Help with info on the Founding Fathers

[margotb822]

I am in a discussion with someone who only has the states' rights view of the founding fathers. Does anyone have a good link to the whole debate that played out and resulted in the 10th Amendment? Thanks!!

[Adsos Letter]

1. ...well...no link, BUT...

Google "Constitutional Convention," "Federalist papers," and "Anti-Federalist Papers."

It was actually a fairly lengthy discussion, though I am sure some documents are more significant than others.

[mrcheerful]

2. The civil war started over states rights vs federal law's

That fight still continues today with cons claiming its up to states while enacting federal laws prohibating state laws.

[MannyGoldstein]

6. The Specific Context Was Slavery

The Constitution was clearly being violated by the South.

[mrcheerful]

8. The slave issue didn't come into play until England wanted to get into the civil

war on the souths side. What the civil war actually started over is Lincoln being elected instead of the guy the south supported. Excuse me but names escape me at times old age and all. But civil war history is filled with more myths then facts, at least what is being taught in schools.

[MannyGoldstein]

9. I Believe That The Specific Concern Is That Lincoln Would Take Their Slaves

IIRC, Lincoln was a powerful opponent of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the act that potentially extended slavery into states that ought to have been free states per the Constitution. The South was afraid that ending the Kansas-Nebraska Act would be the starting point for nationwide abolition.

[nickw]

11. will this myth never die?

Yes, it was about state's rights... to have slavery.

Its not really debatable when the states who seceded said themselves 'the reason we're leaving is the lack of support for slavery'

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

[nerddem]

3. well it was the early states rights crew that wanted it

the federalists were generally in favor of a more centralized state so the tenth was a concession. I guess you can maybe look through the federalist papers, which are pretty easy to find on the net. There were also a few anti federalist articles written by jeffersons people/early democrats that explain the states' rights side.

[MannyGoldstein]

4. Depends On What You're Looking For

The Federalist Papers were a good discussion, but not amongst *all* of the Founders.

Probably the Constitution itself is the best place to look: they knew exactly what they were writing. As I read it:
- They were more pro-states-rights than the courts tend to interpret today.
- They left ambiguities on purpose when they couldn't quite settle on something, or when they wanted future flexibility in interpretation.

All that being said, I'm a total rank amateur at the Constitution, so my interpretation is liable to be totally wrong.

[zipplewrath]

5. Federalist Papers

That's as close as you'll probably get. And that is unfortunate because they predate the Bill of Rights and the 10th amendment. There isn't nearly the documentation on the debate about the BoR that one might expect in these modern times. I've heard tell that the "militia clause" was added to the 2nd after one of the initial drafts, and no one know who or why. Wrt to the 10th, the thing that must be remembered is that this admendment was an "antifederalist" amendment in essence and the federalists (who basically won the arguments about the original constitution) weren't the proponents of "states rights" per se. States rights arguments are made by people who probably wouldn't have supported the original constitution.

[Ian David]

7. Google "Thom Hartman" and "Founding Fathers." n/t

[SocialRealist]

10. The founding fathers had a lot of good ideas...

...for the times they lived in. Times change, people change, and so our government should change.

Thankfully, enough people realized this last November! :party:

[Jiradog]

12. I think any change would be a change for the worse

If you want to change it do it with ammendments thru the process not by just ignoring the sections you disagree with.