Texting leaders meeting at the constitutional convention of 1836 caused
controversy and tension among the participants. The idea of texting during a meeting was seen as disrespectful and disruptive by some, while others argued that it was a necessary means of communication in the modern age.
Those who opposed texting during the meeting believed that it diverted the participants' attention and hindered meaningful discussions. They felt that face-to-face interaction was essential for productive debates and decision-making. Additionally, they argued that texting was a sign of disrespect towards the process and the importance of the issues being discussed.
On the other hand, supporters of texting during the meeting saw it as a practical tool for communication. They argued that it allowed for quick information sharing and coordination among the leaders. They also pointed out that texting could be used discreetly and therefore wouldn't disrupt the flow of the meeting as much as verbal conversations.
The controversy surrounding texting at the constitutional convention of 1836 highlighted the clash between traditional communication methods and the emerging technologies of the time. It reflected the broader societal debates about the impact and appropriateness of new forms of communication. Ultimately, the decision on whether or not to allow texting during the meeting would have depended on the prevailing attitudes and values of the leaders involved.