Why Write the 1789 Constitution? What pushed the Framers?

[Kirk Downey]

Hey Y'all -

When I was a kid I thought that our current Constitution was written at the time of the Revolution. I discovered later that it was written in 1789 or thereabouts. The years following the drafting of the Constitution brought us the Federalist Papers which argued for ratification.

The Constitution and, its child, The Bill of Rights now stand as equals beside the Declaration of Independence as our Founding Documents. The Declaration was written in 1776 and the remainder of our national Trinity were composed some thirteen years later.

My question to our panel of historians is:
What circumstances or events precipitated the convening of the Convention? Why did the Framers decide to do such a risky, dangerous thing as to tear-down their existing government and reconstite another while England was still harrasing them on the high seas and menacing them from the north?

Kirk out
God is Love

[Sponsored Links]

[John Bridge]

Panel of historians, eh? :)

The years following the conclusion of the Revolutionary War were tumultous under the Confederation. Congress virtually had no power to govern because it had no real power to tax the states. It seemed each sovereign state was content to go its own way in blissful disregard of the dangers from without. No state was prepared to defend itself from international agressors, tarrifs were in disarray, there was no "national" defense -- in short there was no country.

Men who were at the forefront of politics had debated for years the advantages and disadvantages of forming a "central" government, one that would be strong enough to pull the states together into a cohesive unit. It was only a matter of time before enough of them got together and hammered out a plan, and that's what the Philidelphia Convention accomplished in the space of one summer.

The Framers didn't really "tear" anything down. They simply came up with a set of ideas that would replace the Articles of Confederation. Had the Constitution not been ratified, the Articles would have remained in place.

It was up to the "federalists," those in favor of a national government, to make sure the new Constitution was in fact ratified.

There were many "anti-federalists," most notably I think, Patrick Henry, who was totally against the idea of a central government at all.

[cx]

Panel of historians. Oh, yes, we have here. :D

I, being a product of the Government School System, was taught precious little about the formation of our government. I think I would have learned little more even had I paid attention, although there will be no proof of that. :)

This very subject is why I wanted discussion about the Federalist Papers, of which, I must admit, I have never read but a few. Someday I should like to read more on the subject, but until then, I hope the Captain and Professor Bridge will kick it about some more.

So I'm lazy. Least I'm honest, eh? ;)

[John Bridge]

Glad you chimed in, Kelly. I know you to be a man concerned about matters constitutional. There are a couple links to the "Fedralist Papers," or the "Federalist," on the American History Page.

http://johnbridge.com/american_history.htm

For others, these were articles which appeared in New York newspapers between the conclusion of the Philadelphia Convention and the final ratification of the Constitution. The articles were written (under the psuedonym, "Publius") by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay (Jay wrote one of them). They have become one of the primary references for people who study the forming (and ratification) of the U.S Constituion. They provide an insight into the thinking of three of the prominent players, Madison being the most prolific of the writers and probably the best informed of the three.

[cx]

Well, I swear I've tried to find same from your site in past without much success. Obviously operator error. I shall try again.

Yes, it's a fine subject, one EVERY American should be well versed in. But how many do you know who are? Or even care to be? This, I believe, is how we managed to get this country of ours into such a horrible state of federal government.

Now, many states (perhaps 50 or so?) have ongoing problems governing themselves, but that's not nearly so problematic to my mind. But when the federal officials stray so far from the basics of our Constitution as to indicate little or no actual knowledge thereof, I worry for our future.

I would be most interested in hearing a contemporaneous response to Kirk's question from the current President, from my two Senators, and my House Representative - without the aid of their researchers or handlers. I'd be happy to wager large dinero on the outcome, and, unfortunately, would expect to win.

The same would probably apply to all the Presidents in my lifetime, with the possible exception of Clinton, who I expect would have been found knowledgeable on the subject, although he showed no more regard for the Constitution than any of the others. And possibly Eisenhower; I would think that sort of history would be taught in military academies, from which I think he was a graduate. And I was waaaay to young to remember how he treated the Constitution.

But I digress. Imagine your surprise! :)

[John Bridge]

Eisenhower is out of my focus area, which ends with the War of 1812, but I do know that Eisenhower proposed and backed the Interstate Highway system. Constitutionally, I suppose you could call it a mail route. :)

Amongst the links at the bottom of the History page are a couple references to the Federalist. In fact I think it's listed at the Yale Law School site, the very first link after the new forum.

http://johnbridge.com/american_history.htm

[cx]

Actually, I think you'll find that the interstate highway system was funded under the department of defense. For national security. Movement of troops, etc. Making it Constitutional. Doubt there has been much Constitutional funding of any of it for many years (I'm guessing here), but that's how it got its start.

