[Publius]

FReeper Book Club
The Debate over the Constitution
John DeWitt #1

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
22 Oct 1787, John DeWitt #1

[Tamatoa]

marked for later study

[Huck]

I’d like to see Brutus and Hamilton’s commentary on the Judiciary put side by side. Brutus 78-84 vs. Hamilton 70-something-80 something. I think Brutus nails that whole section, and to me, it should have been decisive. Fatal defects in Article 3.

[JDoutrider]

bttt

[Jacquerie]

Under the Articles of Confederation the government was nearly nonexistent. The weakness was such that it did not have power to enforce the terms of the Treaty of Paris which ended the Revolutionary War.

Under the treaty, pre-war debt of former colonists were to be paid. Since there was no judiciary under the Articles, British creditors could not sue in court.

In retaliation, the Brits continued to occupy frontier forts and lands that should have been transferred to the US. The Brits also incited indian raids on American frontiersmen and their families.

Most of these prewar debts were owed by southern planters and most of them were owed by Virginians. So yes, there was a self serving interest among some powerful people to retain a fundamentally weak government.

Then, as today there were people who put their narrow self interest ahead of their country.

Under the Constitution the terms of the treaty were honored and America could expand westward.

[whodathunkit]

A cannonade of condescension addressed to 'The People'. No mention anywhere of the tendency of power to corrupt, just the effect of corrupting influences.

Hamilton clears the High Road with a whiff of patronizing declarations.

10 Among the most formidable of the obstacles which the new Constitution will have to encounter may readily be distinguished the obvious interest of a certain class of men in every state to resist all changes which may hazard a diminution of the power, emolument and consequence of the offices they hold under the state establishments, and the perverted ambition of another class of men, who will either hope to aggrandize themselves by the confusions of their country or will flatter themselves with fairer prospects of elevation from the subdivision of the empire into several partial confederacies than from its union under one government.

Then...

19 For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword.

What the ???? He just fought in a revolution to throw off an oppressive government. He had threatened to resign his commission had he not been given the opportunity to draw blood. Just as a lack of Judicial effectiveness will spawn vigilantism, the lack of an effective government will result in an armed revolution. Perhaps he was all too aware of the power of an armed opponent. Can't we all just play nice?

25 An over scrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the people, which is more commonly the fault of the head than of the heart, will be represented as mere pretense and artifice, the stale bait for popularity at the expense of the public good.

Although the sentence is rather convoluted I think the gist is that it's faulty logic to put individual rights above those of the 'public good', however that might be defined. Erring on the side of our God given Rights is admonished. With no direct reference to 'public good' maintaining or strengthening those Rights I must assume he intended the public good to trump.

[loveliberty2]

With now over 200 years of history behind us, and an array of problems facing us, some of which are related to the path away from a currency of intrinsic value, banking, and other assorted departures from the 1787 Constitution's provisions, perhaps this might be a good time to look at a historical point of view from closer to 1787.

I always find that to be John Quincy Adams' "Jubilee" Address before the New York Historical Society. Not a mere history from a professor or historian, Adams' account, it seems to me, comes from an authoritative source, when one considers his mentors, Abigail and John Adams, as well as his service in various capacities in the new government.

There, he reviews, at great length, the great philosophical departures from the Declaration of Independence encountered under the Articles of Confederation, and the progress made under the 1787 Constitution, which incorporated the ideas of liberty enshrined in the Declaration and, in his opinion, were a return to the principles of the Declaration.

[UAConservative]

If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made, and a wrong election of the part we shall act may in this view deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind.

While we may not all agree on Hamilton's motives, we must consider the words he spoke above. The Articles were in shambles, and the Constitutional Convention came together to amend them; rather, a new document was founded and sent to the states for ratification. It was here that the destiny of the republic was to be determined.

Fast forward to today; our federal system of government is a shell of what it used to stand for: liberty. The central government constantly bullies the states with useless programs. 0bama constantly tries to move us further away from the Constitution that our Founders set as a rigid framework for our nation.

Like the legislatures and citizens of New York in 1787, we now have a choice. Defend the republic and "re-ratify" the Constitution, or die. The wrong choice by the people will extinguish the flame of freedom and the world will continue its plunge towards despotism and nanny-state policies.

It's your choice America; make the right one; choose liberty.

[M Kehoe]

Good evening.

The general population needs to read this, and all of the Federalist papers.

Never mind, I would be happy if the general population were well versed in our Constitution.

5.56mm

[bamahead]

bookmark

[loveliberty2]

Is anyone using this source for materials related to these discussions?

Essays on the Constitution of the United States, published during its discussion by the people 1787-1788 (1892)

Author: Ford, Paul Leicester, 1865-1902; Sullivan, James, 1744-1808; Winthrop, James, 1752-1821; Gerry, Elbridge, 1744-1814; Ellsworth, Oliver, 1745-1807; Williams, William, 1731-1811; Williamson, Hugh, 1735-1819 Subject: United States; United States Publisher: Brooklyn, N.Y., Historical printing club Possible copyright status: NOT_IN_COPYRIGHT Language: English Call number: AEO-6610 Digitizing sponsor: MSN Book contributor: Robarts - University of Toronto Collection: toronto

Description Sullivan, J. The letters of "Cassius".- Winthrop, J. The letters of "Agrippa".- Gerry, E. Replies to "A landholder".- Ellsworth, O. Letters of "A landholder".- Williams, W. A letter to "A landholder".- Sherman, R. The letters of "A countryman".- Sherman, R. The letters of "A citizen of New Haven".- Yates, R. The letters of "Sydney".- Brackenridge, H.H. Cursory remarks on the Constitution.- Chase, S. A letter of "Caution".- Carroll, D. A letter of "A friend to the Constitution".- Martin, L. Letters.- Roane, S. A letter of "A plain dealer".- Williamson, H. Remarks on the Constitution.- Pinckney, C. A letter of "A steady and open Republican".- Bibliography.- Index. 1. U.S. Constitution. 2. U.S. Constitution - Bibl. U.S. - Constitutional history - Sources. I. Sullivan, James, 1744-1808. II. Winthrop, James, 1752-1821. III. Gerry, Elbridge, 1744-1814. IV. Ellsworth, Oliver, 1745-1807. V. Williams, William, 1731-1811. VI. Sherman, Roger, 1721-1793. VII. Clinton, George, 1739-1812. VIII. Hamilton, Alexander, 1757-1804. IX. Yates, Robert, 1738-1801. X. Brackenridge, Hugh Henry, 1748-1816. XI. Chase, Samuel, 1741-1811. XII. Carroll, Daniel, 1756-1829. XIII. Martin, Luther, 1744-1826. XIV. Roane, Spencer, 1762-1822. XV. Williamson, Hugh, 1735-1819. XVI. Pinckney, Charles, 1858-1824

I have found the Univ. of Toronto site to be a useful place to find readable texts of many other rare documents as well.

[Amagi]

I'm a little late to this thread, but I'm beginning a self study of the Federalist Papers and I was hoping that I could ask if anyone is willing to offer an interpretation of certain sections the meanings of which elude me.
For instance, from Federalist Paper #1, I'm unsure of what Hamilton is about here:
"An enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government will be stigmatized as the offspring of a temper fond of despotic power and hostile to the principles of liberty. An over-scrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the people, which is more commonly the fault of the head than of the heart, will be represented as mere pretense and artifice, the stale bait for popularity at the expense of the public good. It will be forgotten, on the one hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of love, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust. On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government."
Do you suppose any posters from when this thread originally rolled out would be willing to go through the Papers again?
TIA
Also, I would like to be included in your ping list.