Posted on 02/18/2010 7:50:27 AM PST by Publius
Must I think about that? ( ^: }
I like that. I might even use that in a tagline.
Correct. It was written in the language of the taproom, not the drawing room.
Think about how far our public’s political intellect has fallen since those times.
This may sound strange, but I attribute it to television. TV has ruined everythig it has touched, from sports to politics.
It is strange that in Orwell's 1984, the TV monitored the people. Now it is indoctrinating them.
I have an old book (unread by me) that advocates the destruction of the television before your kids get addicted to the set. AND my son told me that data suggested that a TV in the master bedroom greatly increased the chances of divorce.
one more thing: A local college student told me that their political science course has consisted of several movies. That is combining our liberal indoctrination system with the vacuous nature of telebishin.
Give me a good book with a nice binding any day/night. My Kindle is hadly used.
People understand it but can’t see what there is to debate.
**********************
Please continue.
OK. Fair enough. Billthedrill and I had an e-mail exchange in which he suggested that people agree with the Anti-Federalist writer and don’t see a need to comment or contest his stance.
I agree. Our own 'what if' scenarios may be so biased that we consider the writers points of contention minor. We know what happens, they were staring into a great abyss.
Publius responds-
...that people agree with the Anti-Federalist writer and don’t see a need to comment or contest his stance.
Again, I agree for the same reason. I have always been interested in Colonial history and this effort is greatly appreciated in advancing my knowledge of our Founding Fathers and the beginnings of our United States.
I am somewhat surprised that the Anti-Federalists were labeled as such, they seem to be for some form of union, recognizing the necessity. I am looking forward to further installments to see how the debate develops. I find the essays and comments enlightening as well as providing a rich resource of information to further research.
I’ve read everything with interest.
I’ve only commented when I thought I had a slightly different take on what you and Bill have put together.
It’s been a very informative series so far and deeply appreciated.
What’s been missing from most discussions about the Constitution is historical context.
You and Bill are doing a great job supplying context in this series.
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?
Government had to be implemented after the design was approved. Implementation rarely goes exactly as planned.
Clausewitz once said that a battle plan rarely survives first contact with the enemy. Another wise man once said that the devil is in the details.
But don't stop. I'm loving it. I never studied this stuff in public school or college, but had to take it upon myself over the years to learn it. And even then, never to this degree.
You are providing a free Master's course in early American history.
And yes, this will be on the final.
-PJ
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.
This statement is saying that those who support this Constitution would rush to the press to smear anyone who offers a dissenting view of the Constitution, in order to hasten its passage. (Alas, some things never change.)
In the introduction, you suggest that John DeWitt is a Massachusetts lawyer. John Adams was also a Massachusetts lawyer. If DeWitt was a lawyer, he would certainly have crossed paths with Adams.
Adams was known to have a short temper and to not suffer criticism well. Adams was also the main author of the Massachusetts Constitution, and would certainly have strong opinions on its contents, and the applicability of it to a national Constitution.
Adams was still in Europe at this time and was not a part of the shaping or ratification debate of the Constitution, but those who knew him could certainly suppose his opinions on the matter, his temper, and how he treated his colleagues.
And Adams spoke with a lisp.
I say that line 30 was a back-handed slam at John Adams by someone who crossed paths with him.
-PJ
You could be right. A lot of people not only crossed paths with Adams, but crossed swords also.
Adams was known to have a short temper and to not suffer criticism well.
His contemporaries described his personality as "volcanic".
This is good detective work. You may have cracked the code here.
Are there writings of lawyers of the time who injected bible verse into their arguments (I'm sure there were plenty), who were also outspoken critics of politics of the time, from Massachusetts, and disliked John Adams?
-PJ
Tough question to answer. Every lawyer of that era injected the Bible into legal arguments, particularly in Calvinist New England. The fabric of American society at that time was soaked in the Bible.
You guys are OUTSTANDING!
FR's finest. America's finest.
Thanks.
Thanks to all posters.
France had, and has, a long history of autocracy and political control centered about a single urban pole, Paris, to a greater degree even than that of London was for the British. That is one model fresh in the thoughts of the Federalists and Anti-Federalists - it is, to oversimplify a bit, the Roman model. Another is the more diffuse model of the more or less independent city-states of both Renaissance Italy and far earlier, Ancient Greece.
That was the intellectual playing field of the time for an educated person inclined toward political theory. Much of what we read from both parties depends on assumptions resident within those respective models. I'm playing with the idea that the Constitution set up not a static version of either, but a deliberate struggle between them. It would appear that the struggle is constant, ongoing, and over precisely the same issues as it was in 1787. Given the immense changes in everything else in the world since then, it argues the strength of permanent impermanence. Just throwing the thought out there.
Many thanks for the kind words, all.
You might want to suggest to Beck’s producer/head-writer that this effort is going on. He’s easier to reach than Beck himself.
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.