Not Founding Fathers, Founding Punks

[alan1]

In the 1700's they were old. The average life span was only about 35, so 45 was definitely over the hill in 1776. However, I don't see how age enters into their actions.

Typically, throughout history, it has been the younger demographic that brought about revolution. Be that through war or political means or both. It was no different with the founding of the USA.
Go ask your acquaintances how old they think people like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison etc were during the revolution, I'm willing to bet that most will over-estimate the age of those men.

 

[regent]

One of the questions that might arise in a history class is, did the framers carry out the principles of the Declaration of 1776 when they wrote the 1787 Constitution, and then, of course, the evidence? Always the evidence.

 

[Auteur]

What the Founders did was provide a system which allowed those things that you despise to ultimately be altered and fixed by the will of the people, unfortunately that system has degraded in the last hundred years by people who have a completely different and corrupt idea of what America should be.

I wouldn't say I despise anything here, I'm just making the observation that this event was not a first, and not really democratic by today's notions. Democratic systems were pitched from the ancient Greek city states, to the Icelandic Althing, to the British Bill of Rights, among other examples in history, and the US revolution drew on those for ideas. This was democracy that reflected the values of the times though. Those that benefited the most were likely the more affluent, entrepreneurial, business class. Others would not have seen a huge change, and for aboriginals, it was certainly a negative.

That is exactly why the Founders did not want a Democracy. Democracies had all failed in their historical times. They were well read and educated in past Governments, especially in past Democracies and none wanted a Democracy.
They put in a Constitutional Republic not a Democracy.

How do you see the US as being non-democratic? Or do you?

 

[Auteur]

What the Founders did was provide a system which allowed those things that you despise to ultimately be altered and fixed by the will of the people, unfortunately that system has degraded in the last hundred years by people who have a completely different and corrupt idea of what America should be.

I wouldn't say I despise anything here, I'm just making the observation that this event was not a first, and not really democratic by today's notions. Democratic systems were pitched from the ancient Greek city states, to the Icelandic Althing, to the British Bill of Rights, among other examples in history, and the US revolution drew on those for ideas. This was democracy that reflected the values of the times though. Those that benefited the most were likely the more affluent, entrepreneurial, business class. Others would not have seen a huge change, and for aboriginals, it was certainly a negative.

Well it still doesn't change the fact that the Founders could not fix everything, they only provided a document which allowed things to get fixed over time, and that document has worked just fine until progressives decided they wanted to try to alter the vision the Founders had. BTW... Many of the people who were enslaved around the time the Constitution was written were sold into slavery by blacks themselves... So it's rather disingenuous to blame slavery solely on whites of privilege, when facts dictate otherwise.

Don't really disagree with you here re slavery. My point is that the constitution was simply an historical document, one colored by the knowledge, beliefs, and values of the time. Nothing in history stands still for long, and what was once insightful and positive can, and often will, whither with the test of time, and will have to morph into something new to be utilitarian. I think this has happened to some degree. I think this should be ongoing.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

That's right, they were men in the prime of their lives and they risked everything including their lives and fortunes to create a government truly of and by the people for the first time in human history. Wonderful men.

Of and for white land holding males to be exact. Roughly the same situation as prevailed in Britain at the time.

ah but our genius founders deliberately set in motion the process that freed billions all around the world when they fired the shot heard around the world. Indeed, Jefferson's first draft talked more about slavery than about taxes. The latest beneficiaries are the 1.4 billion in China who just took a huge step toward freedom thanks to our genius founders who in an instant transformed life on this planet forever by seeking a revolution to limit government or to grant us freedom from big liberal government.

Welcome to your first lesson in American History.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

That's right, they were men in the prime of their lives and they risked everything including their lives and fortunes to create a government truly of and by the people for the first time in human history. Wonderful men.

Of and for white land holding males to be exact. Roughly the same situation as prevailed in Britain at the time.

One important thing that was spelled out, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.". I don't want to get into the the whole "creator" thing, but rather, the "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness", and "created equal".
When the founders said, "created equal", they knew that didn't mean everybody was equal in all things. Not everybody has the same intelligence level, or skill-set or work ethic, or a multitude of other things. That is why they said pursuit of happiness......Not equality of outcome. There was no guarantee that simply being a US citizen resulted in one being successful and happy, just the guarantee that one had the opportunity to do so based upon his own actions. In my opinion, we seem to have drifted far from that sort of belief, that it is up to the individual to pursue. And sometimes that means failure. It is not incumbent upon me, you or anybody else to provide happiness to another that either fails to seek it on their own, or fails to achieve it when they do seek it.

yes, the liberal nanny state was the last thing they imagined. Being subject to the king or to the nanny state appeared about the same to our founders.


"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

 

[Flopper]

In the 1700's they were old. The average life span was only about 35, so 45 was definitely over the hill in 1776. However, I don't see how age enters into their actions.

Two quick points:

Child mortality was so high that life expectancy for those who had achieved maturity was about to age 60 and the numbers who lived to 80 or 90 were pretty close to the percentages today.

You could probably add another decade for people of the economic and social class from which these men were drawn. Not very many frontier farmers here, no sailors or fishermen, but a lot of merchants and plantation managers.

Infant mortality does draw the average down significantly.

Looking at the mapping of life expectancy for men and eliminating deaths under age 5, the average age of death looks like it would be between 45 and 50. However, I don't see it makes much difference whether the average age is 30 or 60.

Mapping History

 

[Auteur]

That's right, they were men in the prime of their lives and they risked everything including their lives and fortunes to create a government truly of and by the people for the first time in human history. Wonderful men.

Of and for white land holding males to be exact. Roughly the same situation as prevailed in Britain at the time.

ah but our genius founders

Genious? On what basis? Franklin and Jefferson, I'd say, were intellectuals of the time, and significant people. But the constitution they, and others, came up with was basically an amalgam of what came before, and ironically, much from the former "mother country", including snippets from the Magna Carta, Bill of Rights, and other principles of parilamentary demorcracy developed in Britain.

deliberately set in motion the process that freed billions all around the world when they fired the shot heard around the world.

Deliberately? The world as we know it did not exist then. Americans lived in a predominantely agricultural society (as did most others), where information about the world was scarce by today's standards. The main complaints of the colonists were that they did not want to pay taxes (althought their brothers and sisters in the home country did, and they also had to do soon after the revolution), and they did not like the idea of being limited in the expansion into the aboriginal territories of the midwest. Hardly global issues.

Indeed, Jefferson's first draft talked more about slavery than about taxes.

He did indeed talk about slavery. But he was a slave owner himself, something he was OK with, in keeping with his society at the time.

The latest beneficiaries are the 1.4 billion in China who just took a huge step toward freedom thanks to our genius founders

There is a particular irony here in that China, in addition to the other "Asian Tigers", have found their feet not in Jeffersonian democracy, and much less in free wheeling capitalism, but in state sponsered and controlled quasi-capitalism. The very sort of government that would have the Idaho militias loading up their squirrel guns, and re-playing their Navy Seals training movies.

who in an instant transformed life on this planet forever by seeking a revolution to limit government or to grant us freedom from big liberal government.

An instant was not nearly enough, as the development of government institutions in the US proceeded more or less in lockstep with other western democracies, growing in size and complexity as society did likewise- a rather logical outcome. Indeed, rather than limiting government, the fledgling US found that is was in pretty much the same shoes as any other after 1783, and had to address the same problems, in much the same way (google Shay's Rebellion).

Welcome to your first lesson in American History.

Thanks for the lesson. I hope you have some other gems on your syllabus, as they will, no doubt, make great fodder for the discussions here.

 

[regent]

Of and for white land holding males to be exact. Roughly the same situation as prevailed in Britain at the time.

One important thing that was spelled out, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.". I don't want to get into the the whole "creator" thing, but rather, the "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness", and "created equal".
When the founders said, "created equal", they knew that didn't mean everybody was equal in all things. Not everybody has the same intelligence level, or skill-set or work ethic, or a multitude of other things. That is why they said pursuit of happiness......Not equality of outcome. There was no guarantee that simply being a US citizen resulted in one being successful and happy, just the guarantee that one had the opportunity to do so based upon his own actions. In my opinion, we seem to have drifted far from that sort of belief, that it is up to the individual to pursue. And sometimes that means failure. It is not incumbent upon me, you or anybody else to provide happiness to another that either fails to seek it on their own, or fails to achieve it when they do seek it.

yes, the liberal nanny state was the last thing they imagined. Being subject to the king or to the nanny state appeared about the same to our founders.


"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

The founders were well aware of the nanny state, but the nanny state they objected to was the nanny state for the king. Ten years after the Declaration of Independence, the framers would create a new government and almost immediately begin the nanny state for business. A few more years and the nanny state was extended to states, corporations and eventually the people.
It would take time, but maybe the idea of the American people using their government to benefit the common people was inevitable?

 

[Bfgrn]

Punks?

In 1776, the average life expectancy at birth for a U.S. citizen was 35 years. By 1900, life expectancy grew to 47.3 years. By 2002, it climbed to 77.4 years, according to the National Center for Health Statistics.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Not Founding Fathers, Founding Punks

Independence Day. July 4th 1776 The United States declared independence from England, a written document signed by many people. In today’s world it is commonly believed that a bunch of old white guys signed that document. The truth is, a lot of young guys wrote and signed both the Declaration Of Independence and The United States Constitution. We call them “Founding Fathers”. But many were young or middle aged at the time.
The average age of a signer was 45, hardly old men.

