power-property-rights-and-
economic-development-the-case-of-bangladesh-mohammad-dulal-miah/

Urban Planning in the Global South Richard De Satgé

https://textbookfull.com/product/urban-planning-in-the-global-
south-richard-de-satge/

Revolution in Development: Mexico and the Governance of

the Global Economy 1st Edition Christy Thornton

https://textbookfull.com/product/revolution-in-development-
mexico-and-the-governance-of-the-global-economy-1st-edition-
christy-thornton/
Pranab Kumar Panday

The Face of
Urbanization and
Urban Poverty in
Bangladesh
Explaining the Slum
Development Initiatives
in the light of Global
Experiences
The Face of Urbanization and Urban
Poverty in Bangladesh
 Pranab Kumar Panday

The Face
of Urbanization
and Urban Poverty
in Bangladesh
Explaining the Slum Development Initiatives
in the light of Global Experiences
Pranab Kumar Panday
Department of Public Administration
University of Rajshahi
Rajshahi, Bangladesh

ISBN 978-981-15-3331-0    ISBN 978-981-15-3332-7 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3332-7

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer
Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of
translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval,
electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now
known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information
in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the
publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect
to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.
The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Singapore Pte Ltd.
The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-­01/04 Gateway East, Singapore
189721, Singapore
 Preface

Modernization, along with urbanization, is seen as a sign of growth and

economic progress. The rapid growth of urbanization has affected people
in different parts of the globe. The process of Urbanization, a relatively
new phenomenon in developing countries, was already complete in the
industrialized countries in the last century. This hasty growth of urbaniza-
tion in the developing countries, doing in less than a lifetime what took
centuries elsewhere, has outpaced economic growth and modernization in
some countries. Like other parts of the world, South Asian countries in
general, and Bangladesh in particular, have been undergoing rapid urban-
ization, which is making it difficult for the Government to maintain social
and economic integration.
Urbanization has a strong relationship with poverty and migration.
Poverty is the main push factor that compels large numbers of people in
different parts of developing countries to migrate to urban areas in search
of jobs. Also, modern amenities of life, in the form of better working
opportunities, better infrastructure, better education and health facilities
and opportunities for enjoyment are luring rural people to migrate to cities.
Once these people arrive in cities they find themselves in a strange place:
they have no social network; modes and methods of transport are strange
to them; everything costs money and a lot of it; they start at the bottom
of the heap and their promised comfort and wealth usually does not exist.
They leave the village poor and actually, in many cases, become poorer in
the cities. They lived in huts in the village, with no water or electricity,

v
vi PREFACE

which was normal for everyone. But when they have to live in a hut in the
city, with no water or electricity, where many people have modern toilets
and the latest computers and appliances, they feel that they have lost
everything. Arriving with nothing, they cannot buy land or a house that
would give them tenure and, in the developing countries, land tenure is
the first requirement for services like electricity, water and sanitation that
are provided by the municipal bodies. Migration from village Hell to
urban Heaven has become migration from peaceful village to dangerous,
deprived and desperate slums.
Many writers have studied the effects of hasty urbanization in the devel-
oping world. Jones (2003) used three transitions to discuss contemporary
research and policy on urbanization. The hasty urbanization that the
developing countries have been experiencing is the first transition. It has
been predicted by many international organizations and researchers that
80% of the world’s population would live in urban areas by 2025 (Mooya
and Chris 2007). This would make the systematic development efforts of
urban areas problematic due to the relentless growth of informal settle-
ments (Durand-Lasserve and Royston 2002).
Jones (2003) identified poverty as the second transition among the
effects of urbanization. Notably, the growth rate of urban poverty in
developing countries is about the same as the growth rate in urbanization.
The 2018 revised version of World’s Urbanization Prospects shows that
41% people of lower-middle-income countries were living in urban areas
in 2018 while the ratio was 32% in lower-income countries. The report
also projected that these percentages would be on average 59% and 50%,
respectively, in 2050 (United Nations 2019).
Jones’ (2003) third transition among the effects of urbanization was
property rights. This is what would turn desperate squatters into settled
residents. Although we are yet to finalize a clear definition of what consti-
tutes “urban” in Bangladesh, we are experiencing an extremely high
growth rate of urbanization. Due to the migration of increasingly more
people from rural areas to cities, the country has become one of the most
hurriedly urbanized countries in Asia. This hasty urbanization casts mam-
moth burdens on cities by aggravating and extending urban poverty.
Accordingly, a growing number of the urban poor, without any access to
amenities and without any land rights, are living in substandard slums.
Over the years, these desperate urban poor are becoming a serious chal-
lenge to the cities, especially on the issue of housing. There are, increas-
ingly, two classes of housing in the urban areas of developing countries:
 PREFACE vii

state-of-the-art houses for the successful and unserved slums for everyone
else. Thus, the issues of urbanization, urban poverty and slum develop-
ment are closely related.
The substandard lifestyle and suffering of the people of the slums have
influenced Governments and other actors to look for strategies through
which urban misery can be alleviated. In this connection, the strategy of
slum upgrading has been development, as alternatives like relocation of
slum dwellers is quite difficult for most countries. Considering the impor-
tance of slum upgrading, Governments, as well as international organiza-
tions and NGOs, have been working on implementing this policy. Yet it is
very difficult to conclude that slum-upgrading initiatives have been successful.
In this book, a few slum-upgrading examples that were successful have been
presented as “best practice” models. As in other developing countries, several
slum-upgrading initiatives have also been implemented in Bangladesh.
This book focuses on the relationship of urbanization, urban poverty and
slum development initiatives. Both global and Bangladeshi case studies are
considered. The book takes up initiative to discuss the theoretical linkages
among urbanization, urban poverty and slum development; the relationship
between slum formation and slum upgradation initiatives; the global strate-
gies needed to address the issue of urban slum development; and the major
challenges facing slum-upgrading initiatives in Bangladesh and their possi-
ble solutions. Very few efforts have been made to present an all-inclusive
analysis of the urbanization, urban poverty and slum-­upgrading initiatives in
Bangladesh. No other book has tried to do this. Therefore, this book intends
to fill the existing gaps by considering these issues as the whole that they are.

Rajshahi, Bangladesh Pranab Kumar Panday

References
Durand-Lasserve, A., & Royston, L. (2002). Holding their ground: Secure land
tenure for the urban poor in developing countries. London: Earthscan.
Jones, G. A. (Ed.). (2003). Urban land markets in transition. CD ROM. Cambridge,
MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Mooya, M. M., & Chris E. C. (2007). Informal urban property markets and poverty
alleviation: A conceptual framework. Urban Studies, 44(1), 147–165.
United Nations. (2019). World urbanization prospects: The 2018 revision. New York:
Department of Economic and Social Affairs (Population Department).
 Contents

1 Introduction  1

2 Theoretical Debates on Urban Poverty 17

3 Urbanization and Urban Poverty in Bangladesh 43

4 Formation of Slums and Slums Upgrading Initiatives in

Bangladesh 57

5 Global Best Practices of Urban Slum Development 87

6 Urban Slum Upgrading Best Practices in Bangladesh121

7 Conclusion, Challenges and Recommendations141

Index151

ix
 Abbreviations

ADB Asian Development Bank

ADP Annual Development Program
ANC African National Congress
ASARC Australia South Asia Research Centre
ASEH Advancing Sustainable Environmental Health
BDTK Bangladesh Taka
BIP Basti Improvement Program
BOSC Bastee Basheer Odhikar Surakha Committees
BRAC Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee
BRICS Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa
BUILD Building Union Infrastructure for Local Development
BURT Bangladesh Urban Round Table
CARE Cooperative for American Relief Everywhere
CDD Community Driven Development
CDF Community Development Fund
CEPAL Economic Commission for Latin America
CKIP Comprehensive Kampung Improvement program
CODI Community Organizations Development Institute
CSG Community Self-help Group
CTLS Community-Led Total Sanitation Program
CUDP Calcutta Urban Development Program
CUP Coalition for the Urban Poor
CUS Centre for Urban Studies
DCC Dhaka City Corporation
DFID Department for International Development

xi
xii ABBREVIATIONS

DMP Disaster Management Program

DPRU Development Policy Research Units
DSK Sushtha Shasthya Kendra
DWASA Dhaka Water Supply and Sewerage Authority
ECLA Eugene Comprehensive Lands Assessment
EGM Extraordinary General Meeting
ESCAP United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and
the Pacific
FFP Food for Peace
FGI Fertile Grounds Initiative
FPP Flood Proofing Project
GB Government of Bangladesh
GDP Gross Domestic Program
GIS Geographic Information System
GIZ German Society for International Cooperation
GNP Gross National Product
GOB Government of Bangladesh
GPI Gap Poverty Index
GTZ German Technical Cooperation Agency
HDRC Human Development Research Centre
HIES Household Income and Expenditure Survey
HPI Headcount Poverty Indices
HUDCO Housing and Urban Development Cooperation
ICSECR International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
IDS Institute of Development Studies
IFSP Fourth Integrated Food Security Program
IGA Income Generating Activities
IGES Institute for Global Environmental Strategies
IIED International Institute for Environment and Development
IOM International Organization for Migration
JOWICE Journal of Women in Colleges of Education
KDB Kampung Development Board
KIP Comprehensive Kampung Improvement
LCG Local Consultative Group
LGC Local Government Code
LGD Local Government Division
LGED Local Government Engineering Department
LOSAUK Lokenattya O Sanskritik Unnayan Kendro
LPS Low Performing State
LPUPAP Local Partnership for Urban Poverty Reduction Project
MDG Millennium Development Goals
MEC Multi Economic-based Cooperation
 ABBREVIATIONS xiii

