Our founding fathers were not conservative

[Agit8r]

OK but lets set one ground rule
When you are trying to define what a person was back in the 18th century lets use the word that you are trying to discribe them as by what it meant during that period of time.


Civic humanism
The civic humanists of Renaissance Florence argued that the best form of government resulted from the participation of all citizens (by which they meant a select group of wealthy males) in decision-making. They lauded involvement in public affairs over private concerns and disapproved of significant variations in wealth amongst the elite.
Direct democracy was a practical possibility amongst the merchant elites of Italian city states, but it was difficult to apply in major Western states like England, France, and Spain.
The greatest spokesman for Florentine civic humanism was Niccolo Machiavelli, whose Discourses (published 1531) transmitted his admiration for Roman republicanism to Europe.
The message from Machiavelli was a somewhat mixed one, since he was also the author of The Prince (published 1532). This short work advised rulers to set aside moral constraints when it was necessary to further the interests of their dynasty and country. The doctrine of "reason of state" (as it became known) was also to find adherents in early-modern Europe.
[Read a sample of Machiavelli's political writing].
Intellectual trends in the 17th century

Later Types of Humanism

By the 18th century the word humanism had come to be identified with a purely secular attitude--one that often rejected Christianity altogether. In the 20th century the term has taken on a number of different, often conflicting, meanings. In the works of the pragmatist philosopher Ferdinand Schiller (1864-1937) humanism is seen as that philosophical understanding which stems from human activity. Irving Babbitt used the word to describe a program of reaction against romanticism and naturalism in literature. Jean Paul Sartre developed a scientific humanism preaching human worth based on Marxist theory, and the Roman Catholic Jacques Maritain tried to formulate a new Christian humanism based on the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas. The American Humanist Association, which grew out of the Unitarian movement, holds that human beings can satisfy religious needs from within, discarding the concept of God as inconsistent with advanced thought and human freedom. In recent years, fundamentalist Christian groups in the United States have declared their opposition to "secular humanism," an antireligious ideology that they believe pervades American society, including the major churches, and that they blame for its moral failings.
Humanism

No. Humanism as in religious or ethical duties being encompassed in the earthly realm rather than the cosmic

Nope I just gave you the definition of the meaning backin the 18th century.

By the 18th century the word humanism had come to be identified with a purely secular attitude--one that often rejected Christianity altogether.

I am speaking of our modern vernacular. I don't give a flying fig what holy smoke says. Certainly some of the founders believed in secularism, but many were concerned--as Adams was--with religious justice for their fellow man, as a divine mandate. They believed in republican government (here and in France) because they believed in what the Bishop James Madison called "The Republic of Heaven"

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No. Humanism as in religious or ethical duties being encompassed in the earthly realm rather than the cosmic

Nope I just gave you the definition of the meaning backin the 18th century.

By the 18th century the word humanism had come to be identified with a purely secular attitude--one that often rejected Christianity altogether.

I am speaking of our modern vernacular. I don't give a flying fig what holy smoke says. Certainly some of the founders believed in secularism, but many were concerned--as Adams was--with religious justice for his fellow man, as a divine mandate. The believed in republican government (here and in France) because they believed in what the Bishop James Madison called "The Republic of Heaven"

I am speaking of our modern vernacular

You can't do that and be able to prove that the founders of America 18th century men were humanist using a 20th century term.

I don't give a flying fig what holy smoke says. Certainly some of the founders believed in secularism, but many were concerned

First you said the fouderswere humanist then you said those who opposed big government, now just some. So which is it? To prove what they were you must use their definition of that time period.

Again

By the 18th century the word humanism had come to be identified with a purely secular attitude--one that often rejected Christianity altogether

 

[Contumacious]

Yeah nevermind the pesky 9th and 10th amendments.

Do you think it's just a coincidence that the USSC has consistently ignored those two amendments?

You keep forgetting that Supreme Court Justices are bureaucrats , who were nominated to the position after showing ,to at least 51 fascists , that they are solid government supremacists.

So it is very difficult to recognize that the Ninth Amendment exists and on the other hand find that the civil war on drugs users is "constitutional"

Get my drift, Vernon?

.

.

 

[Contumacious]

This is a complete reversal of the "original intent" of the framers of the Constitution who considered the States the protectors and deciders of individual rights. At least that was the excuse they gave for leaving individual rights almost completely out of the body of the Constitution.

