Quote:
Originally posted by Panama Red
Thanx for the list, Carl. I've copied it to Word pad so I can refer to it as I look for books on the subject.
Mboss, Read some of the Federalist and AntiFederalist papers last nite. As you suggested, somewhat dry reading, but interesting, nonetheless. While we refer to the writers of these papers as "great Americans" and "wise men", "founding fathers", I came to realize as I read that they were no more nor no less than many of us today as we debate the same subjects. Much of what was written was done so from emotional positions or from what appeared to be logical argument. But few, if any, of the statments of the time drew any reference to factual evidence or historical fact to support their positions...
|
You are most welcome. You are correct; the framers of the constitution were little different from you and I. They had very little history of democracy to refer to. One had to go back to ancient Greece to study democracy. What they did have was a very vivid memory of taxation without represntation, being forced to house and feed British soldiers in their homes without compensation, and the loss of friends and family killed in the revolution. As I said in the other thread, the 2nd Amendment debate is largely emotional.
The Bill of Rights was a compromise by the Constitutional Convention. The attendees agreed to send the basic constitution to the states for ratification with a promise to reconvene and amend it with the Bill of Rights. It is the debates, speeches, letters, etc regarding the Bill of Rights that give so much insight into the intent and meaning. The end resullt of the Constitutional Convention was a great experiment in a republican (representative democracy) form of government previously untried.. The experiment has lasted over 200 years and produced, arguably, the greatest nation in the history of the world. (That statement ought to get some people going!)