How the Founders weighed in on the importance to democracy of virtue.

[The Duke]

George Washington said: “Virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government,”[6] and “Human rights can only be assured among a virtuous people.”[7]

Benjamin Franklin said: “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.” [8]

James Madison stated: “To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical [imaginary] idea.”[9]

Thomas Jefferson wrote, “No government can continue good but under the control of the people; and … their minds are to be informed by education what is right and what wrong; to be encouraged in habits of virtue and to be deterred from those of vice … These are the inculcations necessary to render the people a sure basis for the structure and order of government.”[10]

Samuel Adams said: “Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. He therefore is the truest friend of the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue.”[11]

Patrick Henry stated that: “A vitiated [impure] state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom.”[12]
Without Virtue There Can Be No Liberty - Mount Liberty College

It doesn't take much imagination to understand how they would view Stormy Daniels' paramour with the mushroom shaped unit. Or a soon to be sentenced felon. Or someone who famously admitted to grabbing women by the vagina whether they liked it or not. E. Jean Carroll didn't like it.

I could continue for some time but you get the gist. The Founders believed the health of our democracy relied on the participation of virtuous people. Not moral degenerates like Cheeto.

Those things do not mean what you think they mean, Spergy.
They mean like that thing my cousin always tells me.
What is it again?
Oh yeah:
"Go to Church!"

 

[martybegan]

Is it your belief the Founders contemplated another form of government besides democracy?

Yes, a Constitutional Representative Republic, which is what the Constitution lays out.

Each of the States was and is also a Constitutional, Representative Republic.

 

[MisterBeale]

Virtue to the Founders was something quite different than what I might see as virtuous.

Most had slaves. Jefferson slept with his. Washington took their teeth to make his dentures. Franklin gave advice on taking a mistress.

. . . and they were all products of their time.

I'd say, the majority of the most notable founders, even if they owned slaves, sorely wished that the institution did not exist at that time.



A lot of folks slag America for having slaves at that time, but the masses in other nations, were no better off.

Tell me, what is the difference between a slave and a serf?





. . . and as far as Franklin goes?

 

[berg80]

Those things do not mean what you think they mean, Spergy.
They mean like that thing my cousin always tells me.
What is it again?
Oh yeah:
"Go to Church!"

The Founders railed against the risk of a theocracy.

 

[The Duke]

The Founders railed against the risk of a theocracy.

It'd take you almost the rest of your life to learn the truth about The Founding Fathers.
First you'd have to unlearn a bunch of bullshit.

 

[martybegan]

The Founders railed against the risk of a theocracy.

Less a theocracy, more people being forced to tithe to some federal religion, or States being forced to give up their sponsored religion, which some had at the time.

The 1st amendment ban on established religions only was incorporated to the States via the 14th amendment. Before that establishment was banned only to congress.

 

[Curried Goats]

. . . and they were all products of their time.

I'd say, the majority of the most notable founders, even if they owned slaves, sorely wished that the institution did not exist at that time.



A lot of folks slag America for having slaves at that time, but the masses in other nations, were no better off.

Tell me, what is the difference between a slave and a serf?





. . . and as far as Franklin goes?

Are you a psychic? Are you emotionally in tune with the Slaver Founders?

 

[MisterBeale]

Is it your belief the Founders contemplated another form of government besides democracy?

Boy, you are really, REALLY thick.

I gave you a bunch of quotes which gave a true light about what the founders thought of a pure democracy.



Of course, this precise issue was what they wrangled over before the Declaration, and at the Constitutional Convention.

They wanted a way to express popular will of the masses, while protecting the rights of the minority parties and POV.



This? Is called a representative republic.

America Is a Republic, Not a Democracy​

America Is a Republic, Not a Democracy

Contrary to popular belief, America is not, nor was it meant to be, a pure democracy. America is a republic. Nevertheless, more and more voices today are calling for America to become a direct democracy.

www.heritage.org

Why the Founding Fathers Rejected Democracy in Favor of Representative Government​

Why the Founding Fathers Rejected Democracy in Favor of Representative Government

As seen in the Constitution's many checks and balances, the framers recognized that a pure democracy, like an authoritarian monarchy, would be subject to the whims of human nature and result in a fundamentally flawed approach to governing. In today’s era, some politicians and much of the media...

www.standingforfreedom.com

Our Founding Fathers wanted a republic, not a democracy​

Our Founding Fathers wanted a republic, not a democracy

In a recent column “U.S. system ruled by ‘tyranny of the minority,’” Nancy Eubanks stated that everyone would agree that the Founding Fathers “wanted to form a representative democracy —

www.theunion.com

Go look into Federalist No. 10 if you want the real skinny. Of which most of us on this discussion forum know you by now. . . facts matter little to you.

Founders Online: The Federalist Number 10, [22 November] 1787

The Federalist Number 10, [22 November] 1787

founders.archives.gov

". . . From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations: . . . "


You don't really care about the facts and history though, do you?