NA Not Applicable
NEC National Economic Council
NGO Nongovernmental Organization
NSAPR National Strategy for Accelerated Poverty Reduction
NSDP National Slum Development Program
NY New York
OD Community-led total sanitation
PAF Poverty Alleviation Fund
PNGO Palestinian Nongovernmental Organization
PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper
PSF People’s Survival Fund
PSTC Population Services and Training Centre
RICS Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors
SC Supervision Council
SHAHAR Supporting Household Activities for Hygiene, Assets
and Revenue
SIP Slum Improvement Project
SPARC Society for the Promotion of Areas Resource Centres
SRA Slum Rehabilitation Authority
STWSSSP Secondary Towns Water Supply and Sanitation Sector Project
STWSSSP Small Towns Water Supply and Sanitation Sector Project
UBSDP Urban basic Service delivery Project
UCDO Urban Community Development Organization
UCLG United Cities and Local Governments
UK United Kingdom
UN United Nations
UNAPCAEM Comprehensive Review of the Work of the United Nations
Asian and Pacific Centre for Agricultural Engineering and
Machinery
UNCEDAW Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination
against Women
UNCHS United Nations Centre for Human Settlements
UNCRC United National Child Rights Convention
UN-DESA United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs
UNDP United Nations Development Program
UNFP United Nations Population Fund
UN-HABITAT United Nations Human Settlements Program
UNICEF United Nations Children’s Emergency Fund
UNUWIDER United Nations University World Institute for Development
Economics Research
UP Union Parishad
UPL University Press Limited
xiv ABBREVIATIONS

UPPRP Urban Partnerships for Poverty Reduction Project

UPWARD Users’ Perspectives With Agricultural Research and Development
USA United States of America
VAMBAY Valmiki Ambedkar Awas Yojana
VERC Village Education Resource Centre
WATSAN Water and Sanitation
WB World Bank
WEDC Water Engineering and Development Centre
WHO World Health Organization
WSUP Water and Sanitation for the Urban Poor
 List of Tables

Table 1.1 Urban land tenure types in Bangladesh 7

Table 1.2 Types of informal and formal tenure 8
Table 3.1 Trends of urbanization in Bangladesh (1901–2011) 46
Table 3.2 GDP per capita of top 10 countries along with their level of
urbanization (2018) 47
Table 3.3 Household rural–urban income inequality in Bangladesh (in TK) 48
Table 3.4 Poverty trends in Bangladesh (calculated based on upper
poverty line) 49
Table 3.5 Distribution of slums by locality (City Corporation,
Municipalities and Other Urban Areas) 50
Table 5.1 Progress for Baan Mankong; January 2003 to September 27,
2005101
Table 5.2 Different kinds of projects 101
Table 5.3 The kinds of land tenure security improvement achieved by
the projects 102
Table 6.1 Implementation strategies for the SHAHAR component 130

xv
 CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Introduction
Urbanization is an important manifestation of modernization.
Modernization has been considered to be a sign of growth and economic
progress. The whole world has been affected by the growth of urbaniza-
tion. Although the process of urbanization is almost complete in rich
industrialized countries, it is a recent phenomenon in the context of devel-
oping countries. Thus, developing countries are experiencing urbaniza-
tion at such a rapid pace that it exceeds their economic growth and their
ability to finance it. Like other developed countries, South Asian countries
in general, and Bangladesh in particular, have been undergoing a rapid
growth in urbanization. Urbanization has been so rapid in these countries
that it makes it difficult for the government to maintain social and eco-
nomic integration and provide for all the impoverished newcomers to
the cities.
Since the issue of urbanization has great implications for both devel-
oped and developing countries, Jones (2003) discusses the contemporary
research and policy formulation on this issue, identifying a number of
transitions in the process. The first transition, especially in developing
countries, is excessively rapid—we say “hasty”—urbanization. The rate of
urbanization is so fast in these countries that many have estimated that
80% of the population of these countries will be living in urban areas by
2025 (Mooya and Chris 2007). Such an excessive speed of urbanization
will impel the growth of informal settlements. Historically, these two

© The Author(s) 2020 1

P. K. Panday, The Face of Urbanization and Urban Poverty in
Bangladesh, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3332-7_1
2 P. K. PANDAY

concepts—rapid urbanization and the growth of informal settlements—

have a close relationship (Durand-Lasserve and Royston 2002).
Poverty, according to Jones (2003), is the second transition. The
inhabitants of the informal settlements that spring up in the first transition
are mostly, desperately poor. They arrive with nothing and, at least for a
long time, have almost nothing. As a result, we see that the rate of increase
in urban poverty is far higher than that in rural poverty. The rapid growth
in the numbers of the urban poor has made international organizations,
like the Department of International Development, express their concern
in 2003. They projected that if urban population growth persists at the
current rate, more than 67% of the poor in Latin America, East and Central
Europe, and Central Asia will be living in urban areas by 2025. They also
predicted that more than one-third, up to as many as half, of the poor in
Africa and Asia will be living in urban areas by that year.
Property rights is the third transition, according to Jones (2003). This
develops as a political, economic and social issue directly from the repopu-
lation of most urban areas with poor, desperate, rural migrants in Jones’
(2003) transitions 1 and 2. The unholy trinity of Urbanization, Poverty
and Slums, are closely related and have thus gained paramount importance
as the issue of discussion on development in academic and develop-
ment fields.
Bangladesh, too, has been experiencing the sort of “hasty” urbaniza-
tion and resultant problems of urban poverty and slumification of cities
described earlier. Continuous and relentless movement of people from
rural areas to cities in larger numbers has branded Bangladesh as one of
the most urbanized countries in Asia. Yet, while this process occurred in
Europe over a period of 300 years, it has, as in most other developing
countries, happened in Bangladesh in a single generation. The rapid
urbanization is creating enormous pressure on cities, thus, aggravating
urban poverty. The increasing numbers of the urban poor are posing a
serious challenge to the cities in terms of providing an acceptable quality
of housing (Panday 2017). There are, increasingly, two classes of housing
in the urban areas of Bangladesh, as in other developing countries: state-­
of-­the-art houses for the successful and poorly serviced slums for everyone
else. Thus, the issues of urbanization, urban poverty and slum develop-
ment are closely related.
In the existing literature, there is no comprehensive work that has shed
light on the issues of urbanization, urban poverty and slum development
in Bangladesh. Thus, intending to fill this gap, this book discusses these
 1 INTRODUCTION 3

three concepts in a single frame. The book aims to provide a clear under-
standing of the relationship among these interrelated issues in Bangladesh:
(1) what is the theoretical linkage between urbanization, urban poverty
and slum development; (2) what is the relationship between slum forma-
tion and slum upgrading initiatives; (3) how has the issue of urban slum
development has been addressed globally; (4) what are the major urban
slum-upgrading practices in Bangladesh and (5) what are the major chal-
lenges for slum development initiatives in Bangladesh and how can they
be resolved? The book is mainly based on the analysis of secondary
materials.

Urbanization, Urban Poverty and Slum Development:

An Analysis of Their Interrelationship in Bangladesh
As stated earlier, urbanization is one of the most talked-about develop-
ment issues in the modern development discourse. One of the most seri-
ous manifestations of urbanization is the rapid increase of urban poverty
in these countries. On the other hand, urban growth, or urbanization, and
urban poverty have proliferated with the growth of slums and squatter
settlements in most developing countries. The enormity of the issue is not
a new phenomenon in development literature.
For instance, UN-HABITAT (2003a), in its global slum assessment
report, mentioned that 32% of the world’s population (which was around
924 million in 2003) was living in slums, while in developing countries,
43% was living in slums. At least, the awareness of the problem dates back
to the beginning of this century.
Living conditions in these slums are awful and they also damage the
environment. Common descriptions of slums include lack of water supply,
unhygienic sanitation facilities, congested and ramshackle habitation, per-
ilous location and anxiety over tenure, among other kinds of social and
economic deprivation. The proliferation of substandard living conditions
gave rise to Target 11 of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)
that made a commitment to substantially upgrade living conditions for the
100 million people who, it was estimated, would be living in slums by the
year 2020 (UN-HABITAT 2003b).
McGranahan and Martine (2014) stated that the hasty growth of the
slum communities, drawing poor people in from the rural areas, has made
urban poverty a serious challenge for many of the developing societies.
4 P. K. PANDAY

