Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Peter Berkowitz: Why Colleges Don't Teach the Federalist Papers
Wall Street Journal ^ | 05/06/2012 | Peter Berkowitz

Posted on 05/08/2012 10:01:56 PM PDT by iowamark

It would be difficult to overstate the significance of The Federalist for understanding the principles of American government and the challenges that liberal democracies confront early in the second decade of the 21st century. Yet despite the lip service they pay to liberal education, our leading universities can't be bothered to require students to study The Federalist...

Small wonder it took so long for progressives to realize that arguments about the constitutionality of ObamaCare are indeed serious.

The masterpiece of American political thought originated as a series of newspaper articles published under the pseudonym Publius in New York between October 1787 and August 1788 by framers Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison. The aim was to make the case for ratification of the new constitution, which had been agreed to in September 1787 by delegates to the federal convention meeting in Philadelphia over four months of remarkable discussion, debate and deliberation about self-government.

By the end of 1788, a total of 85 essays had been gathered in two volumes under the title The Federalist. Written at a brisk clip and with the crucial vote in New York hanging in the balance, the essays formed a treatise on constitutional self-government for the ages...

And thus so many of our leading opinion formers and policy makers seem to come unhinged when they encounter constitutional arguments apparently foreign to them but well-rooted in constitutional text, structure and history. These include arguments about, say, the unitary executive; or the priority of protecting political speech of all sorts; or the imperative to articulate a principle that keeps the Constitution's commerce clause from becoming the vehicle by which a federal government—whose powers, as Madison put it in Federalist 45, are "few and defined"—is remade into one of limitless unenumerated powers...

(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: constitution; federalistpapers; progressivemovement; thefederalist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last
Federalist Papers:

The Federalist by numbers

  1. Federalist Papers with Frames
  2. Indices by author:

1 posted on 05/08/2012 10:02:05 PM PDT by iowamark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: iowamark

Bookmarking. Thanks.

In the early 60’s The Federalist Papers were covered in my school district. By the late ‘60’s they were gone.


2 posted on 05/08/2012 10:14:03 PM PDT by prisoner6 (Right Wing Nuts bolt the Constitution together as the loose screws of the Left fall out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

When you’re trying to embezzle company funds, the last thing you do is show your employer how to check up on you....


3 posted on 05/08/2012 10:25:13 PM PDT by papertyger ("And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if..."))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

This is a no-brainer as colleges in fact do not want an informed population.


4 posted on 05/08/2012 10:29:35 PM PDT by Republican1795.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: iowamark
It would be difficult to overstate the significance of The Federalist for understanding the principles of American government and the challenges that liberal democracies confront early in the second decade of the 21st century.

It would be even more difficult to find college students capable of reading them, much less recognizing the snow job in Federalist 75 with which Hamilton hid a poison pill in the treaty power. Given the pending ratification of LOST or the Small Arms Treaty, it is a serious and current issue.

Hence, one should read the records of the Virginia Ratifying Convention as well.

5 posted on 05/08/2012 10:35:40 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to manage by central planning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: prisoner6

It should be a required course in high school. It’s absurd that government funded schools don’t teach the fundamental origins of our country. Bizarre even.


6 posted on 05/08/2012 10:35:40 PM PDT by TigersEye (Life is about choices. Your choices. Make good ones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

“the last thing you do is show your employer how to check up on you....”

Good one, you should post this at the original site. :)


7 posted on 05/08/2012 10:47:29 PM PDT by huldah1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

It is only important for education systems show students how to appropriately ply rubbers...


8 posted on 05/08/2012 11:02:03 PM PDT by WKUHilltopper (And yet...we continue to tolerate this crap...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: iowamark
I took a course in college where we read The Federalist Papers. Of course it was a Poli Sci course called The Federalist Papers, which no one else but the 18 of us in there ever heard of.
9 posted on 05/08/2012 11:08:17 PM PDT by MacMattico
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
...much less recognizing the snow job in Federalist 75 with which Hamilton hid a poison pill in the treaty power. Given the pending ratification of LOST or the Small Arms Treaty, it is a serious and current issue.

There exists a very strong argument that no treaty can violate pre-existing constitutional provisions without being void. The idea that treaties have full force implies that that force comes from somewhere - i.e. the Constitution. Therefore, to draw up a treaty that violates constituional provisions, is to negate the source of that treaty's claim to power.

Of course, interpreting the treaty clause through the 14th Amendment adds another layer of disconnect. But as it was originally written, it wasn't a direct poison pill, and was subject to judicial review vis a vis preexisting constitutional provisions.