[Kirk Downey]

What I was hoping to hear from the panel was a particular precipitatng event.

In stumbling around histories I happened on an opinion that Shay's Rebellion was that event. I was hoping that cosmic corroboration would descend onto this forum.

Daniel Shay was a Captain in the Revolutionary Army and he was ticked off at interstate taxation and the conduct of commerce along certain rivers. He and 2,000 farmers rose up and took a Courthouse and a customs house. They were stopped short of taking an armory if memory serves me.

The historian I read believed that this rebellion was the final straw that convinced the framers that the confederation was sincerely falling apart at the seams and they'd better fix it before the whole ball of string unraveled and left an opening for the Brits to return and hang the rebelious leaders of the revolution.

I tossed this idea at my uncle, a distinguished lawyer in his own right whose argued before the US Supreme Court on more than one occasion. He alloed as how it was a novel idea, but thought the it had merit. We both wondered if there might be some correspondence between the framers that corroborates the opinion.

Anyone got a clue?

Kirk out
God is love

[John Bridge]

CX, I don't want to get off-track on this thread, but I can't find anything in my Constitution that says anything about the feds having the authority to build roads except to move the mail. Start a new thread, and I'll continue to argue with you. :D

Kirk,

I hadn't heard that idea before, but it could certainly be valid. I do know that Shay's Rebellion (1786-87) was discussed at the time, and that it was used as ammo in bolstering the cause for revising the charter.

I think, though, that the convention wasn't all that spontaneous. Limited plans had been made in the years preceding. There had been mini conventions held in severl states previously.

There were failed attempts to allow Congress to levy a 5% tax on imports as early as 1781 -- and again in 1783. The main players had been thinking about a stronger government since the conclusion of hostilities, or many of them had.

You had the Virginia Plan, the Annapolis plan, etc. Most thinking men knew the Articles were a bad deal. You had to have all thirteen states voting the same way or nothing could be done. One state could veto a whole agenda.

I think we need some more members on this "panel." :D

[cx]

Hmmm. According to my reading, under the Articles, depending upon the kind of issue at hand, decisions required a majority of the members assembled or the consent of nine states.

Where from the effective veto power of which you speak, John?

On the Shay's Rebellion, let me just point out one salient bit of information: I never heard of it before this thread. :o

Upon locating some info about it on this here wwweb, I find it very interesting, and just one more thing I think I should have learned about many, many years ago.

[Cami A]

Seems that Shay's Rebellion caught the attention of the framers. Perhaps it was a catalyst for the Philadelphia Convention- the theory doesn't seem unreasonable to me(and I've known about it for at least a few hours :D). I do think that the rebellion spurred the framers to action, but without the states acting as a cohesive unit regarding state-to-state import tariffs, currency differences, rebuilding, paying off their indivual war debts, etc, some sort of centralized government was the next logical step.



From Washington to D. Humphreys, 1786

But for God's sake tell me what is the cause of all these commotions (Shay's Rebellion) do they proceed from licentiousness, British-influence disseminated by the tories, or real grievances which admit of redress? If the latter, why were they delayed 'till the public mind had become so much agitated? If the former why are not the powers of Government tried at once? ... I am mortified beyond expression that in the moment of our acknowledged independence we should by our conduct verify the predictions of our transatlantic foe, and render ourselves ridiculous and contemptible in the eyes of all Europe.... Click here for entire letter (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw290023)))

From Henry Knox, to Washington, 1786

They wish for a general government of unity, as they see that the local legislatures must naturally and necessarily tend to retard the general government. We have arrived at that point of time in which we are forced to see our own humiliation, as a nation, and that a progression in this line cannot be a productive of happiness, private or public. Something is wanting, and something must be done, or we shall be involved in all the horror of failure, and civil war without a prospect of its termination. Click here for entire letter (http://www.luciamar.k12.ca.us/aghsonline/Primary%20Sources%20/knox_lettertogwashington)


From Jefferson to Madison, 1787

I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government. Click here for entire letter (http://earlyamerica.com/review/summer/letter.html)



Why wasn't history this much fun in school?

[John Bridge]

"Why wasn't history this much fun in school?"

We spent more time on Washington State History than anything else. I guess I might have known there was a Revolution back then, but I doubt it.

Cami,

I agree that Shay's Rebellion was no small matter at the time, but it occurred seveal years after most of the wheelers and dealers of the time had already decided that a central government was needed.

CX,

It was decided (at the Philidelphia Convention) that nine states could ratifiy the Constitution. But under the Articles of Confederation, one state could veto an entire agenda. It took absolute unanimity to do anything.

(See Articles of Confederation in the links on the History page.)

[Edited by John Bridge on 03-20-2002 at 08:01 PM]

[cx]

John:

This from article nine of the Articles, according to the copy on this site: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/artconf.htm

The United States in Congress assembled shall never engage in a war, nor grant letters of marque or reprisal in time of peace, nor enter into any treaties or alliances, nor coin money, nor regulate the value thereof, nor ascertain the sums and expenses necessary for the defense and welfare of the United States, or any of them, nor emit bills, nor borrow money on the credit of the United States, nor appropriate money, nor agree upon the number of vessels of war, to be built or purchased, or the number of land or sea forces to be raised, nor appoint a commander in chief of the army or navy, unless nine States assent to the same: nor shall a question on any other point, except for adjourning from day to day be determined, unless by the votes of the majority of the United States in Congress assembled.

And article ten:

The Committee of the States, or any nine of them, shall be authorized to execute, in the recess of Congress, such of the powers of Congress as the United States in Congress assembled, by the consent of the nine States, shall from time to time think expedient to vest them with; provided that no power be delegated to the said Committee, for the exercise of which, by the Articles of Confederation, the voice of nine States in the Congress of the United States assembled be requisite.




[Edited by cx on 03-20-2002 at 09:14 PM]

[Kirk Downey]

Thanks for that one:

Article Nine sure would have left the Carlisle Group and Alan Greenspan out of work, eh?

History was always boring 'cause teachers never put in enough sex, greed and violence. Those ARE the prime movers of history and only recently have wee been allowed to see that as citizens and express that as teachers and citizens. Also there is that part of the high school classroom where you're still struggling to learn to think and write which creates mystery/confusion, frustration and avoidance (avoidance seems alot like boredoom to fidgetty kids)

Regarding the Constitutional Convention: Recent agitation over the past decade or two, along the right side of the spectrum, called for a reform of the Constitution. Some even argued to convene a Constitutional Convention. Commentators argued that at the point in time that such a convention were convened - the current government would be cease to exist. That may have been a guess as there aren't any statutory provisions, but it cvertainly would cast into doubt the legitimacy of ANY law or court in existance. The same would likely have been true in 1787 when the framers met. Would not the Courts making law under the Articles of Confederation have waited until after the Constitutional Convention adjourned to render their decisions? Would not the Bankers of the day have questioned the enforcability of their loan contracts under a new government? Wouldn't much of the civil/political machinery that supports daily life have simply ceased to be legitimate. Whose order would tha army follow? Wouldn't the young nation have been dangling, uncertain and possibly fearful. Wouldn't all those who entered that room in Philadelphia have known the halbard and sword of the British Empire would be trained anew on them for their conspiratorial association. Remember the British maintained four military bases (forts) inside of U.S. territory until Jay's Treaty was signed in 1794. Even after that the British continued a low intensity proxy war against the United States by providing humanitarian and militarily support to the Native Americans contesting whites for land in the Ohio and Mississipi Valleys. We were nothing more than a "rebel province" (to borrow a phrase from Mao) until the end of the War of 1812. All of the framers were rebellious militants transgressing the rights and prerogatives of his lordship the King of England, and but food for the headman's axe. They did not dissolve their government and therefore their sovereignty lightly or without trepedation.

Cami Thanks for the letters

Kirk out
Long Live the Republic, Death to the King

[Edited by Kirk Downey on 03-21-2002 at 12:37 PM]

[John Bridge]

CX,

Of course you are right.

But, in order to amend the Articles, 13 positive votes would have been necessary, and I was thinking of that when I mentioned "agenda." In other words, it was impossible to reform the government, the "country," without the consent of all 13 states. Even if twelve had wanted to move, they couldn't have under the Articles unless number thirteen had gone along. Obviously, an unworkable situation. I say "obviously," because we all know there is at least one dissenter to every cause.

Kirk,

I guess I'm taken aback by your apparent hostility toward Britain in this day and age. Britain was Britain from start to finish. We were the rebels. There are two main perspectives to the "War" and to the events leading up to it, including the Stamp Acts, etc.

Viewed from the other side of the Atlantic, Parliament weren't necessarily the bad guys. True, there were ample sympathizers across the pond at the time, but there wasn't exactly a groundswell of support for our cause, was there? Most English commoners (and certainly the peerage) were quite at a loss as to what our real beef was. Generally speaking, people in the Colonies had it as good as, or better than, those folks in the motherland.

And I maintain that we didn't exactly "win" our War of Independence." It's more as though the British lost. I think it's quite understandable that there would be bad feelings.

