Were the Founding Fathers Democratic Reformers?

Although both articles had good arguments, I believe that the "Yes" side had a better one. The "yes" side gave more reasons that I agreed with about how democratic the founding fathers were.
An example in the article was of the Great Compromise. That is a great example of democracy, I believe, because they wanted to appease both sides and they did that in doing the compromise. The Virginia, or large state, Plan, was in favor of having representation based on population. The New Jersey, or small state, Plan, was in favor of having representation being equal, no matter what size the state was. As a result of the two differing plans, the Fathers came up with the Great Compromise, which meant having a House of Representatives based on population and a U.S. Senate based on equality (each state would have two representatives). This seems, to me, to be an example of the founding fathers being democratic reformers.
The Founding Fathers created a Constitution that was democratic, and supported the nation's needs and still was agreeable in the views of the public. The Founding Fathers were democratic reformers.

Summary of Federalist Paper Number 51

Federalist Paper Number 51 is about checks and balances between the different branches of government: the legislative, executive and judicial. These checks and balances were designed to make sure one branch wasn't abusing its power over the people or over the other branches. Making a foundation for the government powers is "essential to the preservation of liberty." (Quote from the document) The checks and balances were also made because once the government controls the people, they need to be controlled themselves.
The issue of checks and balances was a good thing that happened in our government. Had they not been made, it was likely that the different branches of government could've abused their power. It would've given them the opportunity to do things more in favor of their own beliefs. Without checks and balances, it wouldn't have been fair.

Summary of Federalist Paper Number 10

Federalist Number 10 is about the fact that although the people may have just won their independence from Britain and from a monarchy, they still needed something to keep them in line. With their new found liberty, it was inevitable that factions would be formed. Liberty gives us freedom; freedom gives us right to our own opinion. There were factions that were formed and their effects needed to be controlled. This will eventually lead up to the formation of the House of Representatives and the US Senate.
This paper, because it was written in 1787, was very difficult to read, but even so, I was able to pull out important pieces of information from it. It was very wordy, but the main point was that we need a form of government. Without one, there will be craziness. Given an inch, people will take a mile, and if they weren't given any limits, chaos would be formed.

Should Columbus Day continue to be celebrated in the U.S.?

I think we're all in agreement that Christopher Columbus was the first white European explorer to come to America, and also that the Native Americans were here first. (If not, that's a different subject for a different time.) For the most part we all agree that what he did to the Native Americans was wrong (the killing, slavery, etc...), but that was what it was like 500+ years ago. Just because of what he did then, we can't take away from the fact that he did come over to America and begin the fascination with the New World.
I think that Columbus Day should continue to be celebrated in the United States. It seems to be more of a government holiday than anything else; we don't really celebrate it like a major holiday or a holiday at all. I do think that we should still remember the importance of his arrival here and his place in history. Maybe it would be better suited as a Day of Remembrance rather than a holiday.

Would I Want to Live in the New England, Middle, or Southern Colony?

If I were to choose to live in either the New England, Middle or Southern colony, I would definitely choose to live in the middle. The middle colonies were just so much more diverse and had many different types of cultures. They also had good soil for farming, which, if I lived back then, I probably would've done a lot of farming. Also in the middle colonies they had religious toleration and tolerated any kind of beliefs. The middle colonies also had a democracy, so people could directly be involved in government, instead of a monarchy. There were many great reasons why I would want to live in the middle colonies.
The Southern and New England colonies had many disadvantages compared to the middle colonies. First of all, they didn't have religious toleration like the middle colonies; in New England, it was if you're not Puritan, you're out. They were beaten, fined, banished and even killed for not having Puritan beliefs. Second, in the South and New England, you were still controlled by a monarchy, ruled by the King and Queen. In the middle colonies, you had your own democracy. Finally, in the South and New England, there wasn't a lot of diversity. In the South, most of the population was African-American and white, and in New England, it was mostly Puritan.
The middle colonies really had an advantage over the Southern and New England colonies.