The Founding Fathers

[-Demosthenes-]

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.

It's fairly racist to assume that because they were white they did it differently then if they were some other race. They were, as a matter of fact, mostly British, with less German and Dutch, and so what, that's what the population was.

Now if you suggesting the blacks were discriminated against, then you are right, but only because of the South. The Revolution was mostly supported in the North, Jefferson took out parts of the Declaration of Independence (specifically a part that denounced slavery) to get the South to go along with the revolution, and so it was with the Constitution. They needed the Southern States to ratify it, so they appeased them, but only to an extent. The Northerners did get the 20 years Compromise into the constitution (which stated that in 20 years (1808) the Atlantic Slave Trade would stop in the US).

They did this for personal reasons? What would those be? Washington (as General) could have easily went on the be a military dictator with his popularity after the war. Other founding fathers sacrificed greatly for the document and the country. Under the Articles of Confederation all the delegates of the Constitution could have been tried for treason. They were only there to edit the Articles of Confederation (technically).

The Constitution is rather federalist (the early party), people like Patric Henry and Thomas Jefferson (two of the most anti-federalist men) were abroad in Europe or refused to come, and so their "anti-Federalist" (less government control, agrarian society, against industry, etc.) ideas weren't as included in the document.

We were really the first true democracy (because Greece honestly doesn't count) and they made some serious mistakes in the constitution when they made it, though we never admit to that.

1) Athens was the first "democracy", it was a direct democracy. The United States was the first Republican Democracy (pretty much).

2) It's curious that you do not venture to show any examples of these "mistakes".

They compromised on slavery because it would have led to another struggle that they chose to leave to future generations.

It's crucial to understand that the Northern delegates (and the Southern delegates for that matter) were pretty sure that slavery was dying. That's why they agreed to the 20 years Compromise (where in 20 year, 1808, the Atlantic slave trade would end). Tobacco prices were falling (the main crop that used slave labor), it was becoming less and less profitable to have slaves. Slavery probably would have eventually died, except the Cotton gin was invented and the cotton boom came. Cotton become extremely profitable in the slave states thus (Unfortunately) reviving slavery.

Samuel Adams was a great propagandist and blew the whole Boston Massacre thing into this huge thing.

Even if a accident, I don't see how firing into a crown of civilians was a "small" thing. It was used to stir anti-British sentiment, but the shooting of civilians can do that sometimes.

Big deal! That doesn't change the fact that they were wealthy.

The working and farming classes didn't have time to become scholars or political philosophers.

Just out of curiosity 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?

It's annoying when people find out that they are wrong and act like it's overrated to be right (or not cool). Please don't be patronizing because you turn out to be wrong.

Fact is that our founding Fathers were just a bunch of SNOTTY RICH people that did not care or want any laymans opinion of what should be in the constitution.

What would you like in the Constitution? What should have been added? Or omitted?

 

[TimmyBoy]

One of the things that does come across is the idea that the notions they were laying down, though taken for granted today, were super-modern in those days, and have laid down some firm principles that even fellow western nations are struggling to keep up with today.

I think that America is failing to live up to the vision of the founding fathers. For one, our government has become too large, too cumbersome. I feel the founding fathers, if put into a time machine, brought forth to the future, they would be disappointed in how large government has become. They would probably say that we have become what they fought against in the American Revolutionary War. The idea was that government is only allowed to exist with permission of the people first. When government becomes too large and too cumbersome...too tyrannical then, according to statements given by the founding fathers, the people reserve the right to overthrow and replace the government that better suits the needs of people and protect personal and property rights. However, laws passed long after the passing of the founding fathers make such advocations illegal. Which laws goes against the principles of the constitution and the founding fathers. I think, America, lives in the nightmare world of George Orwell and not the vision of America's founding fathers.

However, to be fair, America's founding fathers were not perfect either. They presided over the removal and genocide of native americans and some of them were slave owners. Granted, most of the founding fathers knew that slavery was wrong, even though some of them owned slaves. I think America has failed the founding fathers and I believe the American people lack the balls to ensure that they retain true freedom, the sort of balls that America's founding fathers had to stand up and fight the most powerful country in the world at that particular time. Many people at that time thought that the American Revolution would fail. And their were times where it almost did. But if you want to have freedom, you must have balls and you must be willing to fight and earn it. You must assert your right to be free of tyrannical control and be willing to fight tyranny and oppression and earn that freedom yourself.

 

[-Demosthenes-]

When government becomes too large and too cumbersome...too tyrannical then, according to statements given by the founding fathers, the people reserve the right to overthrow and replace the government that better suits the needs of people and protect personal and property rights.

This was an interesting aspect of the Constitution. The second amendment was meant to keep a means of keeping the poeple able to overthrow the governmnet, the 10th to keep more power with the states and people, ect.

