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!
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.
•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.
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
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.