Don't blame the Framers because your goverment owned and operated schools failed or refused to teach you what was intended by the Constitution (1787)

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."


Alexander Hamilton
Wednesday, July 16, 1788

 

[Intense]

I notice that nobody acknowledged that our founders (or at least those who supported a limited government) were humanists, regardless of their religious denomination o_0

Thoreau came later. If you are thinking Renaissance, maybe another thread would be a good idea.

 

[Agit8r]

Nope I just gave you the definition of the meaning backin the 18th century.

By the 18th century the word humanism had come to be identified with a purely secular attitude--one that often rejected Christianity altogether.

I am speaking of our modern vernacular. I don't give a flying fig what holy smoke says. Certainly some of the founders believed in secularism, but many were concerned--as Adams was--with religious justice for his fellow man, as a divine mandate. The believed in republican government (here and in France) because they believed in what the Bishop James Madison called "The Republic of Heaven"

I am speaking of our modern vernacular

You can't do that and be able to prove that the founders of America 18th century men were humanist using a 20th century term.

I don't give a flying fig what holy smoke says. Certainly some of the founders believed in secularism, but many were concerned

First you said the fouderswere humanist then you said those who opposed big government, now just some. So which is it? To prove what they were you must use their definition of that time period.

Again

By the 18th century the word humanism had come to be identified with a purely secular attitude--one that often rejected Christianity altogether

according to Merriam Webster, the word conservative [noun] dates to 1831

Conservative - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

To prove what they were you must use their definition of that time period.

so thank you for agreeing with my original statement

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I am speaking of our modern vernacular. I don't give a flying fig what holy smoke says. Certainly some of the founders believed in secularism, but many were concerned--as Adams was--with religious justice for his fellow man, as a divine mandate. The believed in republican government (here and in France) because they believed in what the Bishop James Madison called "The Republic of Heaven"

You can't do that and be able to prove that the founders of America 18th century men were humanist using a 20th century term.



First you said the fouderswere humanist then you said those who opposed big government, now just some. So which is it? To prove what they were you must use their definition of that time period.

Again

By the 18th century the word humanism had come to be identified with a purely secular attitude--one that often rejected Christianity altogether

according to Merriam Webster, the word conservative [noun] dates to 1831

Conservative - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

To prove what they were you must use their definition of that time period.

so thank you for agreeing with my original statement

according to Merriam Webster, the word conservative [noun] dates to 1831

This part of the discussion is not about being liberal conservative Christians or anything else. You claimed they, or at least those that opposed big government, or some of the founders where Humanist. I am still waiting on you to prove your point. After you have done this we can discuss the conservative part.

To prove what they were you must use their definition of that time period.

so thank you for agreeing with my original statement

You haven't a clue what century the 17oo's is in do you?

 

[Agit8r]

You can't do that and be able to prove that the founders of America 18th century men were humanist using a 20th century term.



First you said the fouderswere humanist then you said those who opposed big government, now just some. So which is it? To prove what they were you must use their definition of that time period.

Again

By the 18th century the word humanism had come to be identified with a purely secular attitude--one that often rejected Christianity altogether

according to Merriam Webster, the word conservative [noun] dates to 1831

Conservative - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary



so thank you for agreeing with my original statement

This part of the discussion is not about being liberal conservative Christians or anything else. You claimed they, or at least those that opposed big government, or some of the founders where Humanist. I am still waiting on you to prove your point. After you have done this we can discuss the conservative part.

To prove what they were you must use their definition of that time period.

so thank you for agreeing with my original statement

You haven't a clue what century the 17oo's is in do you?

I was pointing out the absurdity of your argument. We exist in the here and now, therefore we can use whatever vocabulary we please to describe anything. Various others already have, as they have described our founders as "conservative." A term that only existed for the last three years of James Madison's life (after the other founders had already passed)

 

[Intense]

No. Humanism as in religious or ethical duties being encompassed in the earthly realm rather than the cosmic

Nope I just gave you the definition of the meaning backin the 18th century.

By the 18th century the word humanism had come to be identified with a purely secular attitude--one that often rejected Christianity altogether.

