What did the Founding Fathers want? , page 2

Pierce Butler ~ was a man of startling contrasts. As late as 1772 he was a ranking officer in those British units charged with suppressing the growing colonial resistance to Parliament. In fact, a detachment from his unit, the 29th Regiment of Foot, had fired the shots in the "Boston Massacre" of 1770, thereby dramatically intensifying the confrontation between the colonies and England. But by 1779 Butler, now an officer in South Carolina's militia and a man with a price on his head, was organizing American forces to fight the invading Redcoats. Butler lost his considerable estates and fortune during the British occupation of South Carolina, but at the end of the Revolutionary War he was among the first to call for reconciliation with the Loyalists and a renewal of friendly relations with the former enemy.

Although an aristocrat to the manor born, Butler became a leading spokesman for the frontiersmen and impoverished western settlers. Finally, this Patriot, always a forceful and eloquent advocate of the rights of the common man during the debate over the Constitution, was also the proud owner of a sizable number of slaves.
As a planter and merchant, especially after his trip to Europe, he came to understand that economic growth and international respect depended upon a strong central government. At the same time, he energetically supported the special interests of his region.

This dual emphasis on national and state concerns puzzled his fellow delegates, just as other apparent inconsistencies would bother associates throughout the rest of his political career. For example, Butler favored ratification of the Constitution, yet absented himself from the South Carolina convention that approved it. Later, he would serve three separate terms in the United States Senate, but this service was marked by several abrupt changes in party allegiance. Beginning as a Federalist, he switched to the Jeffersonian party in 1795, only to become a political independent in 1804. These changes confused the voters of his state, who rejected his subsequent bids for high public offices, although they did elect him three more times to the state legislature as an easterner who spoke on behalf of the west. www.history.army.mil...

Georgia:
William Few ~ In 1771 Few, his father, and a brother associated themselves with the "Regulators," a group of frontiersmen who opposed the royal governor. As a result, the brother was hanged, the Few family farm was destroyed, and the father was forced to move once again, this time to Georgia. William remained behind, helping to settle his father's affairs, until 1776 when he joined his family near Wrightsboro, Ga. About this time, he won admittance to the bar, based on earlier informal study, and set up practice in Augusta.

Few missed large segments of the convention proceedings, being absent during all of July and part of August because of congressional service, and never made a speech. Nonetheless, he contributed nationalist votes at critical times. Furthermore, as a delegate to the last sessions of the Continental Congress, he helped steer the Constitution past its first obstacle, approval by Congress. And he attended the state ratifying convention.

He served 4 years in the legislature (1802-5) and then as inspector of prisons (1802-10), alderman (1813-14), and U.S. commissioner of loans (1804). From 1804 to 1814 he held a directorship at the Manhattan Bank and later the presidency of City Bank. A devout Methodist, he also donated generously to philanthropic causes. www.let.rug.nl...

Abraham Baldwin ~ was a fervent missionary of public education. Throughout his career he combined a faith in democratic institutions with a belief that an informed citizenry was essential to the continuing wellbeing of those institutions. The son of an unlettered Connecticut blacksmith, Baldwin through distinguished public service clearly demonstrated how academic achievement could open opportunities in early American society. Educated primarily for a position in the church, he served in the Continental Army during the climactic years of the Revolution. There, close contact with men of widely varying economic and social backgrounds broadened his outlook and experience and convinced him that public leadership in America included a duty to instill in the electorate the tenets of civic responsibility.

Military service (as a chaplain) in turn had a profound influence on Baldwin's future. During these years he became friends with many of the Continental Army's senior officers, including Washington and General Nathanael Greene, who would take command in the south in late 1780. He was also a witness to Major General Benedict Arnold's betrayal of his country. These associations moved the somewhat cloistered New England teacher and theology student toward a broader political outlook and a strong moral commitment to the emerging nation.

While still in the Army he had studied law and had been admitted to the Connecticut bar (before returning to Georgia.)