On the other hand, Hamilton was a treasonous bastard before there was even a country, and fully deserved the end he received from Burr. Too bad it didn't come sooner.

10 posted on 05/08/2012 11:51:17 PM PDT by Talisker (He who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

I read some of the Federalist Papers at Bama. That probably had everything to do with Forrest McDonald being my professor. He made quite an impact on my family. I consider myself to have been very blessed to take many courses on American history from the best!


11 posted on 05/08/2012 11:57:45 PM PDT by petitfour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Talisker
But as it was originally written, it wasn't a direct poison pill, and was subject to judicial review vis a vis preexisting constitutional provisions.

Disagree there. Ratification by "two thirds of Senators PRESENT" (my emphasis) was the poison pill, as was the placement of the comma in the Supremacy Clause. Patrick Henry was furious about it. He was right.

12 posted on 05/09/2012 12:10:49 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to manage by central planning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: iowamark
Never forget that it was "Anti-Federalist Papers" that lead to the all so important "Bill of Rights" that we used to have.
13 posted on 05/09/2012 1:14:57 AM PDT by fella ("As it was before Noah, so shall it be again.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
If Henry had done his duty and attended the Constitutional Convention as a delegate from Viginia, perhaps he could have had some influence on the outcome.

Had Henry accepted George Washington's appointment as the first Chief Justice of the United States perhaps he could have had some influence in shaping the Judicial Power.

Some people don't respond when history calls. Henry was one of them.

14 posted on 05/09/2012 2:25:54 AM PDT by Jacquerie (No court will save us from ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: petitfour

I recently read his Novus Ordo Seclorum. He is among the best historians of the Founding era.


15 posted on 05/09/2012 2:41:46 AM PDT by Jacquerie (No court will save us from ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

bookmark


16 posted on 05/09/2012 2:47:13 AM PDT by SE Mom (Proud mom of an Iraq war combat vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

Uh... for the same reason they DO TEACH The Communist Manifesto.


17 posted on 05/09/2012 3:05:08 AM PDT by Jack Hammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

wow, I wish I had a little of your understanding of it all


18 posted on 05/09/2012 3:12:31 AM PDT by yldstrk ( My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye; CaptainAmiigaf

“It should be a required course in high school.”

I agree. May I also add that I think that ECONOMICS should also be taught. Maybe if more people really understood how an economy works, they would vote intelligently. Although, I do admit, that in today’s US public schools, I do NOT trust the teacher’s unions to teach it truthfully.

My college age kids (oldest finishes college today :) know and understand economics because I taught them!! They have been taxpayers since age 15 (their Dad and I thought working after school was a valuable life lesson)and they vote like taxpayers not like “idealistic college kids”!

I pray for my country. We need public education to “teach the fundamental origins of our country”.


19 posted on 05/09/2012 3:39:26 AM PDT by Mrs. B.S. Roberts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk

Ditto.
FR is a school for me bump.


20 posted on 05/09/2012 5:31:49 AM PDT by spankalib (The Marx-in-the-Parks crowd is a basement skunkworks operation of the AFL-CIO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: spankalib

Excellent Free Course on the Constitution. Pass it on.

http://constitution.hillsdale.edu/


21 posted on 05/09/2012 6:21:25 AM PDT by Scarlet Pimpernel (And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
If Henry had done his duty and attended the Constitutional Convention as a delegate from Viginia, perhaps he could have had some influence on the outcome.

Having read the convention debate, I doubt that mightily. It was pretty much a done deal. You might be right on the matter of the structural primacy given to international law in the Constitution, but from what I've been able to surmise, that was one of the key elements being demanded by our creditors.

Had Henry accepted George Washington's appointment as the first Chief Justice of the United States perhaps he could have had some influence in shaping the Judicial Power.

At that point, he probably didn't want to legitimize the process (a hard call at the time). I agree with you that the centrality of his thesis deserved more play in the process. He was not thrilled with the Enlightenment ubiquity of pagan inspired deism (something akin to heresy here on FR). I'm just finishing up Peter Gay's first volume on that topic and will have more to say on it when the second is done.

Some people don't respond when history calls. Henry was one of them.

I think that a bit harsh, but it certainly so appears in hindsight.

22 posted on 05/09/2012 6:29:21 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to manage by central planning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: iowamark
It's as important to read the Letters from a Federal Farmer (also know as the Anti-Federalist papers) but they are often overlooked. One of the big issues being debated in the day was whether or not to include a so-called "bill of rights" (more accurately described as a list of restrictions on federal power).