I am speaking of our modern vernacular. I don't give a flying fig what holy smoke says. Certainly some of the founders believed in secularism, but many were concerned--as Adams was--with religious justice for their fellow man, as a divine mandate. They believed in republican government (here and in France) because they believed in what the Bishop James Madison called "The Republic of Heaven"

MANIFESTATIONS OF THE BENEFICENCE OF DIVINE PROVIDENCE TOWARDS AMERICA
Bishop James Madison

RICHMOND
1795

Bishop James Madison (1749–1812). A cousin of President James Madison, Madison was educated as a lawyer under George Wythe after graduation with high honors from the College of William and Mary in 1771. He became a professor of philosophy and mathematics at the college but soon decided upon the ministry. He was ordained in England in 1775 as an Anglican priest. Two years later he became president of William and Mary and held that position until his death. A strong advocate of independence, he went so far, we are told, as to speak of the republic—rather than kingdom—of heaven. He served as the captain of a militia company of his students and saw considerable action during the Revolution. After the war, Madison devoted himself to reviving the College of William and Mary; in 1784 he taught political economy using Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations as a textbook. As a surveyor and cartographer, he established the boundary between Virginia and Pennsylvania and later drew the map of Virginia commonly called Madison’s Map (issued first in 1807 and corrected in 1818). He was a leading scientist of the day and corresponded with Thomas Jefferson about scientific matters.

Madison also devoted himself to the reorganization of the Episcopal Church in Virginia after the war. Consecrated the first Bishop of Virginia (in Canterbury in 1790), he was the third of three American bishops through whom the episcopate came to the United States. Disestablished and with its properties under attack, the church faced formidable problems that, rather than being solved during Madison’s tenure, further deepened.

The sermon reprinted here was preached on February 19, 1795, proclaimed a day of national thanksgiving and prayer by President Washington.

Only fear the Lord, and serve him; for consider how great things he hath done for you.

Samuel XII. 2[4].

Brethren,
There are few situations more interesting to the human race, than that which the people of America this day presents. The temples of the living God are every where, throughout this rising empire, this day, crowded, I trust, with worshippers, whose hearts, impressed with a just and lively sense of the great things, which he hath done for them, pour forth, in unison, the grateful tribute of praise and thanksgiving. Yes, this day, brethren, “the voice of rejoicing and salvation is in the tabernacles of the righteous”; and with reason, for the history of nations doth not exhibit a people who ever had more cause to offer up to the great author of every good the most fervent expressions of gratitude and thanksgiving. Let, my brethren, the sons of irreligion, wrapped in their dark and gloomy system of fatality, refuse to open their eyes to the great luminous proofs of providential government, which America displays; let them turn from a light, which their weak vision cannot bear; but let the righteous, let those who trust in God, who can trace in that good and glorious being, the relations of father, friend and governor, let them, with eagle eyes look up to that full blaze of salvation, which he hath vouchsafed to this new world. Permit me then, upon this occasion, to turn your attention to those great things, which the Lord hath done for us, to those manifold displays of divine providence, which the history of America exhibits; and let the subject afford an opportunity to revive within us sentiments of lively gratitude, and excite sincere resolutions to fear the Lord, and to serve him; in a word, to increase daily in piety, and in all those noble affections of the soul which dignify the christian and the patriot.

I. Who can tell how many ages had been swallowed up in the all-absorbing gulph of time, before the bold navigator first essayed to visit these distant regions of the earth? Who can tell, how long this western world had been the habitation of the listless savage, or the wild beasts of the forest? At these questions chronology drops her epochs, as incapable of conducting her to periods so remote, and which have escaped her grasp. The ways of heaven must oft appear to us, weak mortals, dark and intricate. But the first suggestion, which here presents itself, is, that providence seems to have thrown a veil over this portion of the globe, in order to conceal it from the eyes of the nations of the east, until the destined period had arrived for the regeneration of mankind, in this new world, after those various other means, which the wisdom of the Almighty had permitted to operate, in the old, had proved ineffectual. In vain had reason, the hand-maid of pure religion, long attempted to convince men of the reciprocal duties, which equality and fraternity impose. Still there would arise some one,

“of proud ambitious heart, who, not content
with fair equality, fraternal state,
would arrogate dominion undeserved
over his brethren, and quite dispossess
concord and law of nature from the earth.”*................

Online Library of Liberty - 45: Bishop James Madison, MANIFESTATIONS OF THE BENEFICENCE OF DIVINE PROVIDENCE TOWARDS AMERICA - Political Sermons of the American Founding Era. Vol. 2 (1789-1805)

 

[Agit8r]

"In vain had reason, the hand-maid of pure religion, long attempted to convince men of the reciprocal duties, which equality and fraternity impose. Still there would arise some one,

“of proud ambitious heart, who, not content
with fair equality, fraternal state,
would arrogate dominion undeserved
over his brethren, and quite dispossess
concord and law of nature from the earth.”

thanks much! that is going in my list of quotes

 

[Intense]

I'm thinking Revelation Chapter 12.

