Political Views of the Founding Fathers

[francoHFW]

This new Pub theory, that minorities who point out white racists are thus racists themselves, is Neocon Pubcrappola....

 

[Sactowndog]

What we CAN look at and draw a very specific alignment from; however, is each side’s positions on taxation, the size of government, the scope of government, and the power balance between the federal government and the states. The Federalists, as their name would imply, favored a larger and stronger central government, heavier levels of taxation, higher levels of federal control over a greater number of issues, and the balance of power to favor the federal government over the states. The DRs were just the opposite in every degree. Given this we can very safely set the modern day “left” to coincide with the Federalists, and the modern day “right” to coincide with the Democratic-Republicans. This alignment is further backed up by each party’s positions on free trade, the foreign relations, the role of the military, interstate commerce, etc. As such we can VERY confidently put the DRs cleanly in the camp of modern day Republicans.

So thanks for posting but I am interested in how you reach you conclusion.

It seems to me that both parties today tolerate or worse advocate and degree of central government control that far exceeds what many founders would have advocated.

Jefferson warned strongly of intangling alliances yet it is the Republicans who advocate most strongly for a large military presence around the globe. Ron Paul has no chance for the nomination largely because he opposes such a large military presence. So in this case the Republican party would align with the Federalists much more strongly.

I will also bring up the war on drugs and and other topics of social control. At one point, drugs were not banned in the country at the Federal level. Certainly the current national drug laws so strongly supported by the Republican party would align with the Federalists while the Democratic Republicans would strongly align with today's current Democrats.

In reality I think you can say that only the Libertarians would align with the Democratic-Republicans of long ago and both Republicans and Democrats would be strongly in the Federalist camp.

 

[Bfgrn]

That's not how they governed.

Oh I strongly disagree. Just as an example there was a famous exchange between John Adams and Abigail Adams after the Declaration of Independence was signed. Abigail asked John whether women would be given the same rights as men in the new government and argued strongly for that. Adams responded that they had "no intention of trading the tyranny of the monarchy for the tyranny of the petticoat." As you might imagine Abigail was less than impressed. But Adams explained that while he personally would not have an issue with such a thing it would open the door for extending rights and privileges to segments of society, such as drunks, people who did not own property, and the uneducated, that "no reasonable person would argue in favor of." This position was widely accepted and indeed voting rights in the individual states were almost exclusively restricted to property owners. The rest were simply subject to the political motivations of the upper and middle classes.

It' also important to note that the inalienable rights endowed by our Creator that are listed in the Declaration of Independence include "the pursuit of happiness", not the guarantee of it. In other words, all men were free to go out into society, climb the social ladders, start a business, make some money, and purchase some property...but only THEN would the right to influence society through voting and directing the course of government be provided to them. Everyone else was just something that individual states and towns had to deal with on their own accord.

I strongly (but respectfully) disagree with you on that point.

You didn't even GET my point. Are we going to continue hearing the twisting of our founding fathers beliefs to fit modern libertarianism, a philosophy that owes much more to 19th century German ideas than to the 18th century Anglo-American legacy?

Jefferson’s chose “pursuit of happiness”—not property, as John Locke had written in his Treatise on Government. WHY?

If our founding fathers supported such ideals, why did they reject the Articles of Confederation and replace it with a Constitution that clearly strengthened the national government? The founding fathers witnessed the near collapse of our fledgling nation under the Articles of Confederation. That government had allowed so much liberty and pursuit of happiness, that chaos like Shays’s Rebellion had become all too commonplace. So a Constitution was written that gave the national government the power of the sword (military) and the purse (the ability to tax). On top of that, the writers of the Constitution included an “elastic clause” which gave the national government the authority to “stretch “its powers to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities. Some of those responsibilities are found in the Preamble. Our founding fathers stated that two of the purposes of our national Constitution were to “insure domestic tranquility” and “promote the general welfare”. Applying the elastic clause to these principles, the implications of the government’s role in our pursuit of happiness is obvious. There seems no doubt that our Constitution rejects the idea of laissez-faire. Our founding fathers empowered the government to intercede on our behalf to protect our pursuit of happiness. How does the government play a role in our pursuits of happiness? The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution was added to insure that all citizens would be guaranteed “equal protection under the law”. The government cannot sit idly by while corporations mistreat workers, gouge consumers, wreck the environment, and produce faulty products. Government must insure that one person’s pursuit of happiness does not prevent another from attaining his/her own happiness. In the end government must serve as some sort of social conscience. It must discourage selfish, destructive pursuit of materialism which is eroding away our national spirit. Government must encourage social responsibility and promote the common good. If government can do these things Americans might be re-discover their own humanity and remember that true happiness is not rooted in property, it is found in community. That is what I believe Jefferson meant by the pursuit of happiness. That happiness cannot be just for some. It cannot be a selfish, personal pursuit. It must be a collective, national pursuit that will serve to strengthen our American identity. ref