The Federalists were against it, reasoning amongst other things, that by listing specific rights in the Constitution was a bad idea, as it could some day be argued that only these rights existed. They were right. See conservative arguments against a "right to privacy".

The Federal Farmer argued for the amendments, arguing among other things, that without these amendments, the government would assume powers not in evidence, and would trample their hard-fought freedoms underfoot.  I believe our history shows how right they were. Heck, just look how far the government violates the phrase "shall not be infringed" of the second amendment, and imagine what gun rights would be like without it. Better yet, a look at Britain can show where English common law can take you, absent a written Constitution without a bill of rights.

So, while they both had their points, both groups have, over time been proven to be both right and wrong in their arguments. I'm glad that the Federalists didn't win the day as it regards the first ten amendments (originally 12 were proposed). A proper appreciation of our history requires that both sides be recognised and studied. Obviously the amendments weren't the only bone of contention between the two groups of writers. On some issues, the Federalists prevailed, on some the Anti-Federalists held the line. It took both groups, and others to make our Republic what it was. I think it's a shame that the Letters from a Federal Farmer have been even more forgotten than the Federalist Papers have been.

23 posted on 05/09/2012 7:08:52 AM PDT by zeugma (Those of us who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
Hence, one should read the records of the Virginia Ratifying Convention as well.

Agreed, also see my previous post.

24 posted on 05/09/2012 7:10:12 AM PDT by zeugma (Those of us who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
Well, there is no certain telling, but imagine if Henry arrived along with the rest of the Virginia delegation, a few days early to the Convention.

He would have been present for the formation of the Virginia/Randolph Plan. Could he have, from the beginning influenced what generally emerged as our Constitution four months later?

On June 9th delegate Paterson of New Jersey convinced the Convention to step back from the Virginia Plan in order for opponents to devise a more federal arrangement that improved the Articles of Confederation. There is no doubt that Henry would have immersed himself in this committee and its product, the Paterson Plan.

On 15-16 June the Paterson Plan was debated.

Madison shredded the Paterson Plan on the 19th. Had the best orator and debater in modern history, Patrick Henry been present, maybe the vote to accept the Virginia Plan as the basis for discussion by 7-3 would have been closer. In any event, Henry was no shrinking violet and would have been a prominent speaker along with Madison, Morris and Wilson.

I also suspect John Lansing and Robert Yates of New York would have remained to influence events if another large state delegate like Henry had likewise remained to oppose key elements of the Constitution.

Fast forward to June 1788 and Henry almost kept Virginia out of the Union. Had he attended the Constitutional Convention he would have undoubtedly affected the final product. If it met with his disapproval, he would have been as well equipped as Madison to debate the finer points. As it was, he was not, and federalists carried the day.

25 posted on 05/09/2012 7:30:18 AM PDT by Jacquerie (No court will save us from ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Talisker
There exists a very strong argument that no treaty can violate pre-existing constitutional provisions without being void.

As a thought experiment, if a treaty was approved by 2/3 of the Senate which proclaimed the Pope as being the supreme and absolute ruler of the US, would that treaty be valid? Could we impose constitutional amendments by conducting a treaty with Burundi?

No. The fact that it's ridiculous to even consider the above means that a treaty is subordinate to the Constitution, and merely exists at the same level as any other federal legislation, and its validity is subordinate to its constitutionality.

26 posted on 05/09/2012 7:49:24 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 (In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. - George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625
As a thought experiment, if a treaty was approved by 2/3 of the Senate which proclaimed the Pope as being the supreme and absolute ruler of the US, would that treaty be valid?

Let's try a different question that answers yours. If the United States surrendered in a wary concluded by treaty, would it be valid?

The legal answer is yes. Treaties obligate a nation; a nation has a constitution. That's why "two thirds of Senators present" is such a disastrous provision. The degree of obligation is what is at question. Hence this recount of Henry's language at the Virginia Ratifying convention:

The power of making treaties, by this Constitution, ill-guarded as it is, extended farther than it did in any country in the world. Treaties were to have more force here than in any part of Christendom; for he defied any gentleman to show any thing so extensive in any strong, energetic government in Europe. Treaties rest, says he, on the laws and usages of nations. To say that they are municipal is, to me, a doctrine totally novel. To make them paramount to the Constitution and laws of the states, is unprecedented. I would give them the same force and obligation they have in Great Britain, or any other country in Europe. Gentlemen are going on in a fatal career; but I hope they will stop before they concede this power unguarded and unaltered

The practical answer may vary in your area, depending upon who has both the ammunition, communications, AND food with which to sustain resistance (the part that patriots seem to forget).

27 posted on 05/09/2012 8:11:22 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to manage by central planning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
Work demands that I'll have to get back to you later.
28 posted on 05/09/2012 8:12:33 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to manage by central planning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

Great learning thread bump


29 posted on 05/09/2012 9:20:51 AM PDT by winodog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. B.S. Roberts
May I also add that I think that ECONOMICS should also be taught.

Absolutely! I graduated in '73 and when I was about 25 I looked back and thought 'these last few years would have gone a lot better if there had been a few classes that taught us how to fill out a job application, how to do tax forms and what a renter's basic rights and responsibilities are.' All of that wouldn't have even taken up one semester in one course and would have saved me and many others I knew a lot of grief and tension.

Just a little brush with some basic life skills that go a long way towards getting a good start.

30 posted on 05/09/2012 9:30:19 AM PDT by TigersEye (Life is about choices. Your choices. Make good ones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Scarlet Pimpernel

Thank you!


31 posted on 05/09/2012 10:00:31 AM PDT by spankalib (The Marx-in-the-Parks crowd is a basement skunkworks operation of the AFL-CIO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

Hitler said that if he could get Germany’s children, he’d have them for life. Hitler’s dead but the NEA lives on.


32 posted on 05/09/2012 10:07:29 AM PDT by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 14themunny; 21stCenturion; 300magnum; A Strict Constructionist; abigail2; AdvisorB; Aggie Mama; ...

Ping.


33 posted on 05/09/2012 10:09:03 AM PDT by Publius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

bttt


34 posted on 05/09/2012 10:16:51 AM PDT by Matchett-PI ("Andrew loved the battle and he knew the stakes." ~ Mark Levin 3/2/12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scarlet Pimpernel
Excellent Free Course on the Constitution. Pass it on.

http://constitution.hillsdale.edu/


I just took the course myself and loved it. I did part ways with the instructors however on the Lincoln week. States should have the right to secede, IMHO.
35 posted on 05/09/2012 10:20:22 AM PDT by Sopater (...where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. - 2 COR 3:17b)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

bump for later


36 posted on 05/09/2012 10:23:29 AM PDT by joe fonebone (If you vote for the lesser of two evils, you are still voting for evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fella

“Never forget that it was “Anti-Federalist Papers” that lead to the all so important “Bill of Rights” that we used to have.”

Exactly! I am in the anti-federalist camp. Those in the federalist camp were for big central government as their later actions prove. The anti-federalists knew this was the federalist position and tried to stop it.


37 posted on 05/09/2012 10:26:54 AM PDT by CodeToad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: prisoner6

In Georgia, during the late 70’s, we covered them (but not in much detail) in High School.


38 posted on 05/09/2012 10:43:21 AM PDT by Little Ray (FOR the best Conservative in the Primary; AGAINST Obama in the General.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
Federalists saw anarchy, then tyranny just around the corner under the hapless Articles of Confederation.

Anti-Federalists feared eventual tyranny under the Constitution.

We have had a good run under the Constitution, depending on how one views things, until FDR or perhaps LBJ.

There is no way these United States would have remained united much beyond 1787 under the Articles.

39 posted on 05/09/2012 10:49:37 AM PDT by Jacquerie (No court will save us from ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Sopater

Plenty to disagree with on such an important document. What is truly amazing is that it has lasted this long and can still inspire heated debate.

What I liked about the course was the link between the Declaration and the Constitution. I never really thought about that.


40 posted on 05/09/2012 11:38:52 AM PDT by Scarlet Pimpernel (And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: JDoutrider

mark for later


41 posted on 05/09/2012 12:01:06 PM PDT by JDoutrider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

Actually, I can understand this, as it requires a unique, dedicated class, that if properly done would almost have to be a college upper division course in political science.

A familiarization course at high school level would best be done as multimedia video set on DVD. The first three DVDs would just be historical, philosophical and legal background, from Roman Law to Common Law, the Magna Carta, the Renaissance and the British Empire legal system, the Age of Enlightenment, and the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution.

A lot of the ideas and concepts came out of the Age of Enlightenment philosophers in particular, so there would need to be a review, the highlights of Adam Smith, John Locke, etc.

Then there would have to be an extended description of Colonial America, including its wars, battles, immigration, growth, and development into a separate country, disconnected from European affairs in many ways.

The French and Indian War followed by Pontiac’s War were some of the most vicious, bloodthirsty affairs, and fundamental to the backgrounds of the founding fathers.