Thus, migration-induced urban poverty has manifested in inadequate and

irregular incomes, which define urban poverty in most developing coun-
tries. The problem is that the urban economy is informal and irregular,
while the costs of living of the poor who live and work in it are fixed and
rising. Low-income people, trying to live “the city life” buy necessities at
the same prices as do the rich, but do not have equivalent or regular
incomes.
Yet income cannot be considered the only indicator of urban poverty.
Housing conditions, even for slum dwellers who earn middle-class
incomes, but not enough to leave the slums, also need to be considered.
This is because, increasingly in developing countries, cities are becoming
places of modern state-of-the-art accommodation surrounded by teeming
slums. Thus, a slum dweller who improves his or her income has nowhere
to go unless he or she can jump the middle class into true wealth. More
than a billion urban people are compelled to stay in overcrowded hovels
with no legal rights to the land on which they sleep. Worse, the people
living in these illegal hovels do not get access to public services in the form
of roads, drainage, potable water and sewerage health, education, police
or emergency services (Tacoli 2017). Along with their other sufferings,
slum dwellers can never feel secure because they are liable to attack by
criminals, landlords and the local or central government that wants to
clear the slums (Satterthwaite 2003).
People staying in these illegal houses also have to contend with the
threat of crime, violence and insecurity, lack of access to credit and absence
of voting rights. Access to these non-income facilities requires legal status
with official land tenure documents to prove it, which these people do not
have. Thus, they pay disproportionate costs to buy community services
like water, sewage disposal, schooling and health care (Tacoli 2017).
Another dimension of urban poverty and slum settlement is the gender
dimension of the impact of inadequate community services. Most slum
women are too busy doing household activities and providing care to chil-
dren and elders at home to develop careers. They are also affected by
health-related problems due to pollution and lack of health care. They do
not find a safe place to take care of their children or to prepare food for
family members. Whenever they want to get involved in paid jobs, the
scope is very limited: low pay for long hours as household helpers is avail-
able to them (Degaga 2010).
The issue of the impact of substandard, illegal housing on the security
of urban food and nutrition has been one of the least-researched areas in
 1 INTRODUCTION 5

development literature. While good food is available in the urban markets,

people living in poor settlements cannot afford them. In slums, there is
little space to grow fruits and vegetables, let alone keep animals. This issue
needs to be considered in both its food and non-food aspects (Tacoli
et al. 2013).
Like other developing countries of the world, Bangladesh has seen a
rapid growth in urbanization. While the problem may cease to grow so
rapidly in future, the UN has projected that the country will have 86.5 mil-
lion people in cities by 2030 (UN-HABITAT 2013). If the growth con-
tinues at the same rate, the urban share of the total population would
exceed the 50% mark by 2040 and 60% by the year 2050. At that point,
the number of people in urban areas in 2050 would be more than 100 mil-
lion (Islam 2012).
Urban poverty, as stated earlier, is a manifestation of the hasty urbaniza-
tion of the country. Rural people flood the underserviced cities and the
State sector of developing countries does not have the resources to pro-
vide the housing and other normal amenities they need. Thus, they are
condemned to a substandard life without basic services (Saleh and
Khan 2017).
How can poor countries deal with hasty urbanization and the poverty
it creates? One easy way to deal with the issue is to ensure availability of
resources that will respond to and support urban or local authorities,
emphasizing on the capabilities of inhabitants, ensuring the privileges of
entire populations to elementary facilities, ensuring rule of law and estab-
lishing responsible organizations. We cannot ignore the fact that poor
people are subjected to different types of deprivation in the form of insuf-
ficient consumption of food, scarce resources, problems relating to the
condition of health of people living in substandard houses, the fight for
safer water and improved sanitation, the complications in receiving appro-
priate care of health and sending children to school, and the extended
working hours in unsafe situations. What they need are (1) resources and
(2) organization. Yet most developing countries have neither. Given that
their private sector resources are also inadequate and can be tapped nor
taxed, they need help from developed countries, international investors or
international organizations to address these problems. The absence of
land tenure rights has made slum dwellers vulnerable. The Government of
Bangladesh has acknowledged the importance of the issue of slum devel-
opment and has incorporated it in its action under Sustainable Development
Goal 11 (“make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and
6 P. K. PANDAY

sustainable”). Target 11 of the MDG was also similar. By designing a

“New Urban Agenda” in line with the guidelines of the UN-Habitat III
Cities Conference, held in Quito, Ecuador on 20 October 2016, the
Government of Bangladesh intends to guide all urban development actors,
including policy-makers, civil society, development funders and interna-
tional organizations to reach the goal of having safe housing as a human
right of the slum dwellers. This would be transformative social change. In
addition to this, the Government of Bangladesh has also enacted a National
Housing Policy, to guarantee the housing rights of every citizen (Saleh
and Khan 2017). Thus, the issue of slum upgrading has become a policy
agenda of the Government as well as of local and international
organizations.

Land Tenure Rights of Slum Dwellers in Bangladesh

The Constitution of Bangladesh, in Article 15 (1), affirms that “It shall be
a fundamental responsibility of the state to …. provide basic necessities of
life, including food, clothing, shelter, education and medical care”.
Moreover, Articles 31 and 32 also guarantee the fundamental rights of the
citizens to protection and life in accordance with law (The Constitution of
Bangladesh 2016). In addition to the Constitutional guarantees, the
National Housing Policy, 1993, considered a milestone in the field of
ensuring people’s rights to housing, set out goals of slum improvement
while protecting the rights of slum dwellers not to be evicted without bet-
ter alternative housing (Islam 2004). The 1999 National Housing Policy
Amendments emphasized the facilitative role of the private sector’s devel-
opment of housing for all, including the poor. Moreover, the Government
of Bangladesh has ratified a number of international agreements or trea-
ties, including the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights (ICSECR), the UN Convention on the Elimination of all
Forms of Discrimination against Women (UNCEDAW), and the UN
Child Rights Convention (UNCRC), that also speak of the rights of shel-
ter for all.
To achieve shelter for all requires confronting the issue of security of
tenure for slum dwellers. Security without ownership is a pipedream. The
system of land tenure in Bangladesh has a very complex history and is now
quite insecure and unsettled. In many cases, it is not quite certain who
 1 INTRODUCTION 7

owns slum land. The majority of the urban poor and extremely poor in
Bangladesh informally occupy their homes with no real legal right to do so.
In Bangladesh, 90% of the urban poor do not have tenure rights. They
are squatting on State land or private property. At least 20 types of infor-
mal tenure arrangements exist for the poor, all illegal (Mostafa n.d.). In
many cases, slums are considered transit places for people who believe that
they are on the road from the village to a better life. Lack of legal tenure
rights makes these people feel constantly insecure, in fear of dispossession
by the true landowner or the State (Jayarantne 2009). Tables 1.1 and 1.2
show the different urban land tenure types in Bangladesh as found by
three independent studies.

Table 1.1 Urban land tenure types in Bangladesh

Study-1 (Islam et al. Study-2 (Shafi and Payne Study-3 (UNDP 2006)
2007) 2007)

1 N onformal, de 1. Street dwellers 1. Land over which occupants claim

facto tenure “ownership”
2. Private freehold 2. Tenant bed rental (Mess 2. Land on which occupants have a
housing) lease for varying lengths of time
3. Government of 3. Tenant room rental 3. Permission to stay and use the
khas land land
4. Public leasehold 4. Squatter tenant 4. Rental agreements
5. Private leasehold 5. Squatter 5. Informally occupied land
6. Apartment tenure 6. Tenant—on registered
and subdivided land
7. Community 7. Owner—on unregistered
ownership and subdivided land
8. Cooperative 8. Legal tenant no contract
Ownership
9. Wakf (charitable/ 9. Legal tenant with
religious land) contract
10. Abandoned 10. Tied tenant
property
11. The nonresident 11. Leaseholder
vested property
12. Cooperative member
13. Communal owner
14. The individual owner

Source: Adapted from Mostafa (n.d.: 7). and Jayarantne, K. A. (2009)


Table 1.2 Types of informal and formal tenure
Types of informal tenure
1. Street dwellers: Persons or families living on pavements or
the side of the streets. Practically without a
roof over their head. The duration can vary
from days to months.
2. Tenant, bed rental People living by renting bed space as in
(Mess housing): hostels/ dormitories. Not very common and
exists only in major cities, around city
centres and close to industrial
establishments. This type is commonly
known as a ‘mess’ type of accommodation.
3. Tenant room rental: Renting rooms with shared facilities.
Accommodation is temporary by nature.
May occur on public or private land and
public or private housing.
4. Squatter tenant: Tenants in squatter built houses generally on
public land.
5. Squatter: Person or family living on land belonging to
another, usually in the self-constructed
house generally on public land.
6. Tenant—on Rental accommodation in housing built on
unregistered and land that has been subdivided and purchased
subdivided land: but not registered.
7. Owner—on Legal owners of unregistered land with the
unregistered and building which may be unauthorized,
subdivided land: generally known as illegal subdivision.
8. Legal tenant no A tenant living in legal housing under a
contract: verbal agreement.
Source: Adapted from Mostafa (n.d.: 8)
8
Types of informal tenure
9. Legal tenant A tenant renting legally developed a
with land/house with a legal contract.
P. K. PANDAY
contract: Normally a yearly contract.
10. Tied Tenant: A tenant who occupies residential
quarters as an employee of the
government, semi-government and
private commercial and industrial
organizations. Tenure security is tied to
retaining employment.
11. Leaseholder: Possession of land/house under a lease
agreement with the landowner (public
or private).
12. Cooperative Enjoys land and housing as a member of
member: a registered cooperative society.
13. Communal Owners who belong to a group and live
owner: in one area and enjoy community
welfare and mutual support.
14. Individual Enjoy land/housing legally and have
owner: access to the rights of selling/transfer or
development of the property.
 1 INTRODUCTION 9

Legal land tenure opens access to basic services like infrastructure,

employment and financial institutions. Land tenure security also acts as a
social capital that helps the households to enjoy a significant level of social
status and financial security, as the land title is one of the low-income com-
munity’s “portfolio of assets” (Moser 2007) and allows owners to borrow
from banks for investment.
For instance, one of the greatest challenges of the people living in slums
is the lack of safe drinking water and other water supply for cleaning and
hygiene. This problem has been intensified due to the absence of munici-
pal and private water and sanitation services in slum settlements. The main
problem is that the law requires those who seek connection to local gov-
ernment water services to show ownership of the relevant land. Such pro-
vision of the law is contradictory to the basic principles of the State policies
that require the government to deliver sufficient services to citizens, such
as water and sanitation. Of course, the Government explains that they do
not want to change the law to encourage squatting by providing services
to squatters. Moreover, the Government fears that people who do not
own the land can never pay for the water as connection is a costly process.
Yet the slum dwellers pay far more to access the water by the bucket as
they would pay for the pipe, calculated on a per liter basis (Retrieved from
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/dpu-projects/drivers_urb_change/urb_infra-
structure/pdf_land%20tenure/WaterAid_Land_Tenure.pdf, accessed on
24/12/2017).

Importance of the Book

Despite Constitutional guarantees, the housing rights of a large portion of
people living in slums have not been safeguarded. One of the prime rea-
sons is urban poverty, which is one of the manifestations of rapid urbaniza-
tion. Thus, the issue of slum development is an important agenda for the
development organizations and the Government of Bangladesh.
In order to deal with the issue of slum improvement, different pro-
grams in the name of slum clearance and slum resettlement were imple-
mented by governments of different countries and international donor
organizations. However, considering the importance of the issue, these
programs have been replaced by slum upgrading or development.
Demolishing and rebuilding the slums proved to be beyond the financial
capacity of the developing countries’ governments, as well as being
extremely disrupting to the lives of slum dwellers (World Bank 2006). As
10 P. K. PANDAY

compared to the failure of most slum resettlement programs, slum upgrad-

ing attained a greater amount of success in different countries, including
Thailand, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, and in some places in India.
Thus, in light of these success stories, slum-upgrading initiatives were
also introduced in Bangladesh. Successful factors have included fulfillment
of the project objectives, community participation, availability of resources,
and approaches of the State agencies (Khan 2007).
It is important to mention here that there are numerous slum upgrada-
tions or development or improvement programs that have been imple-
mented in different parts of the world. Among those, some of them have
attained tremendous success while others have failed to attain the desired
level of success. Along with other countries, the Government of
Bangladesh, along with different international donor organizations, with
the assistance of national organizations, has been implementing various
programs intending to ensure positive development in the living standards
of people in the slums. Now a pertinent question is whether the modalities
of different slum upgrading have succeeded or failed in different develop-
ing countries. This book asks the following questions: to what extent are
urbanization, urban poverty and slums interrelated in Bangladesh; are
slum-upgrading programs that are being implemented in Bangladesh dif-
ferent to programs that are being implemented elsewhere; and what are
the best practices in slum development initiatives and how we could learn
lessons from them to revamp our programs in this regard?
This book attempts to provide a comprehensive discussion on the theo-
retical and practical interrelationship of urbanization, urban poverty and
slum development initiatives that are being implemented globally and in
Bangladesh. The book will help to identify best practices of urban slum
development initiatives from the global perspective and how those can be
included in slum development initiatives in Bangladesh.
This book intends to fill current gaps in the literature through the accu-
mulation of new knowledge on urbanization, urban poverty and slum
development in South Asia in general and Bangladesh in particular. One
of the notable gaps is that there is hardly any book that has considered
urban poverty and slum development initiatives globally and in a country-­
specific context in a single frame. Thus, it is expected that the book will
identify different dimensions of urban poverty, best practices of slum
development initiatives, and challenges of the implementation of these
programs. Based on the findings, the Government and different
 1 INTRODUCTION 11

development partners will be able to redesign their implementation strate-

gies with regard to reducing urban poverty and to better improve the liv-
ing conditions of slum dwellers.
Most importantly, the book will help readers comprehend the variety
and advantages of different slum development initiatives in a global per-
spective. This would allow the readers to make a comparison of the oper-
ating procedures of different programs.
The book will first operationalize the concept of best practices and,
based on these criteria, will identify a number of best practices of the slum
improvement initiatives. With an intention to assist policy-makers and
development practitioners to identify their missing links, and receive feed-
back on the lessons learnt by those best practices. Accordingly, they would
be placed in a better position to redesign their existing programs or future
initiatives. Thus, we can learn the lessons of the past and make better
choices for the future. Most importantly, it is expected that the book will
deliver a comprehensive scrutiny of the issue of urbanization, urban pov-
erty and slum development initiatives from a global and a Bangladesh
perspective.

Organization of the Book

Chapter 1: Introduction
Almost all developing countries are confronted with “hasty” urbanization,
resulting in the growth of urban poverty. As a consequence of urbaniza-
tion, millions of people are moving from rural to urban areas in the hope
of living a better life. Once they arrive in the cities, they begin to live a life
worse than before. They raise their incomes somewhat, if they are lucky,
but also increase their costs beyond their capacity to pay. Even problems
solved simply in the village, like food, housing and sanitation, become
unending crises. Thus, they are compelled to live in slums where they do
not get access to basic services. This chapter presents the underlying
dilemma of the rural migrant to the slum in Bangladesh. It also introduces
the main objectives and issues in the book. The relationship among urban-
ization, urban poverty and slum development is introduced and set out in
stark reality. There is a modest attempt to discuss the Constitutional guar-
antees concerning housing rights.
12 P. K. PANDAY

Chapter 2: Theoretical Debates on Urbanization

and Urban Poverty
This chapter sheds light on the detailed theoretical debate on the issue of
urbanization and urban poverty. In the first half of the chapter, an attempt
has been made to discuss the meaning of concepts like urban, urbanism,
urbanized and urbanization. The second half of the chapter deals with the
meaning of poverty and urban poverty, which includes the historical per-
spectives of urban poverty. This is followed by a discussion on the theo-
retical background of urban poverty where different theories, including
social transformation theory, the functionalist theory, and the conflict
theory, will be discussed. Finally, urban poverty debates in different parts
of the world are summarized.

Chapter 3: Urbanization and Urban Poverty in Bangladesh

Urbanization and urban poverty are closely linked as the former creates
the latter. The hasty urbanization in Bangladesh over the last 20 years has
accelerated the growth of urban poverty in major cities. Therefore, this
chapter presents a discussion on the intensity and extent of urbanization in
Bangladesh from a historical perspective. While analyzing the situation of
urbanization, different issues, including the urban situation, urban growth,
the proportion of urban population and share of GDP, have been given
special prominence. Moreover, the issue of urban poverty has been dis-
cussed, highlighting the growth and impact of urban poverty on the econ-
omy of the country.

Chapter 4: Formation of Slums and Slum Upgradation

Initiatives in Bangladesh
In the year 2008, the total urban population outstripped the rural popula-
tion throughout the world. This majority of people who began to live in
urban areas created an enormous amount of pressure on the cities, leading
to a large number of slum population in most countries of the world. Like
other countries, Bangladesh has also experienced the growth of slum pop-
ulation. Most importantly, people who are coming to the cities for their
livelihoods do not have tenure of land, and thus, they begin to reside
anywhere they find vacant. Thus, this chapter first explores why slums
 1 INTRODUCTION 13

form globally and later in the context of Bangladesh. In addition, slum-­

upgrading initiatives in the country have been discussed briefly.

Chapter 5: Global Best Practices of Urban Slum

Development Initiatives
Throughout the world, many governments and organizations have been
working on the improvement of urban slums. All initiatives cannot be
considered as best initiatives. To be the best, a project must be effective
over a long period of time. The main argument is that best practice should
have the applicability in organizations lacking successful reform. That is
why academicians and development practitioners have stressed the impor-
tance of different indicators, including shared vision, a clear perception of
the current reality, creativity and innovation, and learning through prac-
ticing modality, while featuring a best practice. Thus, this chapter discusses
a number of best practices of slum development initiatives globally that
have proved to be successful in their endeavor to ensure development for
the slums in different countries of the world. In addition to highlighting
different components of these programs, the chapter also discusses lessons
that have been learnt for possible replication in other countries of
the world.

Chapter 6: Urban Slum-Upgrading Best Practices in Bangladesh

People usually migrate from rural to urban areas (towns and cities) being
compelled by factors like the growing number of landless households and
lack of job opportunities. These people, who are already destitute, do not
have a decent place to live. Finding no other alternative, they begin to live
in the slums where they do not get access to different services, including
water supply, sanitation, waste collection or infrastructure, which are being
provided by municipalities. Thus, they fall prey to different kinds of dis-
ease, crime and natural disasters. In Bangladesh, different organizations,
including the government, nongovernmental organizations, and donors
have been implementing various initiatives for upgrading the living condi-
tions of the people in slums and reducing poverty there. This chapter
discusses several urban slum-upgrading best practices in Bangladesh and
their impact on slum dwellers. In addition to this, the major challenges of
slum upgrading have been discussed and possible ways forward have been
suggested.
14 P. K. PANDAY

Chapter 7: Conclusion
Based on discussions in the earlier chapters, the conclusion is that “hasty”
urbanization has augmented the growth of urban poverty in Bangladesh.
The majority of the poor does not have affordable quality housing, and
lives in slums. Different initiatives have been taken by different organiza-
tions in Bangladesh to upgrade slums in Bangladesh. Among them, many
programs have been found to be very successful as they have brought a
revolution in the slums of the country. The chapter concludes by setting
out why these programs have become successful.

Conclusion
One of the major challenges that Bangladesh confronts in the twenty-first
century is its hasty urbanization. Beginning in the 1990s, the process
accelerated out of control and without the necessary planning or resources
to make it work. For instance, the country’s capital Dhaka has been named
as one of the fastest-growing megacities in the world. The hasty urbaniza-
tion has not only accelerated the urban population but also increased the
total number of people living in poverty. The majority of the people that
are poor live in slums with no land tenure or security, despite having the
Constitutional guarantee of housing for all. These people do not get access
to the basic services needed for a decent standard of living. Considering
the miseries of the slum population, the Government of Bangladesh, like
those of other developing countries, and international and national orga-
nizations, has been implementing slum development initiatives. This book
explains the dynamics of urbanization, urban poverty and slum develop-
ment and how we can use them to achieve better lives for the urban poor.
Chapter 2 offers a discussion on the theoretical debates on urbanization
and urban poverty.

References
Degaga, D. T. (2010). Some realities of the urban poor and their food security
situations: A case study of Berta Gibi and Gemechu Safar in the city of Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia. Environment and Urbanization, 22(1), 179–198.
Durand-Lasserve, A., & Royston, L. (2002). Holding their ground: Secure land
tenure for the urban poor in developing countries. London: Earthscan.
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/dpu-projects/drivers_urb_change/urb_infrastructure/
pdf_land%20tenure/WaterAid_Land_Tenure.pdf.
 1 INTRODUCTION 15

Islam, N. (2012, June 16–18). Urbanization and urban governance in Bangladesh.

A background paper for the 13th annual global development conference on
“urbanization & development: Delving deeper into the nexus”, Budapest.
Islam, N. (2004). The poor’s access to land and housing in Dhaka. Paper written
for the World Bank, Dhaka Urban Poverty Study. Retrieved from https://
www.researchgate.net/profile/Sohail_Ahmad2/publication/273608559_
Housing_demand_and_housing_policy_in_urban_Bangladesh/
links/56d3098608ae4d8d64a76d89/Housing-demand-and-housing-policy-
in-urban-Bangladesh.pdf (accessed on 30/12/2019).
Jayarantne, K. A. (2009). Draft strategy for improvement of tenure security of poor
in UPPR towns in Bangladesh. Dhaka: UNDP.
Jones, G. A. (Ed.). (2003). Urban and markets in transition. CD ROM. Cambridge,
MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Khan, S. P. (2007). An exploratory study of slum development projects in Dhaka city:
A case study of UBSDP and WATSAN. An Unpublished Master Dissertation.
BRAC University, Dhaka.
McGranahan, G., & Martine, G. (Eds.). (2014). Urban growth in emerging econo-
mies: Lessons from the BRICS. Abingdon: Routledge.
Mooya, M. M., & Chris, E. C. (2007). Informal urban property markets and
poverty alleviation: A conceptual framework, Urban Studies, 44(1): 147–165.
Moser, C. (Ed.). (2007). Reducing global poverty: The case for asset accumulation.
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Mostafa, A. (n.d.). Evolution of participatory and support based approach for
strengthening tenure security, housing and community resilience. A documenta-
tion of pilot project experience on secure tenure under partnership for poverty
reduction (UPPR) project, UN-HABITAT, Bangladesh.
Panday, P. K. (2017). Reforming urban governance in Bangladesh: The city corpora-
tion. The UK. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Saleh, A., & Khan, M. (2017). Bangladesh urban housing dilemma. Retrieved June
5, 2019, from http://blog.brac.net/reimagining-slums-innovative-solutions-
to-bangladeshs-urban-housing-dilemma/.
Satterthwaite, D. (2003). The millennium development goals and urban poverty
reduction: Grate expectations and nonsense statistics. Environment and
Urbanization, 15(2), 179–190.
Shafi, S., & Payne, G. (2007). Final report—Land tenure security and land admin-
istration in Bangladesh. Dhaka: LPUPAP.
Tacoli, C. (2017). Migration and inclusive urbanization. Working Paper No.
UN/POP/EGM/2017/6. United Nations expert group meeting on sustain-
able cities, human mobility and international migration. New York: Department
of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations Secretariat.
Tacoli, C., Bukhari, B., & Fischer, S. E. (2013). Urban poverty, food security and
climate change. Human Settlements Working Papers, IIED, London.
16 P. K. PANDAY

The Constitution of Bangladesh (Modified up to 2016). Dhaka: Government of

People’s Republic of Bangladesh.
UNDP. (2006). UPPR project technical annex. Dhaka.
UN-HABITAT. (2003a). The challenge of slums: Global report on human settle-
ments 2003. London: Earthscan.
UN-HABITAT. (2003b). Guide to monitoring target 11: Improving the lives of 100
million slum dwellers: Progress towards the millennium development goals.
Nairobi: UN-HABITAT.
United Nations Human Settlements Program (UN-Habitat). (2013). Sustainable
cities and human settlements in the post-2015 UN development agenda. Retrieved
December 23, 2017, from http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/
documents/1653SustainableCities.pdf.
World Bank. (2006). The Mumbai slum sanitation program: Partnering with slum
communities for sustainable sanitation in a megalopolis. Report No. 38456.
Washington, DC: World Bank.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
on which those citizens have granted power to that legislature to
command them.
That we may intelligently so insist, and that our insistence may be
made in the proper place and at the proper time, let us briefly
consider on what subjects, in the making of our Constitution, our
predecessors, as American citizens, granted their enumerated
national powers to our only government of all Americans. Like those
predecessors, assembled in their conventions, we find all those
enumerated powers in the First Article of the Constitution proposed
from Philadelphia.
In substance they are the war power; the power of making treaties;
the power of regulating commerce between ourselves and all people
outside of America and between the citizens of the different states;
the power of taxation; and all other incidental and supplementary
powers necessary to make laws in the execution of these
enumerated and granted powers.
Noticeably absent from these enumerated powers granted to the
only general government of the citizens of America is that power,
then existing and still in the national government of each nation or
state, known (rather inaccurately) as the police power or the power
to pass any law, in restraint of individual human freedom, reasonably
designed, in the judgment of that particular legislature, to promote
the general welfare of its own citizens. It seems hardly necessary, at
this moment, to refer to the innumerable decisions of the Supreme
Court that such power was not among those enumerated and
granted to the American government by its citizens. It was solely
because such power had definitely not been granted by them to it
that the government of the American citizens made its famous
proposal that a portion of such power, in relation to one subject, be
granted to it in the supposed Eighteenth Amendment of our
Constitution.
As a matter of fact, the police power of any government is really all
its power to pass any laws which interfere with the exercise of
individual freedom. In that respect, the American people made a
marked distinction between the quantum of that kind of power which
they granted to their one general national government and the
quantum they left in the national government of the citizens of each
state. The quantum they granted to their own government was
definitely enumerated in the First Article. On the other hand, except
for the limitations which they themselves imposed upon the
respective governments of each state, they left the citizens of each
state to determine what quantum the government of that state should
have.
In other words, the police power of the American Congress is
strictly limited to the enumerated powers of that kind granted by the
citizens of America. And, although the fact does not seem to be
generally known, it is because the First Article vests in the sole
Legislature of the whole American people nothing but enumerated
powers to interfere with the freedom of the individual American that
our American government has received its universal tribute as a
government of nothing but enumerated powers over a free people,
who are its citizens.
In the Constitution are provisions in separate Articles for the
three great departments of government,—legislative,
executive, and judicial. But there is this significant difference
in the grants of powers to these departments: the First Article,
treating of legislative powers, does not make a general grant
of legislative power. It reads: “Article one, section one. All
legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a
Congress,” etc.; and then, in Article 8, mentions and defines
the legislative powers that are granted. By reason of the fact
that there is no general grant of legislative power it has
become an accepted constitutional rule that this is a
government of enumerated powers. (Justice Brewer, in the
Supreme Court, Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U. S. 46.)
Among the national powers, which are enumerated in the First
Article, there is one which (whenever operative) approximates the
extensive police power of a state government to interfere with the
freedom of its citizens. That is the war power of the Government of
America. As the purpose of the Constitution of the American
Government is to protect the freedom of the American and as such
freedom needs effective protection from foreign attack, the
Americans of that earlier generation made the war power of their
government almost as unlimited as that of a despotic government. All
history and their own human experience had taught them that the
war power, if it was to be effective for their protection, must be
practically unlimited. If we grasp this extent of the American war
power, we realize why our sole American government, without the
grant of a new national power to it, could validly enact what we know
as the War Time Prohibition Statute, although without such a new
grant, it was powerless to enact what we know as the Volstead Act
or National Prohibition for time of peace. It is because the citizens of
each state, in their Constitution of their national government, had
given to it a general (although specifically limited) ability to interfere
with their own human freedom in most matters, that each state
government could validly make prohibition laws for its own citizens. It
is because the American citizens had not given to their government
any such general ability to interfere with their freedom, that the
American Government, for any time except that of war, could not
validly enact National Prohibition for the American people without a
new grant of a new national power directly from its own citizens. In
the days of those earlier Americans, the legal necessity of deriving
such power directly from the American citizens themselves was “felt
and acknowledged by all.” In our day, among our leaders and our
“constitutional” lawyers, there was none so humble as to know or
honor this basic legal necessity.
The other enumerated national powers, which American citizens
ever gave their national government, are few in number, although
they vested a vast and necessary ability in that government to
protect the freedom of its citizens and promote their happiness and
welfare by laws in certain matters. For our present purpose, they
need only be mentioned. They require no present explanation. They
are the power to make all treaties with foreign nations or
governments; the power to regulate commerce, except the
commerce within any one particular state; and the power of taxation.
Having now some accurate conception of the limited and specific
quantum of national power which American citizens consented to
grant in those earlier days, it is pertinent to our inquiry, as to whether
we (their posterity) have again become subjects, to dwell briefly
upon the reluctance with which they made even those grants. In
considering that attitude, it is essential always to keep in mind the
status of the citizens of each state, at that time, and their relation to
their own national government and the relation of each state to the
federal government of all the states. Under the existing system of
governments, the citizens of each state were subject to no valid
interference whatever with their own individual freedom except by
laws of a legislature, every member of which they themselves
elected and to which they themselves granted every power of such
interference which that legislature could validly exercise. To those
free men in those free states, men educated in the knowledge of
what is real republican self-government, these two facts meant the
utmost security of their human rights. No government or
governments in the world, except their own one state government
could interfere at all directly with those rights, and they had given to,
and they could take from, that government any power of that kind. As
for the respective states and the relation of each to the federal
government of all, each state had an equal voice in the giving to or
taking from that government any federal power and each had an
equal voice, in the federal legislature, in exercising each valid federal
power. These existing facts, respectively of vast importance to the
citizens of each state and to its government, influenced, more than
any other facts, the framing of the new Articles, particularly the First
Article, at Philadelphia and the opposition to those Articles in the
conventions in which the people of America assembled.
The First Article, as we know it, starts with the explicit statement
that all national powers, which are granted by Americans in that
Constitution, are granted to the only American legislature, Congress.
It then provides how the members of each of the two bodies in that
legislature shall be elected. It then enumerates the granted powers,
confining them to specific subjects of interference with the human
freedom of the American citizen. It then, for the particular security of
that human freedom, imposes specific restraints upon that legislature
even in the exercise of its granted national powers. Finally, it
prohibits the further exercise of specific powers by any state
government.
No American, who reads the debates of the Philadelphia
Convention of 1787, can fail to realize that the grant of any national
power,—power to interfere with human freedom—is the constitution
of government. The First Article was the subject of almost all the
discussion of those four months at Philadelphia. Seemingly invincible
differences of desire and opinion, as to who should elect and the
proportion (for citizens of the new nation and for states of the
continuing federation) in which there should be elected the members
of the legislature which was to exercise the granted national powers,
almost ended the effort of that Convention. This was in the early part
of July. For exhausting days patriotic men had struggled to reconcile
the conflict of desire and opinion in that respect. One element,
mainly from the larger states, insisted that the members (from each
state) of both branches of the new legislature should be proportioned
to the number of Americans in that state. The other element, mainly
from the smaller states, insisted that the Americans in each state
should have an equal representation in each branch of the new
legislature. Each element was further divided as to who should
choose the members of that legislature. Some held that the people
should choose every member. Others held that the state legislatures
should choose every member. Still others held that each state
should, by its legislature, choose the members of one branch, so that
those members might speak for that state, and that the American
people themselves, divided into districts, should choose the
members of the other branch, so that those members might speak
for the general citizens of America.
Mason of Virginia, later one of the great opponents of the adoption
of all the Articles, insisted that election by the people was “the only
security for the rights of the people.” (5 Ell. Deb. 223.)
Madison “considered an election of one branch, at least of the
legislature by the people immediately, as a clear principle of free
government.” (5 Ell. Deb. 161.)
 Wilson of Pennsylvania “wished for vigor in the government, but
he wished that vigorous authority to flow immediately from the
legitimate source of all authority.” (5 Ell. Deb. 160.) Later he said, “If
we are to establish a national government, that government ought to
flow from the people at large. If one branch of it should be chosen by
the legislatures, and the other by the people, the two branches will
rest on different foundations, and dissensions will naturally arise
between them.” (5 Ell. Deb. 167.)
Dickenson of Delaware “considered it essential that one branch of
the legislature should be drawn immediately from the people, and
expedient that the other should be chosen by the legislatures of the
states.” (5 Ell. Deb. 163.)
Gerry of Massachusetts, consistent Tory in his mental attitude
toward the relation of government to people, insisted that “the
commercial and moneyed interest would be more secure in the
hands of the state legislatures than of the people at large. The
former have more sense of character, and will be restrained by that
from injustice.” (5 Ell. Deb. 169.)
On June 25, Wilson, at some length, opposed the election of
senators by the state legislatures. He stated that: “He was opposed
to an election by state legislatures. In explaining his reasons, it was
necessary to observe the two-fold relation in which the people would
stand—first, as citizens of the general government; and, secondly, as
citizens of their particular state. The general government was meant
for them in the first capacity; the state governments in the second.
Both governments were derived from the people; both meant for the
people; both therefore ought to be regulated on the same
principles.... The general government is not an assemblage of
states, but of individuals, for certain political purposes. It is not meant
for the states, but for the individuals composing them; the
individuals, therefore, not the states, ought to be represented in it.”
(5 Ell. Deb. 239.)
There came a day, early in that memorable July, when all hope of
continuing the Convention was almost abandoned, by reason of the
difference of desire and opinion on this one subject. Let us average
Americans of this generation remember that this one subject was
merely the decision whether the people were to choose all the
members of the legislature which was to exercise granted national
powers to interfere with the human freedom of the citizens of
America. Happily for all of us, there were many patriotic as well as
able leaders at Philadelphia. From their patriotism and ability they
evolved the compromise, on that question, which is expressed in
their First Article. When it came from Philadelphia, it provided that
each state should have equal representation in the Senate, senators
to be chosen by the state legislatures, and that the House of
Representatives should consist of members chosen directly by the
citizens of America, in districts proportioned to the number of those
citizens in it.
No one has read the recorded debates of the Convention which
proposed and the conventions which adopted our Constitution
without learning that the Americans in those conventions knew that
the grant of enumerated national powers in the First Article was the
constitution of the American government of men. In and out of the
Philadelphia Convention, the greatest and most persistent attack
upon its proposal was the insistent claim that it had acted wholly
without authority in proposing an Article which purported to grant any
such national power to interfere with the human freedom of all
Americans. Since July 4, 1776, no legislature or legislatures in the
world had possessed any national powers over all Americans. The
Americans in each existing nation elected every member of the one
legislature which had any such power over them. It was felt and
stated at Philadelphia, it was felt and urged and insisted upon,
sometimes with decency and reason, sometimes with bitterness and
rancor and hatred, between the closing day at Philadelphia and the
assembling of various Americans in each state, that the Americans
in each state would be unwilling to give any such national power
over themselves to any legislature whose members were not all
elected by the people in that state. In all the conventions which
adopted the Constitution, the one great object of attack was the
grant even of enumerated powers of a national kind to a legislature
whose members would not all be chosen by the Americans in the
state in which the convention was held. The record of the Virginia
convention fills one entire volume of Elliot’s Debates. Almost one-
half of the pages of that volume are claimed by the eloquent attacks
of Patrick Henry upon those grants of enumerated powers in that
First Article. The basis of all his argument was the fact that this grant
of national power in the First Article would make him and all his
fellow Virginians, for the first time since the Declaration of
Independence, citizens of a nation—not Virginia—who must obey
the laws of a legislature only some of whose members Virginians
would elect.
“Suppose,” he says, “the people of Virginia should wish to alter”
this new government which governs them. “Can a majority of them
do it? No; because they are connected with other men, or, in other
words, consolidated with other states. When the people of Virginia,
at a future day, shall wish to alter their government, though they
should be unanimous in this desire, yet they may be prevented
therefrom by a despicable minority at the extremity of the United
States. The founders of your own Constitution made your
government changeable: but the power of changing it is gone from
you. Whither is it gone? It is placed in the same hands that hold the
rights of twelve other states; and those who hold those rights have
right and power to keep them. It is not the particular government of
Virginia: one of the leading features of that government is, that a
majority can alter it, when necessary for the public good. This
government is not a Virginian, but an American government.” (3 Ell.
Deb. 55.)
How forceful and effective was this objection, we average
Americans of this generation may well realize when we know that the
Constitution was ratified in Virginia by the scant majority of ten votes.
In New York and Massachusetts and other states, the adoption was
secured by similar small majorities. In North Carolina, the first
convention refused to adopt at all.
Furthermore, it is recorded history that, in Massachusetts, in
Virginia, in New York, and elsewhere, the vote of the people would
have been against the adoption of the Constitution, if a promise had
not been made to them by the advocates of the Constitution. It was
the historic promise that Congress, under the mode of procedure
prescribed in Article V, would propose new declaratory Articles,
suggested by the various conventions and specifically securing
certain reserved rights and powers of all Americans from all ability of
government to interfere therewith. This historic promise was fulfilled,
when the first Congress of the new nation proposed the suggested
declaratory Articles and ten of them were adopted. These are the
Articles now known as the first ten Amendments. It has been settled
beyond dispute, in the Supreme Court, that every one of the
declarations in these ten Articles was already in the Constitution
when it was originally adopted by the citizens of America.
The most important declaration in those amazingly important ten
declarations, which secured the adoption of our Constitution, is the
plain statement that every national power to interfere with the human
freedom of Americans, not granted in Article I, was reserved to the
American people themselves in their capacity as the citizens of
America. That is the explicit statement of what we know as the Tenth
Amendment. In itself, that statement was but the plain and accurate
echo of what was stated by the American people (who made the
enumerated grants of such powers in Article I) in the conventions
where they made those grants. Their statement was nowhere more
accurately expressed, in that respect, than in the resolution of the
Virginia Convention, which ratified the Constitution. That resolution
began, “Whereas the powers granted under the proposed
constitution are the gift of the people, and every power not
granted thereby remains with them, and at their will, etc.” (3 Ell.
Deb. 653.)
After the same statement had been expressly made (with
authoritative effect as part of the original Constitution) in that Article
which we know as the Tenth Amendment, it was again and again
echoed, in the plainest language, from the Bench of the Supreme
Court.
As far back as 1795, in the case of Vanhorne’s Lessee vs.
Dorrance, 2 Dall. 304, Justice Patterson stated that the Constitution
of England is at the mercy of Parliament, but “in America, the case is
widely different.”... A Constitution “is the form of government,
delineated by the mighty hand of the people, in which certain first
principles of fundamental laws are established. The Constitution is
certain and fixed; it contains the permanent will of the people, and is
the supreme law of the land; it is paramount to the power of the
legislature, and can be revoked or altered only by the authority that
made it. The life-giving principle and the death-dealing stroke must
proceed from the same hand.... The Constitution fixes limits to the
exercise of legislative authority, and prescribes the orbit within which
it must move.... Whatever may be the case in other countries, yet in
this there can be no doubt, that every act of the legislature,
repugnant to the Constitution, is absolutely void.”
To us average Americans, who have lived with those earlier
Americans through the days in which they constituted their nation
and distributed all granted national powers between governments in
America and reserved all other general American national powers
exclusively to themselves, the Virginia Resolution, the Tenth
Amendment, and the quoted language of the Circuit Court are in
strict conformity with the education we have received.
What, however, are we to think of the Tory education of so many of
our leaders and “constitutional” lawyers, who have calmly accepted
and acted upon the amazing assumption that state governments in
America can exercise and can grant to other governments any or all
general national powers to interfere with the human freedom of
American citizens, including even the national powers expressly
reserved by those citizens to themselves in the Tenth Amendment?
If they adopt their familiar mental attitude that all these statements
were made more than a hundred years ago and have no meaning or
weight now, we refer them to the Supreme Court, in 1907, when it
stated:
The powers the people have given to the General
Government are named in the Constitution, and all not there
named, either expressly or by implication, are reserved to the
people and can be exercised only by them, or upon
further grant from them. (Justice Brewer in Turner v.
Williams, 194, U. S. 279.)
 For ourselves, we average Americans turn now to examine in
detail how clearly the Americans at Philadelphia in 1787 did know
and obey the basic law of America that all national powers to
interfere with individual freedom are the powers of the people
themselves and can be exercised only by them or upon direct grant
from them. We find their knowledge, in that respect, evidenced by an
examination of the reasoning by which they reached the correct legal
conclusion that their proposed grants of general national powers, in
their First Article, could only be made by the citizens of America
themselves, assembled in their “conventions”—that grants of such
powers could not be made even by all the legislatures of the then
independent states.
 CHAPTER VII
PEOPLE OR GOVERNMENT?—CONVENTIONS
OR LEGISLATURES?

It is no longer open to question that by the Constitution a

nation was brought into being, and that that instrument was
not merely operative to establish a closer union or league of
states. (Justice Brewer, in Supreme Court, Kansas v.
Colorado, 206 U. S. 46 at page 80.)
Instructed by living through the education of the earlier Americans
to their making of that Constitution, we accurately know that they
themselves, by their own direct action, brought that new nation into
being. Through our course in their education, we have their
knowledge that only the men, who are to be its first members, can
create a new political society of men, which is exactly what any
American nation is. “Individuals entering into society must give up a
share of liberty to preserve the rest.” So said the letter which went
from Philadelphia with the proposed Articles whose later adoption
created the new nation and vested the delegated and enumerated
national powers of its government to interfere with the liberty of its
citizens, (1 Ell. Deb. 17.)
Furthermore, through our own personal experience, we
understand how all societies of men are brought into being. There
are few of us who have not participated in the creation of at least one
society of men. Most of us have personally participated in the
creation of many such societies. For which reason, we are quite well
acquainted with the manner in which all societies of men are brought
into being. We know that ourselves, the prospective members of the
proposed society, assemble and organize it and become its first
members and constitute the powers of its government to command
us, its members, for the achievement of the purpose for which we
create it.
For one simple reason, the Americans, through whose education
we have just lived, were “better acquainted with the science of
government than any other people in the world.” That reason was
their accurate knowledge that a free nation, like any other society of
individuals, can be created only in the same manner and by its
prospective members and that the gift of any national powers to its
government can only be by direct grant from its human members.
This is the surrender “of a share of their liberty, to preserve the rest.”
The knowledge of those Americans is now our knowledge. For
which reason, we know that they themselves created that new nation
and immediately became its citizens and, as such, gave to its
government all the valid and enumerated national powers of that
government to interfere with their and our human freedom. We know
that they did all these things, by their own direct action, “in the only
manner, in which they can act safely, effectively or wisely, on such a
subject, by assembling in conventions.”
Thus, whatever may have been the lack of knowledge on the part
of our leaders and “constitutional” lawyers for the last five years, we
ourselves know, with knowledge that is a certainty, that the ratifying
conventions of 1787 and 1788 were the American people
themselves or the citizens of the new nation, America, assembled in
their respective states.
Our Supreme Court has always had the same knowledge and
acted upon it.
The Constitution of the United States was ordained and
established, not by the states in their sovereign capacities
[the respective peoples or citizens of each State] but
emphatically, as the preamble of the Constitution declares, by
“the people of the United States” [namely the one people of
America].... It was competent to the people to invest the
general government with all the powers which they might
deem proper and necessary; to extend or restrain these
powers according to their own good pleasure, and to give
them a paramount and supreme authority.... The people had a
right to prohibit to the states the exercise of any powers which
were, in their judgment, incompatible with the objects of the
general compact [between the citizens or members of the
new nation], to make the powers of the state governments, in
given cases, subordinate to those of the nation, or to reserve
to themselves those sovereign authorities which they might
not choose to delegate to either. (Supreme Court, Martin v.
Hunter’s Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304, at p. 324.)
Instructed by experience, the American people, in the
conventions of their respective states, adopted the present
Constitution.... The people made the Constitution and the
people can unmake it. It is the creature of their will, and lives
only by their will. But this supreme and irresistible power to
make or to unmake resides only in the whole body of the
people, not in any subdivisions of them. (Marshall, in
Supreme Court, Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264.)
The Constitution was ordained and established by the
people of the United States for themselves, for their own
government, and not for the government of the individual
states. Each state established a constitution for itself, and in
that constitution provided such limitations and restrictions on
the powers of its particular government as its judgment
dictated. The people of the United States framed such a
government for the United States as they supposed best
adapted to their situation, and best calculated to promote their
interests. The powers they conferred on this government were
to be exercised by itself; and the limitations on power, if
expressed in general terms, are naturally, and, we think,
necessarily, applicable to the government created by the
instrument. They are limitations of power granted in the
instrument itself; not of distinct governments, framed by
different persons and for different purposes. (Marshall, in
Supreme Court, Barron v. Mayor of Baltimore, 7 Peters, 243.)
When the American people created a national legislature,
with certain enumerated powers, it was neither necessary nor
 proper to define the powers retained by the states. These
powers proceed, not from the people of America, but from the
people of the several states; and remain, after the adoption of
the Constitution, what they were before, except so far as they
may be abridged by that instrument. (Marshall, in the
Supreme Court, Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 122.)
We average Americans know and will remember the clear
distinction, the substantial distinction, recognized by the great jurist,
between “the people of America” and “the people of the several
states,” although they happen to be the same human beings acting
in different capacities, as members of different political societies of
men. It is a matter of constant mention in the Supreme Court that we
ourselves, in addition to our capacity as human beings, have two
other distinct capacities, that of citizen of America and that of citizen
of our respective state; that, as citizens of America, we alone validly
give to its government any power to command us, and, as citizens of
our particular state, we alone validly give to its government all its
national power to command us. The decisions of the Supreme Court,
in that respect, are mentioned elsewhere herein. Meanwhile, we
average Americans understand these matters perfectly and will not
forget them. We are quite accustomed, while retaining our status as
free human beings, to be members of many different societies of
men and, as the members of some particular society, to give to its
government certain powers to interfere with our freedom.
We have in our political system a government of the United
States and a government of each of the several states. Each
one of these governments is distinct from the others, and
each has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose
rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person
may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a
citizen of a state, but his rights of citizenship under one of
these governments will be different from those he has under
the other.... Experience made the fact known to the people of
the United States that they required a national government for
national purposes.... For this reason, the people of the United
States ... ordained and established the government of the
 United States, and defined its powers by a Constitution, which
they adopted as its fundamental law, and made its rules of
action. The government thus established and defined is to
some extent a government of the states in their political
capacity. It is also, for certain purposes, a government of the
people. Its powers are limited in number, but not in degree.
Within the scope of its powers, as enumerated and defined, it
is supreme and above the states; but beyond, it has no
existence. It was erected for special purposes and endowed
with all the powers necessary for its own preservation and the
accomplishment of the ends its people had in view.... The
people of the United States resident within any state are
subject to two governments, one state, and the other national;
but there need be no conflict between the two. Powers which
one possesses, the other does not. They are established for
different purposes, and have separate jurisdictions. Together
they make one whole, and furnish the people of the United
States with a complete government, ample for the protection
of all their rights at home and abroad. (Justice Waite, in
Supreme Court, United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542.)
It must seem remarkable to us average Americans, with the
education we have acquired at this point, to realize that our leaders
and “constitutional” lawyers have not known why only we ourselves,
in our capacity as citizens of America, can give any new national
power to interfere with our freedom and that we, for such new giving,
must act, in the only way in which the citizens of America “can act
safely, effectively, or wisely, on such a subject, by assembling in
convention,” in our respective states, the very “conventions”
mentioned for valid grant of such national power in the Fifth Article of
the Constitution made by the citizens of America, so assembled in
such “conventions.” Before dwelling briefly upon the accurate
appreciation of that legal fact displayed by those first citizens in
everything connected with the making of that Constitution and that
Fifth Article, let us realize how well the leaders and great
constitutional lawyers of other American generations between that
day and our own did know this settled legal fact.
 After the Americans in nine states had created the new nation and
had become its citizens and had (in that capacity) granted the
national powers of its First Article, the Americans in Virginia
assembled to determine whether they also would become citizens of
the new nation. As the president of the convention, in which they
assembled, they chose Edmund Pendleton, then Chancellor of
Virginia.
Very early in the debates, Henry and Mason, great opponents of
the Constitution, attacked it on the ground that its Preamble showed
that it was to be made by the people of America and not by the
states, each of which was then an independent people. Henry and
Mason wanted those peoples to remain independent. They wanted
no new nation but a continuance of a mere union of independent
nations. They knew that a constitution of government ordained and
established by the one people of America, assembled in their
respective “conventions,” as the Preamble of this Constitution
showed it to be, created an American nation and made the ratifying
Americans, in each state, the citizens of that new nation. For this
reason, the opening thunder of Henry’s eloquence was on that
Preamble. “My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude
for the public welfare, leads me to ask, Who authorized them to
speak the language of We, the people, instead of, We, the states?
States are the characteristics and the soul of a confederation. If the
states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great,
consolidated, national government, of the people of all the states.”
(Henry, 3 Ell. Deb. 22.)
The learned Pendleton, sound in his knowledge of basic American
law and quick to grasp the plain meaning of the Fifth Article of the
new Constitution, quickly answered Henry. “Where is the cause of
alarm? We, the people, possessing all power, form a government,
such as we think will secure happiness; and suppose, in adopting
this plan, we should be mistaken in the end; where is the cause of
alarm on that quarter? In the same plan we point out an easy and
quiet method of reforming what may be found amiss. No, but say
gentlemen, we have put the introduction of that method in the hands
of our servants, who will interrupt it for motives of self-interest. What
then?... Who shall dare to resist the people? No, we will assemble in
convention; wholly recall our delegated powers or reform them so as
to prevent such abuse; and punish those servants who have
perverted powers, designed for our happiness, to their own
emolument.... But an objection is made to the form; the expression,
We, the people, is thought improper. Permit me to ask the gentlemen
who made this objection, who but the people can delegate
powers? Who but the people have the right to form government?...
What have the state governments to do with it?” (3 Ell. Deb. 37.)
We average Americans know and will remember that this learned
American lawyer, only twelve years earlier a subject of an
omnipotent legislature, already knew the basic American principle to
be that the delegation of national power was the constitution of
government of a free people and that only the people, assembled in
convention, could delegate such power and that the state
governments, under basic American law, never can have the ability
to delegate that kind of power. We regret that our “constitutional”
lawyers, all born free citizens of a free republic, have not the same
accurate knowledge of basic American law.
But the knowledge of Henry and of Pendleton, that the document
under consideration was the Constitution of a nation whose citizens
alone could give to its government any valid power to interfere with
their human freedom, was the knowledge of all in that and the other
“conventions,” in which the one people of America assembled and
adopted that Constitution. Let us note another distinct type in that
Virginia convention, the famous Light-horse Harry Lee of the
Revolution. “Descended from one of the oldest and most honorable
families in the colony, a graduate of Princeton College, one of the
most daring, picturesque, and attractive officers of the Revolution, in
which by sheer gallantry and military genius he had become
commander of a famous cavalry command, the gallant Lee was a
perfect contrast to the venerable Pendleton.” (Beveridge, Life of
Marshall, Vol. I, page 387.) Lee also replied to Henry’s attack on the
expression “We, the people” and not “We, the states.” In his reply,
there was shown the same accurate knowledge of basic American
law. “This expression was introduced into that paper with great
propriety. This system is submitted to the people for their
consideration, because on them it is to operate, if adopted. It is not
binding on the people until it becomes their act.” (3 Ell. Deb. 42.)
In the Massachusetts convention, General William Heath, another
soldier of the Revolution, showed his accurate conception of the
legal fact of which we average Americans have just been reading in
the decisions of our Supreme Court. “Mr. President, I consider
myself not as an inhabitant of Massachusetts, but as a citizen of the
United States.” (2 Ell. Deb. 12.)
In the North Carolina convention, William Goudy seems to have
had some prophetic vision of our own immediate day. Speaking of
the document under discussion and clearly having in mind its First
Article, this is the warning he gave us: “Its intent is a concession of
power, on the part of the people, to their rulers. We know that private
interest governs mankind generally. Power belongs originally to the
people; but if rulers [all governments] be not well guarded, that
power may be usurped from them. People ought to be cautious in
giving away power.... Power is generally taken from the people by
imposing on their understanding, or by fetters.” (4 Ell. Deb. 10.)
In that same North Carolina convention, James Iredell, later a
distinguished judge of our Supreme Court, in replying to the common
attack that the Constitution contained no Bill of Rights, displayed
clearly the general accurate knowledge that, in America, any grant of
national power to interfere with human freedom is the constitution of
government and that the citizens of any nation in America are not
citizens but subjects, if even a single power of that kind is exercised
by government without its grant directly from the citizens themselves,
assembled in their conventions. “Of what use, therefore, can a Bill of
Rights be in this Constitution, where the people expressly declare
how much power they do give, and consequently retain all that they
do not? It is a declaration of particular powers by the people to their
representatives, for particular purposes. It may be considered as a
great power of attorney, under which no power can be exercised but
what is expressly given.” (4 Ell. Deb. 148.)
 When we average Americans read the debates of those human
beings, the first citizens of America, one thing steadily amazes us, as
we contrast it with all that we have heard during the past five years.
Some of those first citizens were distinguished lawyers or statesmen,
quite well known to history. Some of them bore names, then
distinguished but now forgotten. Most of them, even at that time,
were quite unknown outside of the immediate districts whence they
came. All of them, twelve years earlier, had been “subjects” in an
empire whose fundamental law was and is that its legislative
government can exercise any power whatever to interfere with
human freedom and can delegate any such power to other
governments in that empire. The object of the American Revolution
was to change that fundamental law, embodying the Tory concept of
the proper relation of government to human being, into the basic law
of America, embodying the American concept of that relation
declared in the great Statute of ’76, that no government can have
any power of that kind except by direct grant from its own citizens.
During that Revolution, human beings in America, in conformity with
their respective beliefs in the Tory or the American concept of the
relation of human being to government, had been divided into what
history knows as the Tories and the Americans. Many of the human
beings, assembled in those conventions of ten or twelve years later,
had been sincere Tories in the days of the Revolution.
Yet, if we average Americans pick up any volume of their recorded
debates in those “conventions,” we cannot scan a few pages
anywhere without finding the clearest recognition, in the minds of all,
that the American concept had become the basic American law, that
the Tory concept had disappeared forever from America. All of them
knew that, so long as the Statute of ’76 is not repealed and the result
of the Revolution not reversed, no legislatures in America can
exercise any power to interfere with human freedom, except powers
obtained by direct grant from the human beings over whom they are
to be exercised, and that no legislatures can give to themselves or to
another legislature any such power. It was common in those
“conventions” of long ago to illustrate some argument by reference to
this admitted legal fact and the difference between the fundamental
law of Great Britain and of America, in these respects. In that North