Recent years have seen an explosion of interest in and interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Its authority and stature are routinely invoked by voices from every point on the political spectrum, with frequent references to the Founding Fathers and their true "intent." What really was their true intent?
As these 12 surprising lectures show, many of those Founding Fathers - including Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry - were highly critical of the new Constitution and staunchly opposed it when it was first put forth for ratification by the states as a replacement for the Articles of Confederation.
The debate over the Constitution raged for the better part of two years, and beneath its rhetorical flourishes lay not only the longest and most profound civic argument in our nation's history, but also a civics lesson that deserves to endure for all time. It was an argument that would result not only in the ratification of the Constitution, but also in what that Constitution would become.
Professor Pangle takes you into this debate. You'll see which Founders opposed the new Constitution, which Founders led the battle for it, and how both sides helped define the result. In an era when contemporary arguments on the national stage so often mirror the same conflicts debated by the Founders, our own reenactment of that original debate can enrich our ability to be active and participating citizens.
PLEASE NOTE: When you purchase this title, the accompanying reference material will be available in your Library section along with the audio.
©2007 The Teaching Company, LLC (P)2007 The Great Courses
Professor Pangle provides the academics wrapped up in a passionate and eye opening review of the struggle set before the founding fathers. Thanks for your insight.
The lecture is a great break down between the federalist papers and the anti-federalist papers. Explains why the confederation was a bad idea because of lack of central power.
More background on the individuals focused on. More back story on alliances, bitter rivalries.
It was okay, subject matter could have certainly been spiced up.
Some of the verbatim reading from Federalist papers, etc. Replaced with history, or background knowledge.
Would recommend a different telling of the trails and tribulations this generation faced.
Having the course rewritten and presented by someone with an objective or neutral viewpoint. Clearly Prof. Pangle believes, as he often emphasizes (I could not tolerate more than the first three sessions), that the UNITED States should never have united, but should have remained loosely Confederated. His emphasis of negative views toward the US Constitution and casual discounting of the clear support for the Constitution from Founding Fathers (including George Washington!) make a mockery of this important historical document. To say that 16 out of 55 (29%) delegates to the Constitutional Convention did not sign the document misses the point that OVER 70% of the delegates supported this document of remarkably new and challenging concepts!
Having the course rewritten and presented by someone with an objective or neutral viewpoint.
Pretend he spoke objectively. If you believe the US should exist as a loose confederation rather than as United States, tell me before-hand so I can avoid your course.
Replace this course with one developed and delivered by an objective educator.
Report Inappropriate Content