 

[TimmyBoy]

This was an interesting aspect of the Constitution. The second amendment was meant to keep a means of keeping the poeple able to overthrow the governmnet, the 10th to keep more power with the states and people, ect.

I would have to disagree with your interpretation. I think your interpretation is in reference to Southern States interest in keeping slaves under control. Most people argue that the second amendment was intended only to give states rights to have a national guard. I have found several of these myths that come from gun control advocates:

1. Guns increase violent crime.
2. Pulling a gun on a criminal endangers you more than the criminal.
3. Guns pose a special threat to children.
4. The Second Amendment applies only to militiamen.
5. The Second Amendment is an obsolete relic of the frontier era.
6. We should treat guns the same way we treat cars, requiring licenses for all users.
7. Reasonable gun control measures are no threat to law-abiding gun owners.

One theory I have heard, which is commonly referred to as the "Nihilist Theory." That the theory means only the National Guard would have a right to bear arms, a "collective" right, as the nihilists like to say, not an individual right. But such a "collective" right would be superfluous. It would be secure whether or not the Second Amendment existed. Soldiers are always permitted to bear arms, even in dictatorships. This no more a "right" than the "right" to pay taxes. Saddam Hussien and Fidel Castro allow their troops to keep and bear arms as did Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon and Genghis Khan.

If guaranteeing the right of the National Guard to bear arms is really the purpose of the Second Amendment as some in the US government allege, then it is truly a superfluous and meaningless amendment.

 

[TimmyBoy]

I mean, the Second Amendment was placed into the constitution because of deep rooted sucpicions of large standing armies and how they could be used to oppress citizens of a nation. This amendment was designed to act as a check against any attempts to use a large standing army to oppress the people. At the time this amendment was placed into the constitution, fresh was on the minds of America's founding fathers the abuses that they sufferred under the rule of the British Empire and they had just finished taking up arms against the British army. They wanted to be sure that they formed a government were no one person got too much power and they were against big government and large standing armies. They also wanted to be sure that the people always retained a means to resist tyranny and oppression that could possibly come in the future at the hands of government, as they themselves had just finished fighting off tyranny, oppression, cumbersome government and over-taxation.

 

[TimmyBoy]

Just about every amendment the founding fathers placed in the US constitution was to right a British wrong, from the enumeration of powers to the right to not be subject to unreasonable searches and seizures. Back in those days, just before the American Revolution, colonists were subjected to a wide range of unreasonable searches and seizures by British authorities.

It took balls for the founding fathers to tell the most powerful country in the world that they will no longer obey them, that they (the founding fathers) will seek a path of freedom and independence. It took alot of balls for them to do that. They were committing treason. They could be tried and hung by the British Empire. But they had balls. And that's what it takes if you want to have true freedom. It takes balls. And no government can give you freedom, you have to earn it.

 

[laska]

It seems to me the second amendment is consistent with the purpose of government in the first place. In the earliest stages of civilization individuals choose to form a government in order to protect their freedom from outside forces and from those within. A government that robs individuals of their rights of self protection(which banning arms does) undermines the very purpose the people chose to set up a government in the first place. This does not mean we should have the right to arm ourselves with surface to air missiles and m16's. Although I personally choose not to have guns I support the right to bear arms and also common sense gun laws.

 

[ban.the.electoral.college]

Not of all of our Founding Fathers were born to wealth. Take the genious Ben Franklin for example. Born to a simple candlemaker. Made something of himself. IMO, he was the most important of all the Founding Fathers. It's safe to say, that we wouldn't have suceeded in creating the U.S. without him. Not to detract from the important role the others played, but I think if you study Franklin, you'll understand what I mean.

 

[TimmyBoy]

It seems to me the second amendment is consistent with the purpose of government in the first place. In the earliest stages of civilization individuals choose to form a government in order to protect their freedom from outside forces and from those within. A government that robs individuals of their rights of self protection(which banning arms does) undermines the very purpose the people chose to set up a government in the first place. This does not mean we should have the right to arm ourselves with surface to air missiles and m16's. Although I personally choose not to have guns I support the right to bear arms and also common sense gun laws.

In order to have freedom, you must be willing to fight for it. The founding fathers understood this concept. They fought and won their freedoms and have tried the best they could to pass those same freedoms, that they fought and won, onto us. However, over time, people will take their freedom for granted and so government will exploit it as an opportunity to take those freedoms away. The theory of the founding fathers was that government is the enemy of freedom, yet the purpose of the country they founded was suppose to be freedom. They recognized that they must restrain government with checks and balances, but they also recognized that these checks and balances could be circumvented. The second amendment, in my view, was placed into the constitution to provide a last resort means for the American people to fight a possible, future government that turned tyrannical and sought to take away their freedoms. Freedom must be earned and fought for, and if you must fight for your freedom, then you must also have the means to do it with. Our independence, our Bill of Rights, turning our principles of freedom into reality was achieved through the force of arms. Thomas Jefferson's views on the second amendment was that, so long as the people were armed, the people will always rule. Take away the means for the people to resist tyranny, then the people no longer rule nor have a hope to be able to control their own destiny, because they are at the mercy of those people who are armed.

