Plain old me
Member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2005
- Messages
- 228
- Reaction score
- 1
- Location
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
128shot said:they're just amazing for their time.
cnredd said:I think those guys thought this thing through with a ton of thought involved. I also believe that they were lucky enough to create it at a time when they could.
Can you imagine doing what they did in today's age? With the internet, media, and talk show hosts? Lawyers and lobbyists? Political Action Committees??
We'd be dead in the water...
ShamMol said:They were all wealthy, white, and concerned with perserving their right to make lots of money...let's be honest. They created the world's first true republic, but they did so for personal reasons, not for philisophical ones.
Of course, and I don't disagree with anything you posted at all, but I just think that we idealize them too much. The first signer of the Dec. of Ind. was John Handcock, who was the wealthiest man in America-he was thinking for himself and in later writings (at least according to my textbook) even admitted to that in addition to the principle factor. I just think that we tend to say it was all about the principle and independence and not about self-want.gdalton said:Well, some of them lost everything they had fighting for their republic.
I think they worked very hard to create an entirely new form of government with the idea that people should have a voice on how they are governed, and also as a way to give people a chance to succeed (not everyone, some where slave owners and preferred to stay that way) with their hard work and not just be labeled by there family tree. But of course there was some self preservation involved they where people after all.
I think all and all they did a fantastic job of trying to keep the majority happy without giving them enough control to trample the minority.
Plain old me said:Ooh, new forum...
right, I'll get to the point...as my profile says, I am a seventeen year old British student, studying History. Part of which is the birth of liberal democracies, in particular the formation of the US Constitution.
A very small part of this is the difference in opinion of the founding fathers...the info we discuss in class has been...
Charles Beard - the idea that the founding fathers were motivated purely out of self interest.
Forrest Macdonald - the idea that they were visionaries, putting forward ideas for the whole Americn people.
Ed Countryman - sort of halfway, they served their own interests, but generally their interests were the interests of the whole nation.
As I said, quite brief, so it would be helpful and interesting to hear the opinions of you guys over the pond, who have actually grown up in the US. What did you learn of the founding fathers? and what is your opinion of them?
They were all wealthy, white, and concerned with perserving their right to make lots of money...let's be honest. They created the world's first true republic, but they did so for personal reasons, not for philisophical ones.
FinnMacCool said:Samuel Adams was a great propagandist and blew the whole Boston Massacre thing into this huge thing. In school text books, I believe they still have this picture depicting the boston massacre with the officer ordering them to fire on civillians.
They were all wealthy
and concerned with perserving their right to make lots of money
let's be honest.
They created the world's first true republic
but they did so for personal reasons, not for philisophical ones
He was a privateer, which is basically a government sanctioned pirate.
Samuel Adams was a great propagandist and blew the whole Boston Massacre thing into this huge thing.
However, while serving as the President of the Congress of the United Colonies (this was prior to the our country becoming the United States of America in 1789) he did draft an order of Congress which outlined the duties and restrictions of American-backed privateers.
Here are the principalities of his edict:
II. You may, by force of arms, attack, subdue and take all ships and other
vessels whatsoever, carrying soldiers, arms, gunpowder, ammunition,
provisions, or any other contraband goods, to any of the British armies or
ships of war employed against these colonies.
VI. If you, or any of your officers or crew, shall, in cold blood, kill or
maim, or by torture or otherwise, cruelly, inhumanly, and contrary to
common usage and the practice of civilized nations in war, treat any
person or persons surprized. in the ship or vessel you shall take, the
offender shall be severely punished.
IX. You shall not ransom any prisoners or captives, but shall dispose of
them in such manner as the Congress, or, if that be not sitting, in the
colony whither they shall be brought, as the general assembly, convention,
or council, or committee of safety, of such colony shall direct.
Additional articles:
You shall permit all neutral vessels freely to navigate on the high
seas or coasts of America except such as are employed in carrying
contraband goods or soldiers to the enemies of these United States.
If it weren't for those privateers and their swift ships during the Revolutionary War, we might be singing "God Save the King"!
However if you search John Hancock Letter of Marque you'll see that its there.
FinnMacCool said:You win. :2razz:
You win. I stand corrected.
Just out of curiousity though, what made you want to register on these forums and post replies to this thread? Are you just very defensive about the founding fathers or something? History buff?
Bwahahahahaha. You got your butt kicked by 'Ethereal'.
You'll probably find that this forum is better then most. Its actually moderated you know. Less trolls. People still post useless **** but people are smarter here so they actually keep you on your toes.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?