Any lie to subvert the Republic is a good lie to you, eh?

 

[MisterBeale]

Are you a psychic? Are you emotionally in tune with the Slaver Founders?

Nope. I have just read a lot of their writings.

. . it is clear to me, that you haven't. You have already dismissed these beacons of Enlightenment thinking as irredeemable, without knowing shit about any of them.

 

[initforme]

The only way to instill virtue in politics is to elect a poor person. Case closed.

 

[Curried Goats]

Nope. I have just read a lot of their writings.

. . it is clear to me, that you haven't. You have already dismissed these beacons of Enlightenment thinking as irredeemable, without knowing shit about any of them.

I don't care what people claim, I judge them by their actions. If a man promises you he loves his wife though and she keeps showing up with a black eye I guess you're the gullible bitch who'll take his word for it?

I mean you have the historical record for context and even then you people are too frail to look at it objectively....

 

[berg80]

. . . and they were all products of their time.

I'd say, the majority of the most notable founders, even if they owned slaves, sorely wished that the institution did not exist at that time.



A lot of folks slag America for having slaves at that time, but the masses in other nations, were no better off.

Tell me, what is the difference between a slave and a serf?





. . . and as far as Franklin goes?

“I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait,” the plaque reads. “And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.”

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/31/politics/anti-trump-statues/index.html

 

[Nostra]

George Washington said: “Virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government,”[6] and “Human rights can only be assured among a virtuous people.”[7]

Benjamin Franklin said: “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.” [8]

James Madison stated: “To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical [imaginary] idea.”[9]

Thomas Jefferson wrote, “No government can continue good but under the control of the people; and … their minds are to be informed by education what is right and what wrong; to be encouraged in habits of virtue and to be deterred from those of vice … These are the inculcations necessary to render the people a sure basis for the structure and order of government.”[10]

Samuel Adams said: “Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. He therefore is the truest friend of the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue.”[11]

Patrick Henry stated that: “A vitiated [impure] state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom.”[12]
Without Virtue There Can Be No Liberty - Mount Liberty College

It doesn't take much imagination to understand how they would view Stormy Daniels' paramour with the mushroom shaped unit. Or a soon to be sentenced felon. Or someone who famously admitted to grabbing women by the vagina whether they liked it or not. E. Jean Carroll didn't like it.

I could continue for some time but you get the gist. The Founders believed the health of our democracy relied on the participation of virtuous people. Not moral degenerates like Cheeto.

Your 4 year meltdown is in full bloom.

Gonna be a hoot to watch all your unhinged, lunatic whining.

 

[berg80]

While people knock my Peace/Love/Anarchy pic most don't understand that Anarchy is simply a belief in governing oneself.

Has actual anarchy ever worked in human history?

 

[Curried Goats]

Has actual anarchy ever worked in human history?

Worked to what end? Depends on what your goal is. If you want maximum freedom then anarchy (the absence of the rule of law) is the only thing that works.

 

[The Duke]

Nope. I have just read a lot of their writings.

. . it is clear to me, that you haven't. You have already dismissed these beacons of Enlightenment thinking as irredeemable, without knowing shit about any of them.

He wouldn't understand it anyway.
There's smarter black folk, he just ain't it.

 

[Curried Goats]

He wouldn't understand it anyway.

I understand the difference between what people say and what they do. Do you bingos?

 

[SeaMajor7]

Is it your belief the Founders contemplated another form of government besides democracy?

Yes, a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC, dummy.
Poor Stalinberg.

 

[Man With A Plan]

George Washington said: “Virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government,”[6] and “Human rights can only be assured among a virtuous people.”[7]

Benjamin Franklin said: “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.” [8]

James Madison stated: “To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical [imaginary] idea.”[9]

Thomas Jefferson wrote, “No government can continue good but under the control of the people; and … their minds are to be informed by education what is right and what wrong; to be encouraged in habits of virtue and to be deterred from those of vice … These are the inculcations necessary to render the people a sure basis for the structure and order of government.”[10]

Samuel Adams said: “Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. He therefore is the truest friend of the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue.”[11]

Patrick Henry stated that: “A vitiated [impure] state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom.”[12]
Without Virtue There Can Be No Liberty - Mount Liberty College

It doesn't take much imagination to understand how they would view Stormy Daniels' paramour with the mushroom shaped unit. Or a soon to be sentenced felon. Or someone who famously admitted to grabbing women by the vagina whether they liked it or not. E. Jean Carroll didn't like it.

I could continue for some time but you get the gist. The Founders believed the health of our democracy relied on the participation of virtuous people. Not moral degenerates like Cheeto.

If the Founding Fathers witnessed the "lawfare" conducted against the leading candidate for the Party not in power by the Party in power they'd be appalled! Democrats preaching about "virtue" is laughable!

 

[initforme]

Where there's many with much wealth not a shred of virtue can be found.