That's not to say, that the force of arms is the only way or the first resort. It is an absolute last resort. But, in the end, to keep freedom, you must be willing to fight for it and earn it.

 

[TimmyBoy]

To illustrate my point, Hitler was somebody who was democratically elected into office. Their are several examples of democracies turning into dictatorships. The founding fathers had the foresight to understand that their extensive checks and balances could be circumvented, so the second amendment was placed into the consitution. Their is no other amendment like it in the world.

 

[nkgupta80]

To illustrate my point, Hitler was somebody who was democratically elected into office. Their are several examples of democracies turning into dictatorships. The founding fathers had the foresight to understand that their extensive checks and balances could be circumvented, so the second amendment was placed into the consitution. Their is no other amendment like it in the world.

Accept, if hitler is democratically elected, and the people blindly followed him, the second amendment would be useless rite? Second Amendment only comes into play when the people fight against the government.

 

[TimmyBoy]

Accept, if hitler is democratically elected, and the people blindly followed him, the second amendment would be useless rite? Second Amendment only comes into play when the people fight against the government.

True. The British, just before the American Revolutionary War, attempted to slowly and gradually disarm the colonists so that they would be able to more easily control them and crush any independence movement. But if people blindly follow somebody, then you are correct. It is why developing the mind for true free thought is so important in our world today. This sort of development in the mind cannot be achieved in universities or institutions. I think universities and learning institutions play some role in thought control in our society. It's something that you must learn yourself and it comes with the love of learning and questioning everything around you.

 

[George_Washington]

You guys that say the founding fathers were snobbish and all, well, that really isn't true. It might be true to some extent for people like Jefferson that were, in fact, born into wealth. But the truth is, the founding fathers were looked down upon by the, "real" aristocracy of England.

 

[TimmyBoy]

You guys that say the founding fathers were snobbish and all, well, that really isn't true. It might be true to some extent for people like Jefferson that were, in fact, born into wealth. But the truth is, the founding fathers were looked down upon by the, "real" aristocracy of England.

It was good the founding fathers kicked the hell out of the "real" aristocracy of England as well. The American Revolution was very radical for it's time and influenced the French into undertaking the French Revolution. I think the American Revolution has had far more reaching effects than people realize. Thomas Jefferson was my favorite of all the founding fathers. He knew that slavery was wrong, talked about how it was wrong, yet he owned slaves. He died with debts that were unpaid, so they had to sell his slaves to pay off his creditors after his death. Their was one gentleman who fought in the American Revolutionary War and he took out a multi-million dollar loan that he couldn't repay to fund the Revolution. When he died, he wasn't even given a tombstone and his house and everything was taken from him. Yet, he made such an enormous contribution to the Revolution. He paid one hell of a price for our independence.

 

[UtahBill]

Remember that the Founding Fathers got most of their ideas from the writers from the Age of Enlightenment. What we have here didn't start in 1776, or even a few years before that. It can easily be traced back to the age of Martin Luther, when he stood up to authority, and probably to others before that. It took a lot of years, people, ideas that came together at an opportune time and place. We are lucky to have what we have, however imperfect it is.

 

[Canuck]

Oh the pilgrams landed and were quick to find
that they could rob the indians blind

then came the tea party and all hell broke loose
the british ended up in a noose

washington won the war and was quick to set down the law
The Iron eagle had its people by the claw

soon came the the civil war it was to free the blacks
but no one was freed only taxed

theo led the charge and the spanish american war was won
again it was down by the gun

the first world war boys was to end all other war
but no one back then keot the score

the second world war ended in the a cloud of dust
now everything there is left ot rust

Korea and vietnam I still dont uderstand why
the thousands there that had to die

who's to say I am right or I am wrong
why cant people just get along

now theres guns in the children's hands and bombs in the school yard
how did people ever get this hard

just a song about America that I wrote
it sums her history up without all the BS

 

[Donkey1499]

Too bad women weren't involved directly with the drafting of the Bill O' Rights. Maybe things could have been different. But it was at a time when women were supposedly "inferior".

EX: Read the book of Esther in the Bible. If it wasn't for Esther all of the Jews in Babylon would've been slaughtered.

It's ashame that women have been left out of the spoylight only until recently. Shoot, we ain't even had a woman president yet. Although I wouldn't pick Hillary as the first female president: 1.) she's a bi***, and 2.) she's half the reason why the whole Whitehouse sex scandal happened. (She only gave Bill one child. And yes Bill is responsible for his own actions, but you can't not pet a dog and expect him to stay under the the porch forever...)

 

[George_Washington]

It was good the founding fathers kicked the hell out of the "real" aristocracy of England as well. The American Revolution was very radical for it's time and influenced the French into undertaking the French Revolution. I think the American Revolution has had far more reaching effects than people realize. Thomas Jefferson was my favorite of all the founding fathers. He knew that slavery was wrong, talked about how it was wrong, yet he owned slaves. He died with debts that were unpaid, so they had to sell his slaves to pay off his creditors after his death. Their was one gentleman who fought in the American Revolutionary War and he took out a multi-million dollar loan that he couldn't repay to fund the Revolution. When he died, he wasn't even given a tombstone and his house and everything was taken from him. Yet, he made such an enormous contribution to the Revolution. He paid one hell of a price for our independence.

Don't forget that Jefferson also had a dark side. He cheated on his wife, he lied about releasing his slaves, he said racist things about blacks and native americans, and schemed and plotted in the early days.

My favorite founding father was probably Alexander Hamilton because he wrote most of the Federalist Papers, established American capitalism, and helped to establish an American military system. I would say Hamilton and Washington actually did more for the Revolution than Jefferson did because they actually fought in the war.

Also, Jefferson was actually an early marxist; he wrote once that the state was a means to an end and he championed the anti-federalist papers which would have left us all in a state of virtual anarchy with no central government or military.

 

[-Demosthenes-]

Don't forget that Jefferson also had a dark side. He cheated on his wife, he lied about releasing his slaves, he said racist things about blacks and native americans, and schemed and plotted in the early days.

Jefferson is intensely interesting, with his apparent contradictions and eccentric ideas.

My favorite founding father was probably Alexander Hamilton because he wrote most of the Federalist Papers, established American capitalism, and helped to establish an American military system. I would say Hamilton and Washington actually did more for the Revolution than Jefferson did because they actually fought in the war.

He's one of my favorite too, although because he is such a controversial figure. It was pretty cool how he was born illegitimate and not too well off and became one of the founding fathers. It is interesting (although not as cool) how he died in a illegal duel with Aaron Burr.

Also, Jefferson was actually an early marxist; he wrote once that the state was a means to an end and he championed the anti-federalist papers which would have left us all in a state of virtual anarchy with no central government or military.

I've actually never heard of this (at least not put this way). Jefferson and his contradictions... Modern maxism uses a powerful centralized government. Jefferson supported weak de-centralized government. Was his idea some sort of strong local socialistic government or what?

 

[Donkey1499]

I heard something on the History Channel once that Benjamin Franklin was a Satanist (Devil Worshipper). Is there any evidence of this?

 

[-Demosthenes-]

He was a freemason at one time, they aren't a satanist group, but that's probably where the myth came from.

 

[-Demosthenes-]

Here's a quote from Catherine Drinker Bowen's "Miracle at Philadelphia":
"...
The idle rich were as yet almost nonexistent. An American worked for what he owned; Southern planter as well as Norther merchant was aware of it.
America, in short, was middle class, and Jefferson's 'assembly of demi-gods" {the constitutional convention) was for the most part an assembly of middle class demigods..."

The weren't incredibly rich by any means, there men were Britain's "riff-raff", maybe rich when compared to poor America, but lived less comfortable than some British middle class merchants, and certainly less than the current middle class.

 

[Donkey1499]

He was a freemason at one time, they aren't a satanist group, but that's probably where the myth came from.

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. :mrgreen:

 

[UtahBill]

I heard something on the History Channel once that Benjamin Franklin was a Satanist (Devil Worshipper). Is there any evidence of this?

I can't imagine anyone believing that. The man was a genius. One of the few in history who spent his entire life moving forward, always learning, and contributing to the betterment of society along the way.
He may not have been a religionist, but a satanist? I think not.
One of his quotes pertaining to the hereafter that I like goes something like this, "we will not be judged by what we believe, but by what we have done". :smile:

 

[M14 Shooter]

Charles Beard - the idea that the founding fathers were motivated purely out of self interest.

I've never bought his argument.

It necessitates far too much collusion and conspiracy among the various Framers, without any of them ratting anyone out. Given the level of heated public discussions among the various sides, someone would have eventually accussed someone else of being part of the plot.

It also doesnt really hold water when you conside that each and every one of them personally put their lives on the line - had they lost, each would have been hanged or shot (or both). Consider the cost benifit here: was the state of exonomic and political affairs SO bad for them that their only choice was to risk life and limb? Were their personal fortunes in THAT much peril?

So, I dont buy it.