"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482

 

[Sactowndog]

The American Revolution was fought against monarchy...against the super wealthy. It was a revolution of the common man against political and economic tyranny. Exactly what the OWS movement is fighting against.

NO. The founding fathers were extremely rich. The founding fathers were "the 1%". They were not "the common man". These guys were the elite of society, wealthy, educated, cultured, social climbers, etc. They fought against an overpowering form of government. The last thing they wanted was a government that was overly powerful and got into people's lives. They wanted a government that protected the borders, protected commerce, allowed people to work for their own prosperity, and stayed the fuck out of people's business. That is not the modern liberal school of thought.

Can you really say this is the philosophy the social conservative wing on the Republican Party that dominates today?

I would also argue that while yes the founding fathers were the elite they were also extremely independent and interested in a society where all could succeed. I find it hard to believe the founders would support the today's Republican efforts to replace public education with private voachers. Jefferson believed that education should be under the control of the government, free from religious biases, and available to all people irrespective of their status in society. Others who vouched for public education around the same time were Benjamin Rush, Noah Webster, Robert Coram and George Washington.

Between Republican views on education and on the military I find it hard to believe Jefferson would have anything to do with today's Republican Party.

 

[Mr.Nick]

That's not how they governed.

Oh I strongly disagree. Just as an example there was a famous exchange between John Adams and Abigail Adams after the Declaration of Independence was signed. Abigail asked John whether women would be given the same rights as men in the new government and argued strongly for that. Adams responded that they had "no intention of trading the tyranny of the monarchy for the tyranny of the petticoat." As you might imagine Abigail was less than impressed. But Adams explained that while he personally would not have an issue with such a thing it would open the door for extending rights and privileges to segments of society, such as drunks, people who did not own property, and the uneducated, that "no reasonable person would argue in favor of." This position was widely accepted and indeed voting rights in the individual states were almost exclusively restricted to property owners. The rest were simply subject to the political motivations of the upper and middle classes.

It' also important to note that the inalienable rights endowed by our Creator that are listed in the Declaration of Independence include "the pursuit of happiness", not the guarantee of it. In other words, all men were free to go out into society, climb the social ladders, start a business, make some money, and purchase some property...but only THEN would the right to influence society through voting and directing the course of government be provided to them. Everyone else was just something that individual states and towns had to deal with on their own accord.

I strongly (but respectfully) disagree with you on that point.

You didn't even GET my point. Are we going to continue hearing the twisting of our founding fathers beliefs to fit modern libertarianism, a philosophy that owes much more to 19th century German ideas than to the 18th century Anglo-American legacy?

Jefferson’s chose “pursuit of happiness”—not property, as John Locke had written in his Treatise on Government. WHY?

