>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