The fact that Britain maintained forts and facilities in our part of North America demonstrates my point, I think. It's not as though they felt crushed by our military might, you know. They were certainly not "defeated."

Why should they have deferred to our wishes?





[Edited by John Bridge on 03-21-2002 at 09:33 PM]

[Kirk Downey]

John

Certainly Great Britain was not militarily crushed in either the Revolution or the War of 1812, but we did demonstrate a willingness in both contests a resolve to prosecute long wars of attrition that interrupted or, in the least, complicated British commerce and expended political energies and capital.

Britain's goal in establishing our colonies and indeed the Empire as a whole was to get money, to realize a profit. They were not a friend of the colonies, of the Irish, the African, the Indian, the Malay or any other people they held in subject through military authority. Niether were the Spanish the German, the Portugeuese, the Dutch, the French, or any other European power that projected its power (hegemony) over peoples in distant lands throughout the colonial period. Africa, East Asia, and the Middle East are still wracked by post-colonial disputes. Those disputes seemed to be Cold War contests in the past fifty years but that was merely a contemporary patina overlaying the earlier designs of imperial division and conquest.

BP is British petroleum and they controlled Iran until the fall of the Shah. My father drilled oil on the northern coastal plains of Alaska in a field co-operated by BP and ARCO (Atlantic Richfield Company - Rockefeller if memeory serves me). Whose near the ceter of our global anxieties? Iran and Iraq which are both nonsensical boundaries drawn on maps by British generals in the field. The British, while not the root of all evil, arranged the world to serve them. If evil arose as a consequence of Britain's prosectution of her self interest, "Tisk, tisk, damn poor sportsmanship, I say." offered his lordship as he read the weekly notices with a cup Lapsang Souchong of tea .

We, our fragile republic was the first time in history that commoners rose up to viably challenge imperial authority. Much as the invention of the Long Bow made steel clad knights obsolete, our "self evident" clause made kings obsolete. They, the peerage and the kinigs, were and are mortal enemies of this experiment. You think I overstate?

I think not. Wasn't the Presidency of this nation recently stolen through the employment of a vestigial colonial law? No free people in the world, outside of those caught here beneath the umbrella of our local, corporate controlled journalism, believes that Lord George was elected. Hell, Tom Brokaw himself uttered the phrase, "We have another peaceful transfer of power," to celebrate the ascention of George II to power.

Britain would have swept through the coastal colonies publicly hanging all rebel leaders if they it wouldn't have cost them too dearly. That was the device we used to take The Oregon Territory. We told the Brits, sell it to us or we'll take it by force. It will eventually be too expensive for you to fight a war half way across the world. That is when the British realised that they had to be gentler in how maintaining a grip on "her imperial possessions." Empire's are costly in blood and treasure.

In the letters that Cami found Washington says, of Shay's Rebellion, "I am mortified beyond expression (scared shitless) that in the moment of our acknowledged independence we should by our conduct verify the predictions of our transatlantic foe, and render ourselves ridiculous (open to ridicule) and contemptible in the eyes of all Europe." As I point out to my students and to all who will listen, the English nobles are descendents of the Viking raiders that conquered and subjugated Angland in 1066. The fight in Northern Ireland looks like a contemporary beef but its roots are a thousand years old. The wealthy and powerful would like nothing more than to see our experiment in the governance of man by the common man fail. Nobility may no longer be passed hereditarily, to the eldest son, as title to land and the produce thereof inclusive of the labors of the commoners resident thereon, but nobility is among us.

We sir, you and I, are laboring commoners. They would enslave us if they could. What did Enron, with the aid of Lord George, do to Argentina? and California? Do you realize that the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund has been insisting that nations privatize their public water supplies? Is that de-regulation or enslavement?

Long live the Republic, Death to the King

While I do not in that statement wish mortality to Lord George, for violence takes too long to clean up (look at El Salvador). I know who my enemies are, and I thank god that the founders of our nation won this republic with blood and treasure and bequeathed me my vote. Though stolen one Novemeber day, I still cast it but a few weeks ago.

Yes, I do hold the crown and its seat in a watchful emnity. John Kennedy said "Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer." Kennedy was a Catholic, the son of an Irish bootlegger, and is as cold as stone. I'm an anglican protestant, but I read history remembering that I am the great-grandson of an Irish commoner.

But to answer about Parliament, they were indeed the ones passing the laws that pushed us into bloody rebellion. They were the ones that closed Boston and extended 4,000 soldiers into that city of 16,000 inhabitants. Parliament was the forum that sought to enslave us, the peerage merely populated that forum. They were the ones that took away the Ohio and Mississipi Valleys from the coastal colonies, who'd shed their blood winning that land from the French and Indian Alliance, and then tried to tax those colonies to recover the crowns expenses. Don't let Britains indebtedness after WWII seduce you into beliving that England is our friend. Look at who controlled the Versailles Treaty after WWI, England. Who won that war anyways? We did. The f***ing brits just brushed aside wimpy Wilson, the League of Nations and his notions of self-determination in the Developing World, and cut up the globe to benefit the European powers that displaced the Ottoman and Austro-hungarian Empires. England and the United States.

Then what happened, WWII. And who settled that European fight, Roosevelt and Eisenhower. Who coined the phrase Military Industrial Complex, Eisenhower. Who is the Carlisle Group? George the First and they sell a lot of guns, missiles, planes and helecopters.

Kirk out
God is Love

[John Bridge]

Kirk,

A guy once told me, "If you really want to understand history, don't let your personal views drive you."

I think you've got me wrong here. I have my views on politics, religion, love and all the rest of it, but if you wan't to come close to what actually went on 200 plus years ago, you're gonna hafta chill out a little, amigo.

I don't want you to take this the wrong way, but I'd be damned pissed off if you were teaching my high school-aged boys the hate you display here.

By the way. I voted for "Dubya," not because I love him but because I dislike him less than I dislike Al Gore. If you want to say they're all a bunch of bums I'll agree with you, but leave that shit somewhere else, okay?

God is indeed love. Remember it. ;)

[cx]

Haven't forgotten this one. Have comments soon.

C(needs to read a couple more times)X

[Kirk Downey]

John,

I know this is too long but out of my respect for you, I want to attempt to clarify myself. You're right, of course, leaving current office holders out of the fray will assure civility and improve the smell of the forum.

The force of cold fact may seem like hate. I don't hate Englishmen or England, but, as our Founders, I deeply distrust nobility, of whatever stripe. The vigor of my language sometimes inflates the tenor of my facts. I also enjoy the language and rhetoric of the American Revolutionary. Maybe that's where you heard hate in my words.

The facts that I have gathered have given me opinions. Yes, I am foolish, look at the pay for the job I do, but I'm not so foolish as to let my opinions drive which facts I accept.

The other day in the LA Times, there was a charming article about the Seventh (or Eighth, I couldn't find the article to check the minute facts) Marquis of some county in England. The Current Marquis was an unmarried eldest son of the Previous Marquis. Well, the Current Marquis had never held a job in his life. He'd never contributed anything to society except inebriation and paintings of little note, but he lived on a 9,000 acre estate crowned by a palacial home that had fallen into mild disrepair. The hoof and mouth problem in England cut off the estate's revenues from visiting tourists. So, the current Marquis was liquidiating, at Sotheby's, some seventeen million dollars worth of "extra" treasures in order to create an endowment that would fund the maintenance of the home and grounds. The house needed a million and a half dollars in repairs right away. The other millions would presumably be invested by the estates trustees into capital markets to appreciate and fund future needs. Prudent business move, I agree. And a charming human interest story.

But my overly critical mind wondered - Who was this Marquis and why was he necessary to the former tourist attraction? He waas the eldest son of an English nobleman. Hereditary Title to the Crown's land - that's why - he was an example of feudalism and still in our morning newspapers.

But then my mind went to a more penetrating question - Where did all these millions of dollors of "extra treasure" emanate from. Whose sweat, blood and toil was rendered into the value the earlier Marquises had collected, and from which parts of the world had they collected that blood, sweat and toil? I view history from a perspective that questions the victors and the slave takers - that questions those who wrote the glowing stories of glory. If cold inspection of England's motives in its relationship to its former colonies is hate, then I am joined in that odium by our Founders.

Remember, when George's Parliament tried to extract outrageous taxation from Bostionians to cover the costs of the Seven Years War. Bostonians dressed as Mohawks and threw a couple of tons of taxable tea into the harbor. Colonists in other ports actually burned and sank English flagged vessels. But the British wanted to make an example of the Bostonians. If they could break Boston, a hotbed of rebellion, they could break the will of the colonies. They closed the port - by closing the port they took away the livelihoods of a majority of Boston's 16,000 inhabitants. To police the closure of the port, Parliament inserted 4,000 British soldiers into Boston. Parliament and the Crown further commanded the embargoed inhabitants to house and provision the soldiers. That is one soldier for every four Bostonians - in houses that might only have one or two beds. Any crown soldier accused of excess or crime at that point could only be tried in England. Prosecution witnesses would have to travel to England to levy their cause. Do you think the Nobles and Rich Freemen in the Parliament gave a tinkers damn about the rape of a Bostonian wife.

Prior to that, and compounding that injury, by Parliamentary statute, any manufactured goods produced in the colonies had to be shipped to England and stamped with the crown's duty before it could then be sent back to the colonies for sale. Colonials in North America were prohibited from owning sailing vessels any larger than those that could ply the coastal waters as fishermen's crafts. Slow down a moment and think of the time and expense involved in that kind of regulation. (Where would the tile saw you [might] manufacture have to travel before you could sell it to your new neighbor Sonny Layne. How long would he have to wait and how much would the price inflate.) All of these laws, economic or political in nature were designed to "improve the dependency of the colonies," to borrow a phrase from parliaments own titles for laws.

That is exactly what I want my US History students to leave my classroom with, an understanding of why the Revolution was necessary and worthy. Further, why did the US do such cold blooded things to the Native Americans in its Western expansion - what was driving them westward? What waited them on the eastern shore of the Atlantic? Enslavement on the Lords manor, in the Lords mines and at the Kings pleasure. (Most of my students, 99% are Latino - therfore a mixture of Native and European blood. They feel a closer kinship to the indian than the cowboy. Strangely enough, by the time we get to Texas, they don't much like Santa Ana. They're usually ready to fight for independence from Mexico City's brand of control. But that's another thread, eh?)

I do not hate England. I despise tyrany and England's history of tyrany is only rivaled by the likes of Rome, the Mongols and maybe the short-lived Soviet Union (who learned their tricks from the Czar who learned 'em from the Mongols). Did y'all know that Czar is the way Russians say Ceasar.

When my students are asked to characterize kings? they answer, "They are rich, greedy, bastards." High school kids love mild profanity. That ain't hate brother, its fact. Did Franco share? Did Stalin, Kruschev or Beshnev share? Did Ferdinand Marcos share? Are the Saudi Kings sharing their royal revenues with their people? NO. Who created Saudi Arabia from the House of Saud? England at Versailles. Did ENRON's Kenny Boy share? Did the English nobility share with the people. NO. Would they share with you or I if we were still "loyal subjects" of her majesty the Queen of England. No she would not. For she owns nothing to share that wasn't extracted from elsewhere other than "Englands green and pleasant land." And the thief is always jealous of their possessions.

John, please don't be angry with me because I lump England's King George, Joe Stalin, Ferdinand Marcos and Ken Lay into the same group of tyranical thieves. They are all rich greedy bastards. They are not our friends - and they can all rot in hell as far as I'm concerned.

Kirk Out
God is Love

[Edited by Kirk Downey on 03-25-2002 at 04:34 AM]

[JC]

I share the OPINION that England was indeed corrupted with power. They sought to dominate the world and pretty much did just that. The world is still recovering from the influence.

I also feel the US is trying to do the same things by pushing globalization on the world..much they same way as England did. If the countries won't willingly give us what we want we will take it by force.

it's all about the benjamins,baby.




p.s. don't yell at me John..I got feeling's ya know.

[John Bridge]

I'm not going to yell at anyone. I do like to keep the history free of polemics, and I like to try to know both sides of the issues.

"Prior to that, and compounding that injury, by Parliamentary statute, any manufactured goods produced in the colonies had to be shipped to England and stamped with the crown's duty before it could then be sent back to the colonies for sale."

Kirk,

I don't think that statement is quite correct. There were no prohibitions on the sale in the colonies of goods produced in the colonies. The prohibitions were on "exported goods," All exports had to go to England for redistribution. The colonies, for example, could not export molasses to the West Indies legally.

Parliament took the view that since the French and Indian War was fought for the benefit of the colonists, that the colonists shouldn't mind helping to pay for it. That was the "English" view at the time, and it remains the view of some modern-day English historians. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with this.

Also, please remember that there were a good many Loyalists in the Colonies. Ben Franklin's son, for example. It has been estimated that upwards of a third of the residents of the colonies might have been loyalists. So it's not as though any particular feeling against England and the Crown was unanimous. There are those viewpoints that are often ignored.

And when you identify with the founders and try to get into their heads, remember that for most of them, the rebellion was a last resort. Many of them would have much rather worked things out and remained under the Crown. It was only when it became apparent to them that that would not be possible that they considered armed rebellion.

There were, of course, others who wanted to get with it from the start, but again, that sentiment was far from unamimous.

I do not share your views on how the Indians were treated.

[JC]

Many of the original heads of states and generals were already
living good under the crown and in the English army. Of couse they would be hesitant to bite the hand that fed them.

Take George Washington, he sucked up to the brits for years.

[John Bridge]

J.C.

I can't let that go by.

GW made his name in the French and Indian War (Seven Years War -- in Europe). He fought alongside British units, and didn't accomplish a hell of a lot.

This was a long time before the Revolution. None of the Colonists of note were pushing for independence back then. The idea hadn't come into vogue. The Colonists considered themselves "Englishmen," just like their cousins across the pond.

I don't consider that "sucking up."

[JC]

Well did'nt GW do all those things to rise up in the English social circles and be like his brother?

He was sucking up origenally that is why he made all those expeditions, that and so he could get free land...correct?

He did screw up pretty bad as a commander.

What was the turning point that prompted him to turn against the British?

[John Bridge]

He served in the Virginia Assembly just prior to the "Committees of Correspondence" era. He still believed himself to be a "free Englishman." He, like Jefferson and others, decided that revolution was the only way to remain "free."

What you might consider "sucking up" was Washington's penchant for keeping himself in view. He was always aware of the way people percieved him -- concerned about it.

[JC]

I guess he actually made a few(2-3?) expeditions past me house here in PA. Build the original fort on the Point (where the rivers merge downtown) here in Pittsburg(not much of a fort builder I understand but was re-build a few times over the years..you can still see a foundation..). We also have a house nearby where he supposedly stayed called the Vicory House owned now by the local historical society.

And there is a place nearby where I guess there was a big encampment also called Anthony Wayne something or another.

[flatfloor]

Once again you have managed to piss me off!

I was actually starting to think I had misjudged you. Like CX I have to reread this entire thing but some immediate response is necessary.

[cx]

I just haven't had time for response to these heavy thinking issues. Too damn busy trying to get ready to be gone for three months.

But Kirk hasn't pissed me off here, Jim. He's a little harsh, perhaps, but, unlike John, I like a little of the polemic in my history lesson. Adds spice.

Mostly I'm just picking up some actual history not previously known to me. And I like that part most.

Lay on professors, and damned be he who first cries hold, enough. So sayeth me and Willy. :)

[Bud Cline]

I have'nt seen you this mad since you lost my e-mail addy Flat..what offended you?




The evil one

[flatfloor]

OK, I have calmed down somewhat.

There is a great deal of truth in what you say about the English. Both of my parents were born in Ireland and my Mother could tell stories of lying in a ditch to avoid being shot by the Black and Tans.

But going from there to how your vote was stolen from you is beyond me. This is a perfect example of teachers twisting history to match their own beliefs and to be quite frank one of the reasons our schools are the sorry mess they are today.

Please stop whining about how underpaid you are. The average teacher here on LI earns $68,000 per year for working less than 180 days. The average is obviously pulled down by the salary of beginners. This does not include benefits.

I could go on in this vein much longer but this is a history forum.

[Kirk Downey]

Jim,

Glad I pissed you off, not because I like ticking people off just that I try to inspire some emotion in the otherwise dry discipline of history. Be assured, neighbor, that I do not teach my understanding of the occurrances in November 2000. To clarify my perspective, I connect the seemingly disjointed events through the affinity of class and the uncoordinated "conspiracy of coincident self-interest." And I actually aint that ticked off about it, Kennedy did the same thing, big whoop. What counts is a peaceful transfer of power and the ephemeral nature of the executive.

- I should also interject that John was right when he asked me to be cautious about current issues in the interest of preserving civility and comradery. -

If I am amplifying the antagonism between the founders and their former overlords then that is due to my antagonism of class against those "born to the manor." That aint hate, I just have seen, in graphic detail, the effect of imperialism on those local citizens opposed to imperial prerogatives.

About the facts: I was just reading my uncle's "A Diplomatic History of the American People, Thos. Bailey, (1950) a college text he was assigned to read at Stanford in the 1950's. Bailey says that Ben Franklin propagandized France vigorously and in one incident promoted a "forged letter which apparently proved the British were buying bales of [colonial] American scalps including women and children) from the Indians."

Remember there were 16,000 inhabitants in Boston, Parliament inserted 4,000 soldiers to police the closing of the port that was the major livelihood of those Bostonians. Soldiers accused of a crime could not be tried in the colonies, they had to be tried in England, which was one to three months of life threatening sea faring away. The British didn't care a rats turd for the human rights of the colonists. It was the colonists that created the idea of "human rights." That is the main point of my discourse on the founding of this nation.

Most folks who teach, including myself, do separate their personal opinions from the content they present in the classroom. Mostly because students are clever, smart and outspoken and they love to catch teachers with their bull-pucky hanging out.

As for the decay of education it isn't much related to the teachers - they are, by the time they get fully credentialled, better prepared than the teachers that were graying when I went through school. Our culture is much more crowded with youthful distractions than it has ever been - parents that don't bridle their children's distractivity are the one's "decaying" the education system. Teachers can't, in 7 hours a day, change the values and society that students create for themselves in their homes and among their friends in the 17 hours a day they're out of the classroom. Parents are responsible, teachers and education just get the blame.

(Teachers in my district make @$56,000 a year after 10 years experience and 4 years of education after a bachelors degree that's $3,200 take home. Median home prices recently topped $230,000. Mortgage payent on that is about $2,300 a month which leaves $900 and whatever the other spouse brings in to eat and build a retirement on. Teachers are not well paid as a rule, not in LA, at least. We do the job for diferent reasons, but the wage hurts and drives many of us out. As for teachers time off, that is one of the great parts of the job. But I've never worked harder in my life than I did in my first three years of teaching. Now I merely work harder at this job than I did when I was the office manager of a law firm with four lawyers and thrity staff operating at $2.1 Million a year.)

Try the job for a month, you might like it.

Kirk out
God is Love

[flatfloor]

No thanks, but did find it interesting that pay scale in Montebello ranges from $34,000 to $75,000.

[JC]

I couls easiely go both ways on the issue of teachers pays. Mostly though I distrust school boards.

Here we have a few of the biggest real estate owners in town on the school board..(not good for teachers). But at the same time I see alot of wasted school money not even benifitting the students.

I cannot speak for the quality of teachers..From what I have seen some of them leave alot to be desired...How does a 60 year old computer teacher sound...50,000 dollars for computers and all the kids learned how to do was type in word proccesing programs...what a complete waste.

Not to mention the infamous Channel one Advertising/Brainwashing channel...whats up with that?

One another note with SO many displaced families and single parent homes and especially the poor kids that have crackhead parents I can see how teachers would be very limited in what they can do.

[flatfloor]

Maybe we should move this out of the History forum? I don't think it serves any purpose here. The teacher part that it is.

[jlbos83]

Nobody ever said any of these forums could stay on topic!

[John Bridge]

I have all kinds of opinions on teachers, school boards, school systems - public education in general, but I would like to get back to the founders.

And CX, I don't mind an argument, mind you. It's just that when reading or hearing history, I can do without the polemics that are associated with politics, etc.

I don't know about the guy who wrote the book back in the fifties, Kirk. Hell, I didn't even read books in the fifties unless some teacher made me. :D

I do know this, though. College professors have to write in order to stay in business. And much of what is written is subjective. You can find all sorts of stories that have been passed down through the past couple of hundred years, and you can write about them in books using your own opinion as to their authenticity. Let me give you an example:

Everyone has heard or has read of Patrick Henry's famous "give me liberty or give me death" speech. But most people don't know that there is no historical fact involved. There are no eye-witness accounts of the speech, and I have been convinced that it is doubtful that Henry actuall said those things. You can argue otherwise, but remember there are no eye-witness accounts. The guy who reported the even (several years after it allegedly occurred) would have had no way of hearing that session of the Virginia Legislature on that day. He wasn't there. Additionally, there are no surviving written records of that session.

So because you read something in a book, that doesn't make it true. I'm not saying the event you depicted didn't happen, but I am saying I would have to have more than some fifties college guy's word on it. I would need a primary scource for something like that, just as I would demand a primary scource for Henry's alleged speech.

I read all kinds of history books. I was on a committee that reviewed the history books used in our local school district. I also have bought old texts from used book stores. The oldest book I have on U.S. history was written in 1837. You should see the propaganda that went on back then. The author had Thomas Jefferson seated at the Constitutional Convention!

I also go out of my way to buy new books written by contemporary historians and would-be historians. I try to get a handle on the spectrum of current ideas on the Founding and on that period. I try to read accounts that have been labeled "revisionist." That's a fine word, a subjective word if there ever was one.

One trend that is interesting is the style of writing that seems to be accepted by many historians at the collegiate level today. You will often hear (read) statements such as: He probably did this or that. He PROBABLY did. . . . I find that amusing.

I summed my thoughts up in a little piece I did in one of the Houston papers years ago. I said that historians (and history buffs) really don't know much about history. They just "think" they do. I've spent a lot of years trying to figure out what I think about the founders. Pound for pound, I "think" they were a pretty good group of men, a superior group of men.

But they sure weren't angels! Up to a point, they were Englishmen, just like the ones you seem so insulted by.



[Edited by John Bridge on 03-28-2002 at 08:45 PM]

[JC]

If a falsehood is repeated enough times it becomes true...

[flatfloor]

There you go JC, and that's why you have to question some of your sources.