If our founding fathers supported such ideals, why did they reject the Articles of Confederation and replace it with a Constitution that clearly strengthened the national government? The founding fathers witnessed the near collapse of our fledgling nation under the Articles of Confederation. That government had allowed so much liberty and pursuit of happiness, that chaos like Shays’s Rebellion had become all too commonplace. So a Constitution was written that gave the national government the power of the sword (military) and the purse (the ability to tax). On top of that, the writers of the Constitution included an “elastic clause” which gave the national government the authority to “stretch “its powers to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities. Some of those responsibilities are found in the Preamble. Our founding fathers stated that two of the purposes of our national Constitution were to “insure domestic tranquility” and “promote the general welfare”. Applying the elastic clause to these principles, the implications of the government’s role in our pursuit of happiness is obvious. There seems no doubt that our Constitution rejects the idea of laissez-faire. Our founding fathers empowered the government to intercede on our behalf to protect our pursuit of happiness. How does the government play a role in our pursuits of happiness? The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution was added to insure that all citizens would be guaranteed “equal protection under the law”. The government cannot sit idly by while corporations mistreat workers, gouge consumers, wreck the environment, and produce faulty products. Government must insure that one person’s pursuit of happiness does not prevent another from attaining his/her own happiness. In the end government must serve as some sort of social conscience. It must discourage selfish, destructive pursuit of materialism which is eroding away our national spirit. Government must encourage social responsibility and promote the common good. If government can do these things Americans might be re-discover their own humanity and remember that true happiness is not rooted in property, it is found in community. That is what I believe Jefferson meant by the pursuit of happiness. That happiness cannot be just for some. It cannot be a selfish, personal pursuit. It must be a collective, national pursuit that will serve to strengthen our American identity. ref

"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482

I think most take Jefferson out of context.. Most take his writings as literal when they were philosophical... He was a philosophical based individual who was always searching for the truth but learning at the same time...

Also,

I don't like the word libertarianism - classical liberal would be more concrete.

I only even use the word because of its modern defined ideas as you know them - however the word is very bland...

 

[Sactowndog]

The issues of the limitations of gov't and how much power should be given to it were not inconsequential back then. Many did not want the elite ruling the country, same as today.

True but the constitution is just as much about limiting the power of the majority to impose their will on the minority. Something we all to often forget today.

 

[daveman]

The founding fathers opposed voting rights for people who did not own property and did not pay taxes...and you think they would support OWS?!?!?!?

Leftists like to claim the FF were fellow travelers, but the truth is modern leftists would have informed on the revolutionaries to the Crown in order to show their support for big government.

They want to be subjects, not citizens.

 

[Jackson]

The "Founding Fathers" owned slaves.

Therefore, they would be modern day Republicans.

After all of those great posts, you come in and post something as ignorant as that?

 

[Bfgrn]

The founding fathers opposed voting rights for people who did not own property and did not pay taxes...and you think they would support OWS?!?!?!?

Leftists like to claim the FF were fellow travelers, but the truth is modern leftists would have informed on the revolutionaries to the Crown in order to show their support for big government.

They want to be subjects, not citizens.

conservatism
noun

- disposition in politics to preserve what is established

- a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change

- the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change

Loyalists - Conservapedia

Loyalists were colonists who remained loyal subjects of the British crown as the thirteen American colonies declared independence in 1776 and became the United States of America.

The Loyalists were conservatives who rejected the radicalism of the new nation; those who went to Canada resisted democracy there and became famous for their loyalty to the British crown, their admiration of royalty and aristocracy, and their anti-Americanism.


WOW...the Loyalists description of the Patriots sure sound like today's conservatives description of the OWS crowd...

The Loyalists
In late 1776 Catherine Van Cortlandt wrote to her husband, a New Jersey merchant fighting in a Loyalist brigade, about the Patriot troops who had quartered themselves in her house. "They were the most disorderly of species," she complained, "and their officers were from the dregs of the people."

Like the Van Cortlandts, many Loyalists thought of themselves as the "better sort of people." They viewed their adversaries as "lawless mobs" and "brutes." Conservative,
wealthy, and well-educated, Loyalists of this breed thought a break with Britain would invite anarchy.

 

[BluePhantom]

Ahhh... but the difference is, is that back in their day... we Property tax was probably the only tax they had... so only landowners were paying taxes. Nowadays... everyone pays taxes.. be it FICA, FEDERAL INCOME TAX, GAS TAXES, SIN TAXES, STATE AND LOCAL TAXES, SALES TAXES and probably some that I didn't even think of.

