>The U.S. Constitution is a thoroughly oligarchic document. John
>Brown remains probably its wisest interpreter.
>
>Carrol
>
I agree with the tenour of Carroll Cox's position on the Constitution.
Nevertheless, when the debates on the form of the US Consitution took place,
were there not real differences between the views of the participants?
Didn't these differences have serious implications for degree to which the
Constitution become a document designed to uphold an exploitive order? (as
well as implications for how we view Pound's interpretation of US history?)
Men like Thomas Paine and Franklin had, I believe, what were considered
radically democratic views.   Adams, on the other hand, was considered
extremely reactionary, on most crucial issues.

Is not the section called the Adams Cantos (and, is not the entire epic,
called the Cantos) a work much more in harmony with the Aristocratic and
ultra conservative views of John Adams, than it is with the more democratic
and progessive views of Franklin?

There are no "Franklin Cantos" and no "Thomas Paine" Cantos, and for good
reason.  Pound repeats, in the Adams Cantos, some of the aspersions which
Adams cast upon Franklin's moral character (without recognizing that the
essential differences between Franklin and Adams were ideological).  I call
upon serious students of Pound to examine the extent of Franklin's and
Adams' differences on the proper forms of the legislative and executive
powers, and to speculate on why Pound was so favorably disposed toward Adams
in general.

FRANKLIN'S AND ADAM'S POSITIONS ON THE ISSUES OF LEGISLATIVE POWER:

(These positions were debated vigorously by Franklin's followers and Adams'
followers during the years 1776 -1800 --until Adams was thrown out of
office.  Comparisons were made between the constitution which Franklin
designed for the state of Pennsylvania and the one devised by Adams for
Massachussetts.  Franklin and Adams also made comments in letters by which
their views were known).

1.  Franklin--believed in elections every year;  Adams-- every 10, 20 or 30
years.

2.  Franklin--believed in one legislative chamber representing all the
people;   Adams--two chambers, one elected by the people; a second chamber
representing the wealthy property owners.

3.  Franklin--no positions should be hereditary;  Adams--the second chamber
should be hereditary.

3B.  Franklin--There shd be no property qualifications.  Adams--There should
be.

4.  Franklin--The executive should be plural, consisting of  nine people,
three of whom are re-elected each year;
Adams--There should be one executive, with a very long term, perhaps
hereditary.

5.  Franklin--There should be no titles.  Titles of any sort are not
consisten with democracy;  Adams--titles are necessary.  People in America
will respect the government only if titles are granted, as in England.

6.  Franklin--no restrictions whatsoever on reporters;  Adams--The Pres.
should be able to jail reporters and legislators.  (Adams took for himself,
and abused this power during his administration).

7.  Franklin--a person may become a citizen after five years residence in
the US; Adams--a person may become a citizen after fifteen (15) years
residence; and that person's citizenship may be revoked on the executive's
command.

[These views can be extracted from primary sources, available in Richard N.
Rosenfeld's "American Aurora,"  or by examining the collected works of
Franklin and John Adams.]


Regards,

Wei

PS  I am still open to discussing the religious dimension of Pound's work,
independently of his social, political, and economic views.


________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com