As the son of a blacksmith, Baldwin exhibited a natural affinity for the rough men of the Georgia frontier; as the graduate of one of the nation's finest schools, he also related easily to the wealthy and cultured planters of the coast. This dual facility enabled him to mediate differences that arose among the various social and economic groups coalescing in the new state. www.history.army.mil...


And there you have it

reply to post by frazzle

---

Excellent! I would say that they wanted a living document that could grow with the populous, modernize as the country did, yet remain free from the constraints of tyrany. It was intentionally kept small, so as not to be all encompassing, yet it was made to be extremely difficult to amend- 2/3rds in the congress, but 3/4's of the states- this tells us that they believed that the majority may not always be in the right. A large portion of regulation and law was to be left to the states, with a balance that would keep states from becoming tyranical by their own ends. Further, it was their intent to establish a central government merely to provide for the security of the union; a way to gather the states against enemies, in essence, an unbendable alliance. Also, it was their intent that the central government should restrain the states from tyrany, for the protection of the union and the individual, not misgiving the rights of the states to life and liberty as they see fit, but knowing that tyrany is always waiting in the wings. That is just my belief, but I also believe that they would profoundly appreciate the amendments that currently reside within the document, as they are proof that the Constitution works- that said, they most likely are turning in their graves over the dismal repair of the nation and the massive encroachment of central power.

Originally posted by onthedownlow

Originally posted by alldaylong
America's Founding Fathers had one motive and one motive only. Their own self interest's. Why share the wealth of the country with the motherland when you can keep it all for yourselves. That was it in a nutshell. All this rubbish about "Freedom" was just that......rubbish,

The words of a happy serf! I guess some will always be more geared towards servitude and security. Tell the queen mum that I said hi!

Even some of your own people have come to terms with reality:-

sites.google.com...

Originally posted by onthedownlow
reply to post by frazzle

---

Excellent! I would say that they wanted a living document that could grow with the populous, modernize as the country did, yet remain free from the constraints of tyrany. It

That is just my belief, but I also believe that they would profoundly appreciate the amendments that currently reside within the document, as they are proof that the Constitution works- that said, they most likely are turning in their graves over the dismal repair of the nation and the massive encroachment of central power.

Many would say that what we have now is tyranny so how did they protect us from it? If they wanted to make the first ten amendments part of the constitution, why didn't they put those sentiments in the body of it instead of just tacking them on as an afterthought? If you read what they stood for its hard to see "limited" anywhere in their intent, its all about a strong / powerful central government and that's sure as heck what we got.

reply to post by alldaylong

---

So it would be your contention that equality that arrose through the Bill of Rights was an unintentional surprise? It is clear what the Founding Fathers' intent was, even if they used their position to create an advantage for themselves- hence the built in safegaurds against tyrany.

Originally posted by onthedownlow
reply to post by alldaylong

---

So it would be your contention that equality that arrose through the Bill of Rights was an unintentional surprise? It is clear what the Founding Fathers' intent was, even if they used their position to create an advantage for themselves- hence the built in safegaurds against tyrany.

It isn't my contention, the fact is that they couldn't get it passed without adding those ten guarantees (which have been, for all intents and purposes, nullified in the meantime).

Originally posted by onthedownlow
reply to post by alldaylong

---

So it would be your contention that equality that arrose through the Bill of Rights was an unintentional surprise? It is clear what the Founding Fathers' intent was, even if they used their position to create an advantage for themselves- hence the built in safegaurds against tyrany.

A means to an end. Convince the people that we want freedom from that nasty King George and get then to do the fighting for you. Result the founding fathers had feathered theirs nests very nicely indeed.
America's founding fathers where the 18th Centuries equivalent to to-days bankers and financial institutions. Those at the top get wealthier at the expenses of those at the bottom.
Lets look at that word "Freedom". What freedom did Tomas Jefferson offer to the hundreds of slaves he owned? Just another case of "Them and Us"

Originally posted by frazzle

Originally posted by onthedownlow
reply to post by frazzle

---

Excellent! I would say that they wanted a living document that could grow with the populous, modernize as the country did, yet remain free from the constraints of tyrany. It

That is just my belief, but I also believe that they would profoundly appreciate the amendments that currently reside within the document, as they are proof that the Constitution works- that said, they most likely are turning in their graves over the dismal repair of the nation and the massive encroachment of central power.

