The+Founding+Fathers-An+Age+of+Realism

KBM Of course, at the start of our nation, the founding fathers had difficulty maintaining a balanced government. They lacked faith in humanity and viewed us all as egotistical and selfish. I can’t say I disagree with this. Everyone is always looking out for themselves, it is human n ature. This belief is thought to come from either contemporary Europe or Christian beliefs. However, everyone still wants a say in what happens in the government as they have for many years, after all, we are based on the idea of a free nation. The conflict running through the minds of the founders was how they could let an entirely selfish population run and make choices for themselves when they would not take others into account. The founders has no faith in the population but also lacked a trust in democracy. They teetered back and forth trying to avoid the advance of democracy and a fall to the extremes of anarchy or monarchy . It was entirely clear that the population needed to have a say in the government. I agree with the decision of the founders, regardless of how a country is run and ends up, the people need to have an opportunity to be involved in a way that they feel comfortable. The rich and the poor needed to remain at stable points and thus several effective forces were put in place to assure it: A federated government, representatives in the government, and covered by an independent judiciary. It seems as though all of these new ideas gave the illusion of a completely free nation rather than the population being given the right to choose everything. I’m not saying this is a bad thing for, without a doubt, if our people ran themselves and others without enough government interference, there would be chaos. A federated government has the important unchanging rules that the states must abide by while being able to form their own lesser rules. These pieces all fit perfectly into the puzzle and formed a strong mutual relationship to stabilize, not solve, the problems of the country.

=

 * It has been a long time since I have seen this many sweeping generalizations packed into such a small place. I agree is not analyzing (and not acceptable--first person). What isn't a generalization is nothing more than summary, **=====

KEO- From a modern perspective, it might seem as if the founding fathers of the Constitution completely abandoned the original institutions upon which America was established. When America became independent, everyone vowed to make it a democratic country in which all citizens would have a say in the government. They disapproved of the English monarchy through which they felt they had been mistreated and they wanted to avoid establishing the same form of government in their new country. For this reason, it seems odd that the founding fathers drafted a Constitution in 1787 that deviated from these wholly democratic principles. This makes it seem as if the founders were being hypocritical; however, when the personal bias of each of the founders and the current state of the new nation are taken into account, the founders’ decisions make perfect sense. For starters, the founders agreed with Hobbes’ philosophy that it is the nature of all humans to concern themselves only with their own self interest. Since it was the common belief at the time that the nature of man could never be changed, they felt it necessary to create a government that was capable of controlling the people while still governing with their consent. The founders feared that if the people ruled themselves, majorities would overtake the minorities. Since the founders came from privileged families, they were fearful of the rich being outnumbered by the poor. Even though this seems selfish, the founders proved that they did not want to deprive any people of their own say in the government. The new system that they established allowed the views of the people to be processed by a group of representatives that the people themselves elected. The founders had no desire to create a monarchy so they created a system that allowed the different houses of the government to neutralize each other and prevent any one group from becoming too powerful. Overall, the founders were clearly affected by their own bias, but the outcome of their efforts shows that they always had the best interest of all American citizens at heart. Their decisions were effective in preventing political extremes from forming and creating a system of government that kept America functioning and strong.

summary -- no analysis

SFH – The task of drafting a constitution and creating an entirely new government is no small task, and can only be successfully undertaken by the most adept individuals. The individuals that developed the United States Constitution and government system are frequently castigated for failing to consider the policies upon which America gained its independence. But to accurately criticize these great men one must consider the ideologies of the time, and the tasks at hand. The founders were staunch followers of Hobbes philosophy; this following was not only based on his accurate ideology, but from the men’s personal experiences. According to Hobbes one cannot trust a man, but only the power of a good constitution to control him. Human’s selfish nature only validates this point. The founders knew they could not change human nature in order to create a more ideal constitution. The difficult choice was how to balance the radical thought of democracy with the old monarchial ideologies that oppressed so many. Hence the founder’s implemented institutions to nearly neutralize each other, by forcing the different branches to check and control one another; in an attempt avoid the monarchial government they had recently gained independence from. This innovative balance shows the founders success in adhering to the policies upon which America gained its independence; since for more than two hundred years Americans have not been governed by an oppressive government in which the people (or the governed) have no say.

summary -- no analysis -- you come close at times but never fully connect

CMD -1- I was very intrigued  to find that at the time of the founding of the United Sates of America, many people were unsure of the idea of democracy and whether or not it was a good idea for the people to rule themselves. Much of this fear came from the idea that if the poor were given the power to govern themselves that they would decide to take all the money from the rich. Even the founding fathers held this view that if there were universal suffrage that it would do more harm than good to the country. They most likely felt this way, because not only did they want to keep the money that they had, but they also wanted to prevent the extremely wealthy from buying out the votes of the extremely poor. In-order to preserve the Democracy that they had created from becoming an Aristocracy they knew that they had to have preventative measures for this. This is why they employed so many checks and balances into the constitution and with it, the government of the United States of America. If left unchecked, a democracy ruled by the people could eventually come to destroy the liberty it was meant to protect. However, the founding fathers thought that government was based on property, which meant that if some one did not have property they did not have property they then they did not have enough stake in the county in order to vote reliably. **summary -- no analysis**



CCR- Divine right of kings and unquestioned authority were two widely accepted concepts in 1787. Monarchies were still a very common form of government, and leaders of such governments enjoyed absolute power. However, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and with this understanding our founding fathers began to determine how best to govern what would become a new union of states. Richard Hofstadter wrote his article “The Founding Fathers: An Age of Realism” on political dilemmas presented to those involved in drafting our nation’s constitution. Madison, Franklin, and other prominent statesmen were aware of human nature’s flaws, and were escaping tyrannical rule by a monarch thousands of miles away. It was their task to create a system of government that would never fall into such a dictatorial structure. And, as proven by over 200 years of a stable government, they succeeded in combining political philosophies that called for strong rule to keep citizens in line, and that ensured that no one man could have complete political control of a country despite having many internal struggles. It was quite a task to form a government that would be agreeable to at least nine different colonies varying in size, geography, and economic makeup. Furthermore, it was not at all easy to please all members of the congress. Framers of the Constitution believed that man should be free. They also knew from experience that as a species, man cannot be trusted with complete freedom. Thus a compromise was necessary. Madison’s “Virginia Plan” supported a republican style government where a government’s legislative branch, filled with officials elected by their constituents, would be the most powerful. Yet how many officials each state should have, was an issue that almost tore all progress made so far to shreds. Smaller states believed in equal representation in a legislative branch. Bigger states argued that proportional representation was fairer. Both sides were adamant that their way was fairest. It was not until Roger Sherman, a respected statesman, proposed that in Congress’ lower house representation would be proportional, and in the Senate representation would be equal. Though this plan was originally shot down, it was eventually modified, agreed upon, and accepted. Debate over an Executive branch of government also was extremely heated. Those in favor of states’ rights proffered a weaker executive, while nationalists were in support of a stronger central leader. James Wilson, a future Supreme Court justice was just such a nationalist. He also supported a system of electing a President through representatives. Essentially he proposed what we now consider to be the Electoral College. Debates relating to a President’s power also took time to resolve, however it was eventually decided that just as in individual states, an executive would be good for the nation as a whole. A fiery debate over a Bill of Rights began after discussion started to slow on other topics. This Bill of Rights was accepted as 10 amendments to the Constitution. On September 17th 1787 the Constitution’s final draft was signed by 39 attendees and all involved began an intense debate for, or against ratification. Those for ratification were called Federalists and those against were Anti-Federalist. Madison wrote in Federalist number ten* that it would be foolish to think that the Constitution was perfect; however it was the best choice available. All original 13 states ratified the constitution eventually, and with slight modification the Constitution stays strong today thanks to the Founders ability to realistically compromise. *Used as a referrence: []
 * week 2xx**

=
seem to be on the right track but you are taking on too much -- analyzation tackles one specific statement/idea not a cacophany(is that spelled right??) -- as written is confusing with no clear argument =====