Who they were.

Thomas Jefferson: He was 33 years old when he signed The Declaration of Independence and believed to be a principle author of the document. He became the 3rd President of The United States.

John Hancock: He was 39 years old when he signed The Declaration of Independence. He came from wealth and used that wealth to help fund the war for independence.

Benjamin Franklin: He was the oldest guy at 70 years of age when he signed The Declaration of Independence. His roots were working class yet he is known for being a leading author, printer, political theorist, politician, postmaster, scientist, musician, inventor, satirist, civic activist, statesman, and diplomat.

George Washington: Our first president was only 44 years old when The Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776. He served as Commander in Chief of the Continental Army and served as the 1st US President 1789–1797

Samuel Adams: He was another old guy of 54 at the signing of The Declaration of Independence. He was a tax collector opposed to the British efforts of taxing the American colonies.

John Adams: He was 41 years old when he signed The Declaration of Independence. He assisted Thomas Jefferson in drafting The Declaration of Independence. Middle aged and the second President of the United States. He was a strong proponent of republicanism.

Thomas Paine: He is believed to be a large part of the inspiration of The Declaration of Independence when he was 37 years old. Pro-revolutionary author of Common Sense.

James Madison: He was only 25 in 1776. He is considered the “Father of the Constitution” and the key champion of The Bill Of Rights. He collaborated with John Jay and Alexander Hamilton to produce The Federalist Papers.

John Jay: He was 31 at the signing of The Declaration of Independence even though he didn’t sign it. He wrote many of the Federalist Papers and was the first Supreme Court Chief Justice.

Alexander Hamilton: A mere 21 years of age during the signing of The Declaration of Independence. (It is believed that) He was the bastard son of a prostitute. He wrote many of the Federalist Papers and helped define the nation’s financial system.

As a side note,
John Adams and Thomas Jefferson both died on July 4, 1826, the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.

well they are called founding FATHERS because it was over two centurys ago when they signed the document.over 200 years old is pretty old.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

That's right, they were men in the prime of their lives and they risked everything including their lives and fortunes to create a government truly of and by the people for the first time in human history. Wonderful men.

yeah and they would be sicked by americans now who have let constitution be burned and have allowed it to become this facist dictatership over the years with this police state we are living in now.Kennedy was one of the few politicians that believed in the constitution and was trying to return us to it where the people had control over the government instead of all these big businesses,corporations,and lobbyists do now and he paid the price for it by doing so.

But thats another story that can be discussed over here on this thread.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...-70-s-there-was-a-conspiracy-to-kill-jfk.html

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

with this police state we are living in now.

100% absurd and stupid of course!! Are you afraid to give us your best example of this "police state" you are talking about? OF course you are.

 

[regent]

That's right, they were men in the prime of their lives and they risked everything including their lives and fortunes to create a government truly of and by the people for the first time in human history. Wonderful men.

Of and for white land holding males to be exact. Roughly the same situation as prevailed in Britain at the time.

One important thing that was spelled out, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.". I don't want to get into the the whole "creator" thing, but rather, the "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness", and "created equal".
When the founders said, "created equal", they knew that didn't mean everybody was equal in all things. Not everybody has the same intelligence level, or skill-set or work ethic, or a multitude of other things. That is why they said pursuit of happiness......Not equality of outcome. There was no guarantee that simply being a US citizen resulted in one being successful and happy, just the guarantee that one had the opportunity to do so based upon his own actions. In my opinion, we seem to have drifted far from that sort of belief, that it is up to the individual to pursue. And sometimes that means failure. It is not incumbent upon me, you or anybody else to provide happiness to another that either fails to seek it on their own, or fails to achieve it when they do seek it.

Wonder why Jefferson changed Locke's "property" to pursuit of happiness?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Of and for white land holding males to be exact. Roughly the same situation as prevailed in Britain at the time.

One important thing that was spelled out, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.". I don't want to get into the the whole "creator" thing, but rather, the "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness", and "created equal".
When the founders said, "created equal", they knew that didn't mean everybody was equal in all things. Not everybody has the same intelligence level, or skill-set or work ethic, or a multitude of other things. That is why they said pursuit of happiness......Not equality of outcome. There was no guarantee that simply being a US citizen resulted in one being successful and happy, just the guarantee that one had the opportunity to do so based upon his own actions. In my opinion, we seem to have drifted far from that sort of belief, that it is up to the individual to pursue. And sometimes that means failure. It is not incumbent upon me, you or anybody else to provide happiness to another that either fails to seek it on their own, or fails to achieve it when they do seek it.

Wonder why Jefferson changed Locke's "property" to pursuit of happiness?

too stupid!! there is no evidence that it was Locke's property!! Grow up. In any case he said the pursuit of property or happiness not the entitlement to property or happiness.

"That the “pursuit of happiness” is an inalienable right—one that cannot be given away—and that governments have been tasked to protect it suggests a relationship between government and humanity’s moral ends in tension, if not in outright contradiction, with modern liberalism. It seems to assume an objective moral order from which a person may not alienate himself."

 

[whitehall]

That's right, they were men in the prime of their lives and they risked everything including their lives and fortunes to create a government truly of and by the people for the first time in human history. Wonderful men.

Of and for white land holding males to be exact. Roughly the same situation as prevailed in Britain at the time.

They stepped aside and took the most critical chance in human history. They gave the government to the people. The FF were no fools, they allowed the government to evolve but they set the limits with the Constitution. Truly amazing. The male ruling concept stayed for a hundred years and what do you know, the genius of the government they set up allowed women into the picture. How did the alleged "cradle of civilization" in the Mid-East work out? Women are still beaten in the streets.

 

[Auteur]

That's right, they were men in the prime of their lives and they risked everything including their lives and fortunes to create a government truly of and by the people for the first time in human history. Wonderful men.

Of and for white land holding males to be exact. Roughly the same situation as prevailed in Britain at the time.

They stepped aside and took the most critical chance in human history. They gave the government to the people.

Yes, this was a significant moment, but by this measurement the pages of history are littered with critical moments, from the philosophy of democracy in ancient Athens, to the English barons at Runnymead in 1215, to the parliamentarians in 17th century London, to the events in Cairo today.

The FF were no fools, they allowed the government to evolve but they set the limits with the Constitution. Truly amazing. The male ruling concept stayed for a hundred years and what do you know, the genius of the government they set up allowed women into the picture.

Seeing into the future is in the province of science fiction, not history. The framers of the constitution did what they thought appropriate, given the environment and historical period they lived in. How could they do otherwise? We all make judgements based on our knowledge and experience, which are rooted in the here and now, and when asked to predict the future, tend to simply project what we know forward.

There was no concept of women's rights in the 1770's, and hence no provision to allow for them in the future. In fact the US followed more or less the same course as other similar nations re women's rights, with protests and controversey until the early 20th century, when women were allowed to take their place as people (more or less).

Far from seeing into the future, the document in question was firmly entrenched in the attitudes of the 18ths century, and of the society that existed then. This has led to problems today with those who want to insist that the constitution is fixed and should be revered, rather than seen as a living and flexible instrument, one capable of responding to change and progress. In 1780, in a sparesly populated farmer society, the idea of guns in the homestead was not a bad concept. Contemporary interpretation of the 2nd amendment has led to tragedy today in the mean streets of Chicago and LA, something the founding fathers could not have foreseen.

How did the alleged "cradle of civilization" in the Mid-East work out? Women are still beaten in the streets.

True, for a number of reasons that would take another thread to explore. The US could more accurately be compared to similar nations though, such as Canada, Australia or Britain. These have followed a similar path of development of democracy.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Contemporary interpretation of the 2nd amendment has led to tragedy today in the mean streets of Chicago and LA, something the founding fathers could not have foreseen.

Widespread gun or weapon ownership was common in Ancient Rome and from there forward. We have the right to be armed to protect ourselves against liberal government, and only secondarily to protect ourselves against common criminals.

As a liberal you will lack the IQ to understand that the Constitution was only designed to protect us from government. In fact, the great fear was that if government were given the power to protect our right to bear arms it would instead use that power to take away our right to bear arms.

Thats is why the Bill of Rights was not included. Welcome to your first lesson in American History.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

They stepped aside and took the most critical chance in human history. They gave the government to the people.

you perfect complete nutjob liberal!! OMG!!! Thats the last thing they did. Few could even vote!! and those who could mostly didn't vote for candidates but for electors.

If they had given it to the people they would have let all the people vote directly for everything. What they did was create a Constitution that embodied their wisdom so the people could not participate. THey did not even imagine political parties because they imagined the Constitution solved all the problems. Think about that.

 

[numan]

with this police state we are living in now.

100% absurd and stupid of course!! Are you afraid to give us your best example of this "police state" you are talking about? OF course you are.

Well, at any one time, the USA has between 1,000,000 and 2,000,000 people in its Prison Gulag System -- depending on how you define "in the system." That is a percentage of population far more than in any other country -- including modern Russia and China.

On the bright side, Stalin had more than three million people in his gulags -- so I suppose one can say that the USA is twice as good as Stalin's Russia. · ·

.