Many would say that what we have now is tyranny so how did they protect us from it? If they wanted to make the first ten amendments part of the constitution, why didn't they put those sentiments in the body of it instead of just tacking them on as an afterthought? If you read what they stood for its hard to see "limited" anywhere in their intent, its all about a strong / powerful central government and that's sure as heck what we got.

"Limited" was the eventual outcome of the document, are you suggesting that it was an accident? Yes, I would agree that we now have tyranny- but the three branches were intended to keep government in check. The founding Fathers failed to realize how Nationalism could allow for the seepings of tyranny, but it is preposterous to suggest that it was inevitably intended. The Bill of Rights is the reason that the Constitution was ratified, which would suggest that the founders would not lend merit to the document unless certain safegaurds were included. Are you suggesting that the Bill of Rights was only included to appease angry voters?

Originally posted by onthedownlow

reply to post by frazzle

---

"Limited" was the eventual outcome of the document, are you suggesting that it was an accident? Yes, I would agree that we now have tyranny- but the three branches were intended to keep government in check. The founding Fathers failed to realize how Nationalism could allow for the seepings of tyranny, but it is preposterous to suggest that it was inevitably intended. The Bill of Rights is the reason that the Constitution was ratified, which would suggest that the founders would not lend merit to the document unless certain safegaurds were included. Are you suggesting that the Bill of Rights was only included to appease angry voters?

Maybe you could read it again. Any acts that were "limited" were essentially retracted by the implied powers. Commerce, reasonable and prudent, general welfare...

It can't be that they were both such wise men and yet failed to realize what would come of those open ended clauses.

Yes, I could suggest that. Some of these who left before the Convention was complete was to protest the Constitution. Others remained at the Convention until the end, but then refused to sign. The following is a list of the delegates who attended the Convention but who did not sign the Constitution, and the reason they did not sign:

* Connecticut - Oliver Ellsworth (left early)
* Georgia - William Houstoun (left early), William Pierce (left early)
* Maryland - Luther Martin (left in protest), John Mercer (left in protest)
* Massachusetts - Elbridge Gerry (refused to sign), Caleb Strong (left early)
* New Jersey - William Houston (left early)
* New York - John Lansing (left in protest), Robert Yates (left in protest)
* North Carolina - William Davie (left early), Alexander Martin (left early)
* Rhode Island - sent no delegates
* Virginia - George Mason (refused to sign), James McClurg (left early), Edmund Randolph (refused to sign), George Wythe (left early)
The following are those who refused to attend or were unable to attend:
* Connecticut - Erastus Wolcott
* Georgia - Nathaniel Pendleton, George Walton
* Maryland - Charles Caroll, Gabriel Duvall, Robert Hanson Harrison, Thomas Sire Lee, Thomas Stone
* Massachusetts - Francis Dana
* New Hampshire - John Pickering, Benjamin West
* New Jersey - Abraham Clark, John Neilson
* North Carolina - Richard Caswell, Willie Jones
* South Carolina - Henry Laurens
* Virginia - Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Nelson

reply to post by onthedownlow

---

You must be very nieve not to realise the true motive of the American Revolution. A revolution against tyranny is usually lead by the poor, down trodden serfs against the hierarchy. Examples being the Russian and French Revolutions ( And also the English Civil War).
What did we have in America? A revolution being led by the wealthy and landed gentry.

Originally posted by alldaylong
reply to post by onthedownlow

---

You must be very nieve not to realise the true motive of the American Revolution. A revolution against tyranny is usually lead by the poor, down trodden serfs against the hierarchy. Examples being the Russian and French Revolutions ( And also the English Civil War).
What did we have in America? A revolution being led by the wealthy and landed gentry.

Perhaps I am nieve, or just far less cynical. Weren't the French and Russian revolutions fought for selfish reasons as well? Socialism and Communism? I believe that our ideologies differ greatly, but the US constitution does not limit anyone to a prescribed station, it enables people to rise above their station. Did not the French and Russian revolutions begat tyrany? I supose at this point, we should just agree to disagree.

reply to post by frazzle

---

Article Four, section Four? So it is established the each state is guaranteed a Republican form of Government, thus handing Article One to the states. Article I;9:8 in a sense establishes our freedoms, does it not? Anyhow, nicepost- but I sense that you are pressing an agenda, the same as everyone I supose.

Originally posted by alldaylong

Originally posted by onthedownlow
reply to post by alldaylong

---

So it would be your contention that equality that arrose through the Bill of Rights was an unintentional surprise? It is clear what the Founding Fathers' intent was, even if they used their position to create an advantage for themselves- hence the built in safegaurds against tyrany.

A means to an end. Convince the people that we want freedom from that nasty King George and get then to do the fighting for you. Result the founding fathers had feathered theirs nests very nicely indeed.
America's founding fathers where the 18th Centuries equivalent to to-days bankers and financial institutions. Those at the top get wealthier at the expenses of those at the bottom.
Lets look at that word "Freedom". What freedom did Tomas Jefferson offer to the hundreds of slaves he owned? Just another case of "Them and Us"

Damn right, man. All this talk from these guys about all men being created equal, and freedom. Yet they enslaved MEN, and only white guys with land could vote. If it was up to the ''founding fathers'', women still wouldn't be able to vote, and I'd still be in physical chains. These were no benevolent guys.

reply to post by onthedownlow

---

Perhaps I am nieve, or just far less cynical. Weren't the French and Russian revolutions fought for selfish reasons as well? Socialism and Communism? I believe that our ideologies differ greatly, but the US constitution does not limit anyone to a prescribed station, it enables people to rise above their station. Did not the French and Russian revolutions begat tyrany? I supose at this point, we should just agree to disagree.

An analogy. Would it be cynical to think that if someone built a building and it collapsed that it would be correct to blame an overweight man walking up the stairs for the collapse, or would you be more inclined to blame those who planned and constructed it?

www.henrymakow.com...
The masonic theory. Washington, Jefferson, Franklin knew their lives were not at risk, because the fix was in, in London. From John Adam's statement, 1/3 of Americans supported the revolution, 1/3 opposed, and 1/3 were indifferent. Historians agree the 1/3 supported the revolution was too generous. So we have a people who were not oppressed, and the large majority did not support revolution. Of course, once it was decided to have a revolution, reasons had to be conjured up. The one I like best is no taxation without representation. Looking at Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, none of them had performed a major military service that would have qualified them to be knighted. So how King George could appoint these commoners to the House of Lords? Washington having led British soldiers to a defeat at the hands of the Indians. And there is no way they would have accepted positions in the House of Commons. At the time of the American revolution, only 1 in 20 British citizens had representation in parliament. en.wikipedia.org... Note in the above link: "no Congressional demand for this constitutional development was sent to Westminster." discussing creating parliamentary representation for Americans. Also note "In February 1775, Britain passed the Conciliatory Resolution which ended taxation for any colony which satisfactorily provided for the imperial defense and the upkeep of imperial officers."

Are You Offended??? SO WHAT!!!
  Posted 9 days ago with 97 member flags

Judge furious about undercover Police as Provocateurs in Occupy Movement in Texas
  Posted 5 days ago with 53 member flags

The Image of Baphomet: Upsetting Folks Since 1855.
  Posted 9 days ago with 39 member flags

New Scientific Report Destroys Global Warming!
  Posted 7 days ago with 32 member flags

Al Azif: Is The Necronomicon Real?
  Posted 8 days ago with 25 member flags

Civilian jet with 81 civilians shot by French Mirage instead of Qaddafi Plane over Sicily?
  Posted 17 days ago with 20 member flags

What The Hell Is This?
  Posted 5 days ago with 9 member flags

How copyright enforcement robots killed the Hugo Awards
  Posted 7 days ago with 4 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: