Political Views of the Founding Fathers

[francoHFW]

Too bad you guys are Neocons, and thus horribly wrong...but great typists! Today, with their new environment., the Founding fathers would be Dems, and STILL Francophiles...bless them lol

 

[The T]

Too bad you guys are Neocons, and thus horribly wrong...but great typists! Today, with their new environment., the Founding fathers would be Dems, and STILL Francophiles...bless them lol

Define NEOCON.

HINT: It aint 'Jooooo'

 

[Sactowndog]

Look I think some posters are treading on a level of minutia that is beyond the point. Read my OP; notice the words I used. I did not use absolute language. I did not say the FFs would oppose the modern Democrats on every single point. I said, and believe I have convincingly argued, that the FFs had more in common with modern day Republicans than with modern day Democrats particularly regarding the size, scope, and authority of the Federal Government.

Some of you seem to be looking for this little issue here where they would agree with the Democrats and this little issue there where they would disagree with the Republicans. You're missing the point. I am looking at things from an overall perspective. There will be some crossover on a few issues, but simply because they may not have (or they may have, who knows) supported the War on Drugs, it does not immediately pop them into a different camp.

No I think you are missing my point.

To think the Republicans truely want to limit the scope of government is in many ways completely false. Republican's want to limit the scope of certain aspects of government but other aspects they want to expand far beyond the bounds of what many of our FF would desire.

If todays Republican Party truely wanted to reduce the scope of government the libertarian party would cease to exist and Ron Paul would he the nominee.

And quite frankly, many Republican's want to limit govenrnment in areas that our FF's wanted to expand such as public education. The Republican Party has a narrative today that one's success is completely a result of ones on efforts and the national government has no role in trying to create equal opportunity for all.

Some of our FF's would have aligned with the current Republican narative but I don't think you make a compelling case that all would have. Thomas Jefferson least of all.

 

[francoHFW]

Maybe Bill Scranton and Goldwater were for small gov't, but not these lying bought off Neocons...and you are their dupes moohaha. Cheerio- you give me a terrific headache lol.

 

[The T]

Maybe Bill Scranton and Goldwater were for small gov't, but not these lying bought off Neocons...and you are their dupes moohaha. Cheerio- you give me a terrific headache lol.

Good. Glad WE could oblige. See ya. Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.

 

[francoHFW]

Too bad you guys are Neocons, and thus horribly wrong...but great typists! Today, with their new environment., the Founding fathers would be Dems, and STILL Francophiles...bless them lol

Define NEOCON.

HINT: It aint 'Jooooo'

Originally liberals who became Cons like Raygun, now bought off or brainwashed Pub dupes lol.

 

[ladyliberal]

Thank you for your careful reply. I'm finding this very edifying.

Left-right:

I think that's fair and I believe I pointed out in my OP that the FFs would not fit cleanly into any modern political party. My premise was they they would have more in common with the Republicans as opposed to the Democrats. You will note that I did not use absolute language in my assessment.

Sorry, I shouldn't have created the impression that I was disagreeing with you here. People have disputed my posts on the grounds that conservativism/Republicanism/rightism have nothing to do with each other, and I was trying to prevent such an objection. I had to read through the thread a few times and I think I just forgot how clearly you made a similar point.

Abortion:

“With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and, in some cases, from every degree of danger.” (“Lectures on Law,” Ch. 12, p. 597 in The Works of James Wilson. ed. Robert G. McCloskey (1967))

I found this same quote. It does seem to reflect the prevailing sentiment in the British colonies, but I actually found it to be an implicit allowance of abortion (although most people online certainly don't see it that way. Quickening occurs at 15-20 months (Quickening - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) and the vast majority of abortions are now performed before the end of this period (File:US abortion by gestational age 2004 histogram.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). My understanding is that colonial women were largely able to obtain abortions without running afoul of the post-quickening prohibition (though abortions were dangerous for reasons other than legality).

Military:

So yes Jefferson and the DRs initially opposed a strong military, but they pretty quickly changed their minds.

well, I just didn't realize this was how the history went. Is there a philosophical reason that the DR presidents ended up being more martial than Federalists, or is this more a response to changing circumstances or idiosyncratic personalities?

I mostly disagree with your conclusions

Just a reminder, I agree with you (or yield to your superior knowledge) on most points, I just picked a few areas where we disagree.

Thanks.

 

[The T]

Too bad you guys are Neocons, and thus horribly wrong...but great typists! Today, with their new environment., the Founding fathers would be Dems, and STILL Francophiles...bless them lol

Define NEOCON.

HINT: It aint 'Jooooo'

Originally liberals who became Cons like Raygun, now bought off or brainwashed Pub dupes lol.

That's why 'Joos' typically vote Statist-Democrat...right?

*FAIL*

 

[BluePhantom]

Thank you for your careful reply. I'm finding this very edifying.


Abortion:

“With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and, in some cases, from every degree of danger.” (“Lectures on Law,” Ch. 12, p. 597 in The Works of James Wilson. ed. Robert G. McCloskey (1967))

I found this same quote. It does seem to reflect the prevailing sentiment in the British colonies, but I actually found it to be an implicit allowance of abortion (although most people online certainly don't see it that way. Quickening occurs at 15-20 months (Quickening - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) and the vast majority of abortions are now performed before the end of this period (File:US abortion by gestational age 2004 histogram.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). My understanding is that colonial women were largely able to obtain abortions without running afoul of the post-quickening prohibition (though abortions were dangerous for reasons other than legality).

Yeah the British had something called the Born Alive Rule. Basically what that said was that abortion was not murder, but only a "heinous misdemeanor" primarily, at least to my understanding, because until the child was born it was not part of the physical world and therefore not "subject to royal authority". I bring that up because it does show some precedent in English law and whether it was "murder" or a "misdemeanor", a post quickening abortion was illegal.

The quickening part is true (and I kind of smiled when I saw your argument because I knew that was coming ), but I would counter that the degree of medical technology at the time was such that a woman may suspect herself to be pregnant prior to the quickening due to various symptoms (skipping a period, vomiting, etc), but that was the time when she absolutely, positively, 100% knew for sure.

I suppose I would liken it to the day after pill. When it's used, it's might be an "abortion" of sorts and then again it might not simply depending on whether or not an egg is fertilized. Even with our current medical technology it's too early to tell. So I would interpret Wilson's statements as making the point that once a woman knows absolutely, positively, 100% for sure that she is pregnant (which at the time was indeed the quickening) the child/fetus, whatever you wish to call it, is protected by law. He does point out in his statement "...from [life's] commencement...". It's just that we have a degree of technology now that allows a woman to prove that she is pregnant prior to the quickening.

Current law is essentially the same I think. Abortion is legal up to a certain point of development. It would be interesting to see if Roe v. Wade relied upon Wilson's opinions in any way or if current law which stipulates a cut off time for the legality of abortion had a direct path in precedent to Wilson. Those questions I don't know the answer to and I am not sure they have much to do with the topic at hand, but I would love to find out. It would be a very interesting discussion to have.

So yes Jefferson and the DRs initially opposed a strong military, but they pretty quickly changed their minds.

well, I just didn't realize this was how the history went. Is there a philosophical reason that the DR presidents ended up being more martial than Federalists, or is this more a response to changing circumstances or idiosyncratic personalities?

Well it wasn't so much a disagreement on the need for defense so much as it was disagreement regarding who was responsible for it. First of all, one needs to understand that DR thought was driven by Jefferson and Madison primarily. Certainly, there were others that contributed (Monroe, Wilson, etc) but those two really dominated the discussion and everyone else just kind of fell into line behind them, albeit sometimes to varying degrees depending on the time frame.

What I see a lot of posters on this thread really, really struggling to understand is that the FFs, and especially the DRs, wanted the federal government to have the absolute minimum authority over the states. The disagreement was over what was "the minimum". Jefferson believed that defense should be a matter for the individual states. Each state, he believed, should have its own militia and in times of war with a foreign power, those militias could be put under the control of a national commander (much like they did in the Revolutionary War). He believed that a large national army was far too much power to be wielded by a single individual (the president), and certainly Hamilton's plans for "national domination" of sorts, initially seemed to support his reasoning.

We see a lot of posters on this thread arguing that Jefferson wanted public education, and he wanted this. and he wanted that. Yes he did, but he felt those things were state issues and were none of the federal government's concern. Even regarding national defense he favored letting the states deal with it. This is one of the most significant philosophies of Jefferson and the DRs, and for those who can't get that wrapped around their head (I am not necessarily saying "you"), they are led into misunderstandings such as Jefferson approving of Social Security, or supporting the Department of Education, etc. One poster keeps harping on education and he's seeming to struggle with the concept that Jefferson approved of public education at the state level but no way in hell would he approve of federal involvement in it. And that is clearly supported by the fact that when he was president he made no effort at all to nationalize education.

The other thing that happened was that after Jefferson back-stabbed Adams it really collapsed the Federalist party, or at least started a quick collapse of it, and the DRs started to really gain control of government. But they found that they were still dealing with the same problems that Adams and Washington were dealing with: the Quasi War, Barbary Pirates, the English kidnapping our sailors and impressing them into the Royal Navy. Jefferson's strategy to deal with those things was very juvenile. He pretty much declared the United States an isolationist nation and cut off all trade with France and Great Britain completely. Well as a result, the economy suffered because we could not export goods, some industries suffered because we could not import goods, we could not pay down the debt that Hamilton insisted on racking up and Jefferson was committed to paying off because with the economy stagnant we were bringing in no revenue.

When Madison was elected he saw this terrible error Jefferson had made and set to work immediately addressing it and that meant that war was on the horizon. After that there was really no denying that the United States needed defense to be handled by the federal government and could not be simply left to the states. And, indeed, as I have pointed out, Jefferson himself finally admitted that was a terrible mistake in his later letters to Adams.

Just a reminder, I agree with you (or yield to your superior knowledge) on most points, I just picked a few areas where we disagree.

Thanks.

Oh I am enjoying your opinions. You bring up some very good arguments.

 

[BluePhantom]

If todays Republican Party truely wanted to reduce the scope of government the libertarian party would cease to exist and Ron Paul would he the nominee.

Ahhhhhh....ok now I am starting to understand the perspective you are coming from. Ron Paul supporter....gotcha. Ok I will start differentiating the FFs in regards to the Libertarians at such a time as they begin to have a prayer in hell of winning a national election or even congressional or gubernatorial elections on a wide scale. No offense but until then they are a minority party that I have no interest in considering. I said in my OP my analysis was based upon a comparison between modern Democrats and modern Republicans. If you wish to inject the Libertarians in there, might I request that you do so on a different thread as that is not the point of this particular discussion, and frankly....and no offense....again I am not particularly interested in it.

And quite frankly, many Republican's want to limit govenrnment in areas that our FF's wanted to expand such as public education.

Dude, with all due respect, I don't know how many times and how many different ways I have to explain this to you. NO ONE wanted Federal control of education, least of all Jefferson. Jefferson endorsed public education, yes, but only at the state level.

Some of our FF's would have aligned with the current Republican narative but I don't think you make a compelling case that all would have. Thomas Jefferson least of all.

All I can tell you at this point is that I encourage you to spend a LOT more time studying Jefferson. Your conclusions on his thinking are based on a total misunderstanding of what the federal government should control and what the states should control.

 

[daveman]

Today, with their new environment., the Founding fathers would be Dems...

Yes, because a group of people who supported individual liberties and opposed oppressive government back then would support big, burdensome government and favor collective freedoms over individual freedoms today.

 

[Photonic]

Today, with their new environment., the Founding fathers would be Dems...

Yes, because a group of people who supported individual liberties and opposed oppressive government back then would support big, burdensome government and favor collective freedoms over individual freedoms today.

Neither party wants that, what the hell are you smoking? Democrats in this country would be considered conservative in every other country.

 

[BluePhantom]

Today, with their new environment., the Founding fathers would be Dems...

Yes, because a group of people who supported individual liberties and opposed oppressive government back then would support big, burdensome government and favor collective freedoms over individual freedoms today.

Neither party wants that, what the hell are you smoking? Democrats in this country would be considered conservative in every other country.

Hmmm....how about Denmark? The Netherlands? China?

 

[Photonic]

Yes, because a group of people who supported individual liberties and opposed oppressive government back then would support big, burdensome government and favor collective freedoms over individual freedoms today.

Neither party wants that, what the hell are you smoking? Democrats in this country would be considered conservative in every other country.

Hmmm....how about Denmark? The Netherlands? China?

Denmark:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_People's_Party_(Denmark)

Center Right at best. Cooperates with Denmarks liberal party.

Netherlands;

Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA), a centre-right Christian Democratic party. It holds to the principle that government activity should supplement but not supplant communal action by citizens. The CDA puts its philosophy between the "individualism" of the VVD and the "statism" of the PvdA.

That's the most conservative party.

China;

Kuomintang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The current party in power in China, it was formerly the Socialist party.

Any other countries?

 

[daveman]

Today, with their new environment., the Founding fathers would be Dems...

Yes, because a group of people who supported individual liberties and opposed oppressive government back then would support big, burdensome government and favor collective freedoms over individual freedoms today.

Neither party wants that, what the hell are you smoking? Democrats in this country would be considered conservative in every other country.

You simply haven't been paying attention.

 

[Photonic]

Yes, because a group of people who supported individual liberties and opposed oppressive government back then would support big, burdensome government and favor collective freedoms over individual freedoms today.

Neither party wants that, what the hell are you smoking? Democrats in this country would be considered conservative in every other country.

You simply haven't been paying attention.

Sure, yes, there are extremists who DO want that. Those do not comprise the majority of the party.

Same as your party, or do you agree with the extremist right?

It's not all black and white in politics. Being left doesn't automatically mean you support communism anymore than being right supports authoritarianism, nativism, racism and xenophobia. (As per Wikipedia on extremist right politics)

 

[Sactowndog]

Well it wasn't so much a disagreement on the need for defense so much as it was disagreement regarding who was responsible for it. First of all, one needs to understand that DR thought was driven by Jefferson and Madison primarily. Certainly, there were others that contributed (Monroe, Wilson, etc) but those two really dominated the discussion and everyone else just kind of fell into line behind them, albeit sometimes to varying degrees depending on the time frame.

What I see a lot of posters on this thread really, really struggling to understand is that the FFs, and especially the DRs, wanted the federal government to have the absolute minimum authority over the states. The disagreement was over what was "the minimum". Jefferson believed that defense should be a matter for the individual states. Each state, he believed, should have its own militia and in times of war with a foreign power, those militias could be put under the control of a national commander (much like they did in the Revolutionary War). He believed that a large national army was far too much power to be wielded by a single individual (the president), and certainly Hamilton's plans for "national domination" of sorts, initially seemed to support his reasoning.

We see a lot of posters on this thread arguing that Jefferson wanted public education, and he wanted this. and he wanted that. Yes he did, but he felt those things were state issues and were none of the federal government's concern. Even regarding national defense he favored letting the states deal with it. This is one of the most significant philosophies of Jefferson and the DRs, and for those who can't get that wrapped around their head (I am not necessarily saying "you"), they are led into misunderstandings such as Jefferson approving of Social Security, or supporting the Department of Education, etc. One poster keeps harping on education and he's seeming to struggle with the concept that Jefferson approved of public education at the state level but no way in hell would he approve of federal involvement in it. And that is clearly supported by the fact that when he was president he made no effort at all to nationalize education.

The other thing that happened was that after Jefferson back-stabbed Adams it really collapsed the Federalist party, or at least started a quick collapse of it, and the DRs started to really gain control of government. But they found that they were still dealing with the same problems that Adams and Washington were dealing with: the Quasi War, Barbary Pirates, the English kidnapping our sailors and impressing them into the Royal Navy. Jefferson's strategy to deal with those things was very juvenile. He pretty much declared the United States an isolationist nation and cut off all trade with France and Great Britain completely. Well as a result, the economy suffered because we could not export goods, some industries suffered because we could not import goods, we could not pay down the debt that Hamilton insisted on racking up and Jefferson was committed to paying off because with the economy stagnant we were bringing in no revenue.

When Madison was elected he saw this terrible error Jefferson had made and set to work immediately addressing it and that meant that war was on the horizon. After that there was really no denying that the United States needed defense to be handled by the federal government and could not be simply left to the states. And, indeed, as I have pointed out, Jefferson himself finally admitted that was a terrible mistake in his later letters to Adams.

I assume you are referring to me. While I fully acknowledge your grasp of the FF's far exceeds mine, you make a number of assumptions that to me don't hold up.

1) The military posture of the United States today far exceeds what is needed for our own defense. To equate the need for defense with the current military activisim we have today with bases around the globe is a stretch. One can be for defense and be opposed to our current global military posture. I find hard to believe many DR's would support the expansive reach of our military today.

2) I agree that Jefferson would not support the Federal role in education. But just because he would be opposed to the Federal role in education doesn't mean he would support the current Republican narrative at the state level. It is certainly likely that neither party would suit his taste as is the case for many Americans today.

 

[Photonic]

Well it wasn't so much a disagreement on the need for defense so much as it was disagreement regarding who was responsible for it. First of all, one needs to understand that DR thought was driven by Jefferson and Madison primarily. Certainly, there were others that contributed (Monroe, Wilson, etc) but those two really dominated the discussion and everyone else just kind of fell into line behind them, albeit sometimes to varying degrees depending on the time frame.

What I see a lot of posters on this thread really, really struggling to understand is that the FFs, and especially the DRs, wanted the federal government to have the absolute minimum authority over the states. The disagreement was over what was "the minimum". Jefferson believed that defense should be a matter for the individual states. Each state, he believed, should have its own militia and in times of war with a foreign power, those militias could be put under the control of a national commander (much like they did in the Revolutionary War). He believed that a large national army was far too much power to be wielded by a single individual (the president), and certainly Hamilton's plans for "national domination" of sorts, initially seemed to support his reasoning.

We see a lot of posters on this thread arguing that Jefferson wanted public education, and he wanted this. and he wanted that. Yes he did, but he felt those things were state issues and were none of the federal government's concern. Even regarding national defense he favored letting the states deal with it. This is one of the most significant philosophies of Jefferson and the DRs, and for those who can't get that wrapped around their head (I am not necessarily saying "you"), they are led into misunderstandings such as Jefferson approving of Social Security, or supporting the Department of Education, etc. One poster keeps harping on education and he's seeming to struggle with the concept that Jefferson approved of public education at the state level but no way in hell would he approve of federal involvement in it. And that is clearly supported by the fact that when he was president he made no effort at all to nationalize education.

The other thing that happened was that after Jefferson back-stabbed Adams it really collapsed the Federalist party, or at least started a quick collapse of it, and the DRs started to really gain control of government. But they found that they were still dealing with the same problems that Adams and Washington were dealing with: the Quasi War, Barbary Pirates, the English kidnapping our sailors and impressing them into the Royal Navy. Jefferson's strategy to deal with those things was very juvenile. He pretty much declared the United States an isolationist nation and cut off all trade with France and Great Britain completely. Well as a result, the economy suffered because we could not export goods, some industries suffered because we could not import goods, we could not pay down the debt that Hamilton insisted on racking up and Jefferson was committed to paying off because with the economy stagnant we were bringing in no revenue.

When Madison was elected he saw this terrible error Jefferson had made and set to work immediately addressing it and that meant that war was on the horizon. After that there was really no denying that the United States needed defense to be handled by the federal government and could not be simply left to the states. And, indeed, as I have pointed out, Jefferson himself finally admitted that was a terrible mistake in his later letters to Adams.

I assume you are referring to me. While I fully acknowledge your grasp of the FF's far exceeds mine, you make a number of assumptions that to me don't hold up.

1) The military posture of the United States today far exceeds what is needed for our own defense. To equate the need for defense with the current military activisim we have today with bases around the globe is a stretch. One can be for defense and be opposed to our current global military posture. I find hard to believe many DR's would support the expansive reach of our military today.

2) I agree that Jefferson would not support the Federal role in education. But just because he would be opposed to the Federal role in education doesn't mean he would support the current Republican narrative at the state level. It is certainly likely that neither party would suit his taste as is the case for many Americans today.

The truth is our military spending is approximately 48% of the entire military expenditure of the entire planet.

We do not need that much, there is no way.

 

[Sactowndog]

Ahhhhhh....ok now I am starting to understand the perspective you are coming from. Ron Paul supporter....gotcha. Ok I will start differentiating the FFs in regards to the Libertarians at such a time as they begin to have a prayer in hell of winning a national election or even congressional or gubernatorial elections on a wide scale. No offense but until then they are a minority party that I have no interest in considering. I said in my OP my analysis was based upon a comparison between modern Democrats and modern Republicans. If you wish to inject the Libertarians in there, might I request that you do so on a different thread as that is not the point of this particular discussion, and frankly....and no offense....again I am not particularly interested in it.

Not a libertarian at all. Just pointing out that no one can look at the size of our defense budget or the Department of Homeland Security and claim Republicans are for small government. You assume Jefferson would be more annoyed by our bloated entitlement system than our bloated military/security complex. I don't think you can make that assumption at all. If you make a compelling case why I will be happy to read it. But to date you have based your argument on one side while completely ignoring the other.

Dude, with all due respect, I don't know how many times and how many different ways I have to explain this to you. NO ONE wanted Federal control of education, least of all Jefferson. Jefferson endorsed public education, yes, but only at the state level.

Dude with all due respect your party represents you at multiple levels of government. People make party decisions not just based on how they govern at the Federal level. In some cases how they govern at the state level can be just as important.

If Republican's are attacking public education, public education funding, and pushing creationism in the schools at the state and local level you don't think that would have any impact on his choice of party? Tell me how Jefferson would feel about those positions? Tell me why his disgust for the Department of Education which is mostly benign and useless anyway would exceed his disgust for what Republicans are doing at the state level.

Most of us today don't vote for the party we like. Must of us vote for the party that disgusts us the least. I would guess many of our founding fathers would be in the same positon.

 

[dblack]

Not a libertarian at all. Just pointing out that no one can look at the size of our defense budget or the Department of Homeland Security and claim Republicans are for small government. You assume Jefferson would be more annoyed by our bloated entitlement system than our bloated military/security complex. I don't think you can make that assumption at all. If you make a compelling case why I will be happy to read it. But to date you have based your argument on one side while completely ignoring the other.

Well, I am a libertarian and find it patently offensive that Republicans do that. And worse, that many people who might otherwise get libertarianism fall for it. Nothing I've seen nothing in the party's behavior over the last thirty years indicates that Republicans really care about liberty or limited government. They use it to whip up opposition to whoever is in power (assuming they're not Republican) and then drop it as soon as they're back in. Tea Partiers and other Republicans who might lean libertarian need to understand this.

Most of us today don't vote for the party we like. Must of us vote for the party that disgusts us the least. I would guess many of our founding fathers would be in the same positon.

That's not quite true. The problem is that most of us vote for Democrats or Republicans. They're tag teaming us - flip sides of the same coin.