With this as the context, the Federalist Papers and the anti-Federalist Papers as well, becoming incredibly important documents for the creation of our nation, and explain why the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and Constitution were so intensely debated.

Importantly, the last DVD should then delve back into history. What happened after the revolution? Where did the revolution go? (from the French Revolution to the continent-wide revolutions of 1848). How did the founding fathers continue with their invested ideas?

And how did the Civil War change everything?


42 posted on 05/09/2012 12:16:37 PM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Publius

Bookmark.
Thanks for the ping.


43 posted on 05/09/2012 12:42:25 PM PDT by SunTzuWu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Publius; iowamark; All
Thanks, Publius, for forwarding. Currently, there are bills being introduced in state legislatures requiring the teaching in the high schools of the founding principles, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Federalist Papers which explained it. North Carolina passed such a Bill in its last session.

Will provide a link to information about that action in a later post.

44 posted on 05/09/2012 8:01:04 PM PDT by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

Later


45 posted on 05/09/2012 8:19:47 PM PDT by I_be_tc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
He would have been present for the formation of the Virginia/Randolph Plan. Could he have, from the beginning influenced what generally emerged as our Constitution four months later?

I doubt it greatly. I think that plan was structured long before the convention. What was constructed in the time you describe was the strategy for selling it. I think Hamilton's "President for life" pitch was a ruse.

Madison shredded the Paterson Plan on the 19th. Had the best orator and debater in modern history, Patrick Henry been present, maybe the vote to accept the Virginia Plan as the basis for discussion by 7-3 would have been closer.

Again I doubt it. Our creditors had spoken.

I also suspect John Lansing and Robert Yates of New York would have remained to influence events if another large state delegate like Henry had likewise remained to oppose key elements of the Constitution.

Here is where I think you may be right, and it might have collapsed the process. Had Henry tackled international law as a theme, he might well have succeeded in exposing this Trojan horse of Hamilton's for what it was and is. There is no way he could have got away with the kind of snow job he pulled in Federalist 75 in a debate setting. The whole project might then have been seen for the ruse that it was and possibly collapsed. I agree that this was a 'you of little faith' moment for Henry.

In his defense however, it is very hard for most FReepers to appreciate the depth of the hidden masonic agenda of Enlightenment antipathy for Christianity Henry knew he was facing. One need only read Hume or Voltaire knowing the kind of correspondence many of the prominent founders shared with the European philosophes to realize that to many of these men, their faith in "God" was not that of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, while public attributions to same were a deliberate cover.

Fast forward to June 1788 and Henry almost kept Virginia out of the Union. Had he attended the Constitutional Convention he would have undoubtedly affected the final product.

Here you, in part, contradict your thesis. Had he affected the product it might have been more likely to sell. Perhaps he was gambling on his absence permitting flaws that would be fatal to ratification in Virginia.

If it met with his disapproval, he would have been as well equipped as Madison to debate the finer points. As it was, he was not, and federalists carried the day.

I think you give too much credit for persuasion. Hard political allegiances had pretty well determined the numbers in advance. Communications media were so slow it would have been a done deal before the people could rally to Henry's arguments. The BOR had mollified the deal, but even that had its own Federalist "poison pill" in the original 14th Article. Good thing the idea was rejected until the Feds later rammed through the 'usurpation by selective enforcement' gambit in the 14th Amendment.

46 posted on 05/09/2012 10:40:45 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to manage by central planning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

It’s no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense. Mark Twain

Truth is mighty and will prevail. There is nothing wrong with this, except that it ain’t so. Mark Twain

It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself. Thomas Jefferson

Half a truth is often a great lie. Benjamin Franklin

Exaggeration is truth that has lost its temper. Khalil Gibran


47 posted on 05/10/2012 1:14:57 AM PDT by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

Bookmark!

Great post! Thanks!


48 posted on 05/10/2012 1:21:57 AM PDT by airborne (Paratroopers! Good to the last drop!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Publius

I caught this in the WSJ a couple of days ago. I’m happy to see that people are reading more on the Federalist.

Thanks for the ping!


49 posted on 05/10/2012 5:01:52 AM PDT by Loud Mime (Bigotry is the enemy of conservatism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Publius; iowamark; All; Huck

Thanks for the ping, Publius. OUSTANDING post/thread, iowamark. Thanks for starting. (Not to mention) Why Today’s “Radicals” Don’t Teach the Anti-Federalist Papers. /sarcasm

(courtesy) ping


50 posted on 05/11/2012 12:31:22 PM PDT by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson