A review of “The Bill of Rights and Other Amendments” (audiobook)

“The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this constitution, or on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress … ”

– The United States Constitution (signed 1787), Article 5

The United States Constitution included a process by which the original document could be amended (quoted above). It was designed to allow some flexibility within the Constitution, while at the same time protecting the Constitution from voluminous (and excessively rapid) changes. At the time that I write this, there have been 27 amendments to the United States Constitution, in accordance with this process. The first ten of them were the ones that make up our Bill of Rights. These ten amendments were ratified simultaneously with each other on December 15th, 1791. But obviously, they are not the only amendments to the Constitution. There have been 17 others at the time that I write this, and this audiobook covers most of them in some detail.

A review of “The Federalist Papers” (audiobook)

“I propose, in a series of papers, to discuss the following interesting particulars: The utility of the Union to your political prosperity; the insufficiency of the present Confederation to preserve that Union; the necessity of a government at least equally energetic with the one proposed, to the attainment of this object; the conformity of the proposed Constitution to the true principles of republican government; its analogy to your own state constitution; and lastly, the additional security which its adoption will afford to the preservation of that species of government, to liberty, and to property.”

– Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist Papers (Federalist No. 1)

“The Federalist Papers” has long been one of my favorite books. More than any other book, it helped to get the Constitution ratified by the thirteen states. But the importance of the Federalist Papers transcends the ratification debates. It is a timeless work, because it explains the intended purposes of virtually every clause in the Constitution, which is still the law of the land today. It is the most important work written by the Founding Fathers about the Constitution, and is used to interpret the intended meaning of the document today. Since this is an area of major controversy, this debate is one of the most practical in all of American politics.

A review of “The Constitutional Convention” (audiobook)

“Resolved. that the right of suffrage in the first branch of the national Legislature ought not to be according to the rule established in the articles of confederation: but according to some equitable ratio of representation — namely, in proportion to the whole number of white and other free citizens and inhabitants of every age, sex, and condition including those bound to servitude for a term of years, and three fifths of all other persons not comprehended in the foregoing description, except Indians, not paying taxes in each State.”

“Resolved. that the right of suffrage in the second branch of the national Legislature ought to be according to the rule established for the first.”

– Articles 7 and 8 of the “Virginia Plan” (1787), the first draft of the United States Constitution (written by James Madison)

I had already seen a fine docudrama about the Constitutional Convention, before I ever listened to this audiobook. This was “A More Perfect Union: America Becomes A Nation” (which I review here). Obviously, there are advantages to a docudrama over any audiobook, such as the entertainment value of the powerful visuals that it includes. The docudrama may also be better at covering the greatest issue of the Convention, which was the controversy over representation. But this audiobook is better at covering pretty much everything else about the Convention. It covers issues not touched upon in the docudrama, such as the debates over the executive and judicial branches. These debates were quite important for the final document.

A review of “The United States Constitution” (audiobook)

“[The Congress shall have the power] To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.”

– The United States Constitution (signed 1787), Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 18

If one wants to understand the Constitution, there is no substitute for actually reading the document itself, of course. But this audiobook gives historical context that is not available within the document itself. It helps to place the original Constitution into the context of its times, and leaves it to another audiobook to cover the amendments to the Constitution (a subject that I have covered elsewhere).

A review of “The American Revolution” (audiobook)

“What do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war? The revolution was effected before the war commenced. The revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people.”

– John Adams, in a letter to Hezekiah Niles (13 February 1818)

I had already watched three television histories of the American Revolution before I ever listened to this audiobook. One was a British production called “Rebels & Redcoats: How Britain Lost America,” which was four hours long. Another was PBS’s “Liberty! The American Revolution,” which was six hours long. And the last was the History Channel’s “The Revolution,” which was ten hours long (the longest of the three). The last two were quite good, and the British production was helpful for understanding the British perspective, despite the glaring bias that one finds in it if they watch certain parts of it. But I still learned some things from this fine audiobook about the American Revolution, which is five hours long.

A review of “The Declaration of Independence” (audiobook)

“The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.”

– The Declaration of Independence (July 4th, 1776)

A new country was created on July 4th, 1776. This is the aspect of the day that people remember most, of course. But people seldom quote the part of the document that actually declares our independence. Rather, they are more likely to quote from the famous second paragraph. This paragraph reads in part: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” (Source: text of the document). I will not endeavor to quote the rest of these words in this post. But suffice it to say that they are filled with ideas and philosophy. People remember these ideas better than the legal phrases that separated us from the mother country. That’s how important these ideas are.

A review of “The Ratification Debates” (audiobook)

“And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.”

– The Constitution’s most immediate predecessor, which was the “Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union” (ratified 1781), Section XIII, Paragraph 1

This audiobook may be the finest overview of the ratification debates that I have ever heard. I haven’t found any equally good coverage of this subject in the television world, so I’m quite content to get this from an audiobook. In some ways, this audiobook may be even better. This covers the fiery debates over whether or not to ratify our current Constitution.

