[Billthedrill]

And there we have it. Publius and I have more remarks on the topic to follow - a summary, a list of recommended reading - but this marks an end to our treatment of the individual papers. Thanks for sticking with us.

[Bigun]

It has been a wonderful exercise and I am far better off for having participated.

You guys did a masterful job!

[JDoutrider]

Thank You both! These have been quite educational for me. Please continue to Ping me to any further discussions...

[Loud Mime]

FreeRepublic now has a thread that is near-eternal. I hope that I am not the only Freeper who plans on returning to these threads for study and continued debate and education.

Perhaps those of you who wish to continue the debate and add your 2 cents in the future will say so in this '85 thread.

[Loud Mime]

* Had you been a delegate to the New York ratifying convention at Poughkeepsie, would you have voted to ratify the Constitution or not, and why?

Essentially, the question is if we wanted a nation or not. I firmly believe that if the old nation had not unified under a strong government close to that time in history, it would not have survived. The Constitution was a good shot; I know that some here differ, but there was no viable alternative with a puff of momentum.

Some historians has said that the US may have split into as many as 4 nations. Who knows?

Was the timing good? What if the Colonies had waited another 10-20 years; would we have had the great land purchases that enabled the western lands to be newer States? Would Spain and England have asserted more influences in the Southern settlements? Would we have had Texas, or fought in WWII (Hawaii) for that matter?

Hamilton makes it sound easy to call a Convention for Proposing Amendments. In the essays accompanying Federalist #43, the authors have explained just how difficult that has turned out to be, and just how easily Congress has managed to avoid such a convention call. Based on the information contained in those essays and Hamilton’s final summation, would you fear the calling of a Convention for Proposing Amendments, and why?

I would fear the call to a convention with all my heart.

I do not trust the political powers present today. They have the backing of a populace that is woefully undereducated (falsely educated?) on the matters of government. Moreover, they are consumed with the idea of getting benefits from our government that were the result of the labors of others.

Just think, for a moment, the discourse that would be present on these forums if we could have taken some citizens from 1787 and placed them in front of a computer for a debate! It would have put the current crop of politicians to shame.....especially that Weiner guy from New York. He would have probably shut his mouth at Weehawken.

I grin when I think of such a debate; but shake my head when I acknowledge the meager (by comparison) debate that has followed the essays on the wonderful project.

Thanks for your work, gentlemen. May it last for decades.