--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dean Forster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >
> > If you really believe that the men who founded
> this
> > country were so aristocratic, narrow and almost
> wholly
> > self serving, I pity you sir.
>
> I have tremendous respect for the founders of this
> nation. But, you do have
> to remember that they were politicians, not
> theorists. I think much of the
> American mythology surrounding them actually
> decreases a true appreciation
> of their efforts. I am more than willing to accept
> that the founders of
> this country had more than their narrow self
> interests at heart. I also
> agree that they made a radical step. But, they did
> not make a full step to
> the democracy that we have today.
>
> The Constitution is a political document born out of
> a realistic
> understanding of what it would take to form a
> nation. The original
> Constitution had immorality written into it: the
> 2/3rds compromise. It had
> a limited trust of the common man. IIRC, most of
> the original 13 colonies
> had property ownership requirements for voting.
> And, for the federal
> government, most of these folks could only vote for
> the House of
> Representatives. The Electoral College was supposed
> to be a council of
> wise men who were chosen for their wisdom. They
> would decide the president,
> not the popular vote. The Senate was not elected by
> the people, it was
> elected by the state representatives. In this case,
> the legislative body of
> the states would choose who would represent that
> state in the Federal
> government.
>
> None of this is intended as criticism. The steps
> they took were radical at
> the time. But, since an elected national government
> was a bit of an
> experiment, and the fear of mob rule existed, they
> had some checks on the
> power of the majority.
>
> When writing the constitution, I don't think they
> really worried about a guy
> with 4 or 5 years of grade school education being
> able to understand the
> documents. Rather, I think it was a document that
> was meant to be
> understood and used by those who grappled with the
> issue of how to govern
> well for the benefit of all.
>
> In short, the founders of the US were politicians.
> With one possible
> exception, I think they were the best politicians in
> our history. That's a
> complement in my book. The citizens of the United
> States are forever in
> debt to them for what they accomplished politically.
>
Okay that's very well reasoned Dan. I'm not turning a
blind eye to the realities of the situation, I realize
they were flawed men who were creating government for
a real world. I've said as much before. But how can
you make guesses at their intentions that are exactly
opposite of AFAIK *all* of their writings and speeches
of the time?
dean
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more.
http://buzz.yahoo.com/