Did the Founding Fathers believe in compromise? (Answer: Only partially)

I was once in an argument with a liberal guy who claimed that Republicans should compromise because "the Founding Fathers agreed with compromise" (or some wordage to that effect), telling me to "Read the Federalist Papers" (his exact words) to find evidence that the Founding Fathers agreed with it. This was among the biggest blunders that my debate opponents have ever made; because I have read the Federalist Papers from cover to cover, and I was able to produce the quotes that debunked his interpretation.

This is a common misconception about the Founding Fathers; and like many misconceptions, there is a kernel of truth in it: there were a number of compromises at the Constitutional Convention. But these compromises were only done with the greatest reluctance, and many of them were willing to work against the Constitution unless they got everything they wanted. Anyone who's really studied what happened at the Convention knows that these men only compromised as a last resort, when they lacked the power to get all they desired, and had to choose between getting some of what they wanted or none of it.

To help debunk this myth, I will give the quotes from the Federalist Papers that I gave to this liberal guy; and follow them with a paraphrase of the liberal guy's response to them, which amounted to an admission of defeat.

A review of Muffie Meyer’s “Benjamin Franklin” (PBS)

"Neither of the two Parties [France or America] shall conclude either Truce or Peace with Great Britain, without the formal consent of the other first obtain'd; and they mutually engage not to lay down their arms, until the Independence of the united states shall have been formally or tacitly assured by the Treaty or Treaties that shall terminate the War."

- "Treaty of Alliance between the United States and France," Article 8 (6 February 1778)

He is one of the most respected Founding Fathers in America, but spent most of his life patriotic to Great Britain. He spent his later years warring against Great Britain, but had a son that was loyal to the Empire. He wrote an autobiography that is a classic of American literature, but did not discuss his Founding Father accomplishments in it at all.

The man is Benjamin Franklin, and he is still today one of the most respected men in our history. His autobiography was one of the first American books to be taken seriously by Europeans as literature; yet he does not discuss in it his role in the Declaration of Independence, the treaty of alliance with France, the peace treaty with Britain, or the United States Constitution. Why is this? Quite simply, it's because these were in the later portion of his life; and his autobiography deals mainly with the early portion. He didn't finish his autobiography, because old age caught up with him before he could; but his later years are well-covered in his own diary, and allow modern storytellers to finish the biography for him. One of those modern storytellers is a team at PBS, which made a documentary about his life - the film that I will review now.

John Adams movies

What's the best movie about John Adams?

Young John Adams

My answer would be that it depends on what you're looking for. All the ones I've seen have things that they do better than the other ones. Thus, I'll compare and contrast the ones I've seen, to show where each one is strongest. The ones I've seen are a two-hour PBS documentary (which also talks about Abigail), an eight-hour HBO miniseries (with Paul Giamatti), and an old thirteen-hour miniseries called "The Adams Chronicles."

Did the Founding Fathers oppose political parties? (Actually, no … )

It has often been argued that the Founding Fathers were against political parties. Some of them undoubtedly were, but others of them actually founded political parties. These included John Adams and Alexander Hamilton (founders of the Federalist Party), and Thomas Jefferson and James Madison (founders of the Democratic-Republican Party). They weren't always called political parties - often they would use less controversial language like "the political friends of Mr. Hamilton" or "the political friends of Mr. Jefferson." But they were parties in every sense of the word.

George Washington

Critics of political parties make much out of George Washington's opposition to them. But it's easy to oppose political parties when your self-interest doesn't require their support, and George Washington is the only presidential candidate who was ever elected without the support of a political party. His reputation for walking away from power, along with his remarkable war record, made it so he didn't need parties. All he had to do was not say he wouldn't be president, and he would be elected. Most of the other founders, by contrast, did need their support, and actively courted it to gain political office.

Benjamin Franklin: Renaissance Man

"I may as well confess it, since my denial of it will be believed by nobody ... perhaps I shall a good deal gratify my own vanity. Indeed, I scarce ever heard or saw the introductory words, 'Without vanity I may say,' etc., but some vain thing immediately followed. Most people dislike vanity in others, whatever share they have of it themselves; but I give it fair quarter wherever I meet with it, being persuaded that it is often productive of good to the possessor, and to others that are within his sphere of action; and therefore, in many cases, it would not be altogether absurd if a man were to thank God for his vanity among the other comforts of life."

- "The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin," section covering 1706-1757

Few men epitomize the concept of the "Renaissance Man" better than Benjamin Franklin. He achieved great success in many different fields; including the occupations of being a writer, journalist, postmaster, scientist, and inventor. He had a great wit, and had a persuasive ability that was part logical argument and part masterful diplomacy. And his achievements as a statesman are notable even by the lofty standards of America's Founding Fathers.

I certainly do not claim to be an expert about his life, but after watching a three-hour PBS documentary about him, I was inspired to read his famous autobiography. I have read it cover to cover, and "The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin" is now one of my favorite books. It was one of the first American books to be taken seriously by Europeans as literature.