Why don't conservatives consider the writings of the Founders to be included in "the classics"?

PGA Weblog ^

[knarf]

I do ... oops.

Thanx.

This getting older thing is fun ....until it isn't

[nicollo]

The “Classics” are from antiquity. I’d place the rest as “Great Works,” which, with the Classics, makes the “Western Canon,” which certainly includes the Federalist papers and other Founding era documents (including such works as “Letters from a Farmer” and “Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin”)

[ProgressingAmerica]

"The Founders were writing about their contemporary politics in a direct and literal manner. They were having direct discussions about things in the here and now."

I don't understand how that could be the conclusion.

I mean, I know what you are saying but that's not at all the take I get from the Founders when I read their work. The divergence in reception is quite amazing to me.

[Don W]

Check this out. It was a fun little series of threads a few years ago. Granted it’s not exactly what we were discussing, but you might like it. The series and accompanying discussions had an effect on how I looked at the Founders.

https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2433293/posts

[Pelham]

Bernard Bailyn:
“Ideological Origins of the American Revolution”

Forrest McDonald:
“E Pluribus Unum”
“Novus Ordo Seclorum”
“Requiem: Variations on Eighteenth-Century Themes”

M.E. Bradford:
“A Better Guide than Reason: Studies in the American Revolution”
“Original Intentions: On the making and ratification of the Constitution”
“Worthy Company: Brief Lives of the Framers of the Constitution”

[ProgressingAmerica]

Thanks. I read through some of it, as most were “sign me up” replies. I saw the full list at the end. I’m reading through a handful now, bookmarked for later.

Just out of curiousity, it was the anti-Federalists?

[ProgressingAmerica]

Thanks. Bailyn is one of only a few conservative historians that I can count on one hand. Didn’t know of McDonald, but not surprised given the attention he got from George Nash.

Have you ever read George Bancroft’s “History of the United States, from the Discovery of the American Continent”?

Given how most historians have thrown in with progressives they’re generally problematic, I highly value original sources as a way around them.

[Pelham]

I’ll have to check out the Bancroft book.

David Hackett Fischer is another excellent historian.
“Albion’s Seed”
“Paul Revere’s Ride”
“Washington’s Crossing”

Thomas Fleming also
“A Disease in the Public Mind”
“The New Dealer’s War”

here’s a list of of his history titles:

http://thomasflemingwriter.com/history.html

[Pelham]

Patrick Henry and George Mason were among the anti-Federalists, those opposed to ratifying the Constitution.

The Antis were in favor of retaining the Articles of Confederation, our original “constitution”. They could see that the proposed Philadelphia Constitution was going to create a powerful central government that would be threat to liberty. Prophetic.

[Don W]

Yes, a lot of the first few letters responses were “count me in” replies, but further in, relevance to the topic grew.

It was all the Federalist papers, one at a time. Both the pro-and anti-Federalists letters were discussed.

The complete list of that series (attached to the last discussion ) is at:

https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2683268/posts

There is also an interesting article/discussion about Madison at:

https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2731449/posts

Enjoy.