Posted on 02/18/2010 7:50:27 AM PST by Publius
Ping! The thread has been posted.
Earlier threads:
FReeper Book Club: The Debate over the Constitution
5 Oct 1787, Centinel #1
6 Oct 1787, James Wilson’s Speech at the State House
8 Oct 1787, Federal Farmer #1
9 Oct 1787, Federal Farmer #2
18 Oct 1787, Brutus #1
In short, they used the typical political devices of ginning up a crisis to intimidate their political opponents and force passage.
The Constitution was a big government boondoggle.
I don’t know if I can chew on two of these each week. I’m still studying the Brutus essay, and I was familiar with it!!
This latest post I have not read before, but it has my interest.
Thanks for your hard work!
OH? The Constitution was ratified in a month or two?
bttt
Bill and I are aware that there is little debate on these threads, and we see three possibilities:
We're still trying to figure out which it is and why this hasn't taken off the was the Atlas Ahruged effort did. Maybe it's just the difference between popular fiction and a course on government.
Glenn Beck wants people to get familiar with the writings of the Framers, and we think we see a way to get people to read them and not fall asleep. How successful we are remains to be seen.
Ten years ago we crossed swords on the whole issue of the Constitution and secession. You’ve changed a lot since then.
The Constitution was presented to the States in its entirety; how big was the stimilus bill; was it all shown to the nation?
I find a comparison of the two to be a risible comparison.
- - - -
The writings of the Founders is political philosophy. How many people wish to be knowledgeable in the field, and how many are willing to undertake the work? I believe the numbers diminish as the course proceeds, just as in any college class.
Your efforts are the best that I have seen. The presentation allows greater inspection and encourages more thought between the sentences. I print each of these up and contemplate their meaning - - and what fostered the author’s thoughts.
Keep it up!
ping
Yes, I used to hold Madison up as my icon, and I argued the Union side on the old Civil War threads. My views have definitely changed since then, but all of that debate certainly helped me learn and grow to my present day thinking.
If things work out, Bill and I will get a book out of this. We’re still waiting for the publshing commmunity to pick up our previous effort on Ayn Rand.
Again we are reminded of the adage..."The more things change the more they stay the same."
8.( I premise these few observations because there are too many among us of narrow minds who live in the practice of blasting the reputation of their own country.)
Any finger pointing her...how about the entire bulk of the liberal intelligentsia since at least the 60's and all those indoctrinated..and the advocacy groups they spawned.
10 .(They will appreciate those of a man they know nothing about because he is an exotic, while they are sure to depreciate those much more brilliant in their neighbors because they are really acquainted with and know them. )
I'm not sure this even needs comment.
28.( The eagerness with which they have been received by certain classes of our fellow citizens naturally forces upon us this question: are we to adopt this government without an examination? )
Obamacare, tarp, cap and trade.
30.(The name of the man who but lisps a sentiment in objection to it is to be handed to the printer, by the printer to the public, and by the public he is to be led to execution. )
Demonizing opponents, character assassination, mud flinging
53.(If thoroughly looked into before it is adopted, the people will be more apt to approve of it in practice, and every man is a traitor to himself and his posterity who shall ratify it with his signature without first endeavoring to understand it. )
Obamacare, Cap and trade. 66.(Their situation is almost contrasted with ours: they suppose themselves a central state, they expect the perpetual residence of Congress, which of itself alone will ensure their aggrandizement.)
The hereditary Kennedy seat.
68-72. (We are told by some people that upon the adopting this new government we are to become every thing in a moment. 69 Our foreign and domestic debts will be as a feather; our ports will be crowded with the ships of all the world, soliciting our commerce and our produce. 70 Our manufactures will increase and multiply, and in short if we stand still, our country, notwithstanding, will be like the blessed Canaan, a land flowing with milk and honey. 71 Let us not deceive ourselves; the only excellency of any government is in exact proportion to the administration of it. 72 Idleness and luxury will be as much a bane as ever, our passions will be equally at war with us then as now, and if we have men among us trying with all their ability to undermine our present constitution, these very persons will direct their force to sap the vitals of the new one.)
Class warfare, a chicken in every pot...Respect from the world.
If you eliminate the criticisms and cautions it could be an Obama speech.
I think there is a lot of head shaking.
Can’t believe we are going through this crap again.
There is also the issue of speaking to the true believer.
Yes, we do need to know this stuff but how do you in turn transmit it to heads full of mush (Rushism) or the class of the indoctrinated that just want to shout you down .
It is very depressing.
I've often wondered where Saul Alinsky was in 1787.
•At 30, John DeWitt mentions the political attacks on those who dare to question the Constitution and the haste with which its backers are pushing it through ratification. At 51 through 55, he argues that everybody should be able to study the document and express his honest opinion. In New York, such discussion had already led to violence. While conceding the need for the Union, he asks to slow down the process. To what extent was he right, considering the various crises of the time?
•At 53, he states that “every man is a traitor to himself and his posterity who shall ratify it [the Constitution] with his signature without first endeavoring to understand it.” Compare this sentiment with the haste to pass a healthcare bill on the part of congressmen who haven’t even read it. How can we apply DeWitt’s arguments to that issue?
It's interesting to note His use of an alias and line 30 seems to point to the reason for such. It isn't inconceivable that he feared retribution in some form for simply stating his opinions. At the end of the war there was retribution against those who supported the King. DeWitt must have recognized the danger inherent in taking a position on such an important matter. I can imagine he would have lost some sleep to thoughts of tar and feathers earned by his efforts. Not in any way do I imply cowardice, the passions of a crowd are unpredictable and the use of an alias is one way to insulate oneself. Interestingly, he calls upon others to discuss the subject openly, at their own peril, I suppose.
These were men of action, having seen the results of their previous efforts realized in the form of a free and independent nation. Results were expected and not simply hoped for. To delay excessively would be gambling that the 'men of design' would take any advantage they could. Consider the way our nation united after the September 11th attacks. How long could that window have stayed open? Action had to be taken, I can't imagine how devastating it would have been to have 'tabled the motion'. In which instance would the passions have run higher?
•At 71, he points out that the able administration of government is the key and that everything will not automatically turn rosy once the Constitution is ratified and the new government inaugurated. That he was right is incontrovertible, but why? How do form and function intersect here?
71 Let us not deceive ourselves; the only excellency of any government is in exact proportion to the administration of it.
The answer is that the Constitution is only a single tool in the toolbox used to pursue the perfection of government. The Constitution is the point of tangency where form and function meet.
Yes.
Not to mention that the issues addressed in The Constitution were discussed, pro and con, for more than twenty years prior to the convention in addition to the 9 months between adoption and ratification, and many of these issues were worked out in the practical workshops of numberless American churches and local governments for the prior 150 years. There was no American who was not conversant with the questions at issue. We know this to be true because it is attested by numerous of the finest intellects of that time, such as Thomas Jefferson and William Bradford, and even retrospectively by a famous person, who was French by birth, but spoke and thought like an American . . . Alexis de Tocqueville.
Thanks Publius, for your work. It is appreciated.
One of the many fascinating elements in our history is that of Paine’s “Common Sense.” It is beautifully written in a style and vocabulary that makes one slowly digest its meanings.
THAT pamphlet was written for the “common man” of that time.
Think about how far our public’s political intellect has fallen since those times.
I’ll buy that book!!!
BTW, my revised edition is finished - - it goes back on sale tomorrow. Enough for now....I need to throw some dice this weekend. HARD 8 on the hop!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.