 

[Agit8r]

maybe i put the emphasis in the wrong place the first time

In vain had reason, the hand-maid of pure religion, long attempted to convince men of the reciprocal duties, which equality and fraternity impose. Still there would arise some one,

“of proud ambitious heart, who, not content
with fair equality, fraternal state,
would arrogate dominion undeserved
over his brethren, and quite dispossess
concord and law of nature from the earth.”

ahem...

for reference:

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"...that all men are created equal, endowed by their government with an annual salary according to their needs" -- from the "Declaration of Dependence", a Progressive Manifesto (I made it up, don't bother Googling)

 

[JakeStarkey]

"...that all men are created equal, endowed by their government with an annual salary according to their needs" -- from the "Declaration of Dependence", a Progressive Manifesto (I made it up, don't bother Googling)

We are aware, Frank, you are dependent on others for your thinking.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Alexander Hamilton, the monarchist who wanted America to have its own king and was shunted off into the Treasury by the other Founding Fathers because they disagreed so profoundly with him, is supposed to be accepted, wholly and all by himself, as the final word on what the entirety of the Founding Fathers wanted and intended?

Hamilton contradicts himself several times regarding the allocation of power in a general and then specific sense. He is consistent in his view here only in that hiis writings support whatever HE wants to be able to do at the time.

Given that you can quote Hamilton making both sides of the same argument indictates that his words here are useless.

Madison's interpretation of the clause is, however, consistent within his other writings. There's no sound reason to accept the Hamiltonian construct over the Madisonian, other than you, like Hamilton, want the government to be able to do whatever you want it to do.

Hey, genius, while you're analyzing the meanings in people's writings, perhaps you could give a quick once-over to my post and then explain to me how you came to the insulting and egregiously incorrect assumption that I 1) agree with Hamilton OR the dimwit I was responding to, or 2) have any desire for "the government to be able to do whatever I want it to do.

In future, please try to refrain from responding to people until you have at least SOME ******* clue what they actually said. Thank you so much in advance for your expected increase in English competence from this moment forward.

Grow up, son.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hamilton contradicts himself several times regarding the allocation of power in a general and then specific sense. He is consistent in his view here only in that hiis writings support whatever HE wants to be able to do at the time.

Given that you can quote Hamilton making both sides of the same argument indictates that his words here are useless.

Madison's interpretation of the clause is, however, consistent within his other writings. There's no sound reason to accept the Hamiltonian construct over the Madisonian, other than you, like Hamilton, want the government to be able to do whatever you want it to do.

Hey, genius, while you're analyzing the meanings in people's writings, perhaps you could give a quick once-over to my post and then explain to me how you came to the insulting and egregiously incorrect assumption that I 1) agree with Hamilton OR the dimwit I was responding to, or 2) have any desire for "the government to be able to do whatever I want it to do.

In future, please try to refrain from responding to people until you have at least SOME ******* clue what they actually said. Thank you so much in advance for your expected increase in English competence from this moment forward.

Grow up, son.

Cecilie1200 is fun to read, very bombastic and full of herself: but also not very smart and does not know how to handle facts, evidences, and conclusions.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I notice that nobody acknowledged that our founders (or at least those who supported a limited government) were humanists, regardless of their religious denomination o_0

Given the title of the topic, why would any of that matter?

 

[M14 Shooter]

"Conservative" in what sense?

In that their impetus for the revolution was to preserve what they had, specifically, the Rights of Englishmen, that had been eroded over the 10 or so years prior.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Much of the War of Independence was indeed conservative in preservation of those rights. However, the separation of church and state protected by of a barrier to a nationally established religion was the first such national law in the nations of the West. That was undoubtedly liberal.

 

[Agit8r]

"Conservative" in what sense?

In that their impetus for the revolution was to preserve what they had, specifically, the Rights of Emglishmen, that had been eroded over the 10 or so years prior.

"MANKIND being originally equals in the order of creation, the equality could only be destroyed by some subsequent circumstance: the distinctions of rich and poor may in a great measure be accounted for and that without having recourse to the harsh ill-sounding names of oppression and avarice"
-- Thomas Paine; from Common Sense (1776)