Ahhhh....a beautiful new morning and a slew of new arguments. LOL. And away we go.....

Oh they started taxing right from the beginning One of the very first things Washington did was to impose a tax on whiskey. However, in many areas whiskey was used as a currency. The result was the Whiskey Rebellion. But taxes started right away and they grew with great speed.

Remember Ben Franklin: "...in this world nothing can be said to be certain but death and taxes."

 

[Uncensored2008]

Too bad that caste system is pretty much in place again.

That's why middle class men like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs could never rise above their station.

Great point...

 

[Uncensored2008]

After all of those great posts, you come in and post something as ignorant as that?

That sad part is, that really is the best Chris can do.

 

[konradv]

The issues of the limitations of gov't and how much power should be given to it were not inconsequential back then. Many did not want the elite ruling the country, same as today.

True but the constitution is just as much about limiting the power of the majority to impose their will on the minority. Something we all to often forget today.

But you can't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.
John Jay, FEDERALIST No. 2

 

[BluePhantom]

So thanks for posting but I am interested in how you reach you conclusion.

read the preceding four pages.

It seems to me that both parties today tolerate or worse advocate and degree of central government control that far exceeds what many founders would have advocated.

Jefferson warned strongly of intangling alliances yet it is the Republicans who advocate most strongly for a large military presence around the globe. Ron Paul has no chance for the nomination largely because he opposes such a large military presence. So in this case the Republican party would align with the Federalists much more strongly.

As I said....the Federalist have more in common with the Republicans on most issues.

I will also bring up the war on drugs and and other topics of social control. At one point, drugs were not banned in the country at the Federal level. Certainly the current national drug laws so strongly supported by the Republican party would align with the Federalists while the Democratic Republicans would strongly align with today's current Democrats.

Well it's not like America had a massive cocaine and heroin problem in 1776, brother. I am not sure how they would feel about the war on drugs. The closet thing I could possibly equate it to is alcohol which they, of course, used themselves quite liberally. Primarily because a distilled spirit or wine was safer than to drink than the water. Alexander Hamilton kept a gallon of rum on his bed stand every night with a ladle so he could sip away. I have seen some historians suggest that the FFs were half crocked a vast majority of the time. I don't know really.

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.

 

[BluePhantom]

If our founding fathers supported such ideals, why did they reject the Articles of Confederation and replace it with a Constitution that clearly strengthened the national government? The founding fathers witnessed the near collapse of our fledgling nation under the Articles of Confederation. That government had allowed so much liberty and pursuit of happiness, that chaos like Shays’s Rebellion had become all too commonplace. So a Constitution was written that gave the national government the power of the sword (military) and the purse (the ability to tax). On top of that, the writers of the Constitution included an “elastic clause” which gave the national government the authority to “stretch “its powers to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities. Some of those responsibilities are found in the Preamble. Our founding fathers stated that two of the purposes of our national Constitution were to “insure domestic tranquility” and “promote the general welfare”. Applying the elastic clause to these principles, the implications of the government’s role in our pursuit of happiness is obvious.

Well I think you are correct in your characterization when comparing the Constitution to the Articles of the Confederation, but I think you over-emphasize the degree to which the FFs embraced expanding the power of the government. There is a reason why the 10th Amendment exists. I have said many times that the FFs made a lot of mistakes and the Articles was one of them. Under the Articles they ran into problems they did not foresee and since the Articles was written in such a way that altering it was not realistic, they had to pitch the whole thing out.

Armed with this new understanding they created the Constitution which addressed the problems with the Articles and included the elasticity, that you correctly mention, that the Articles lacked in order to deal with whatever else came up that they didn't already think of. BUT....they did not do this lightly. They were very careful and wary about making it too elastic. They made is possible but very difficult to amend the Constitution. They included the 10th Amendment which states, in effect, "whatever we haven't specifically addressed is up to the states to deal with".

So yes they understood that they had made the authority of the federal government too weak and inflexible under the Articles, but neither did they endorse going over to the opposite extreme in regard to government control and power. They were willing to give just enough to make it function, and that's it. It's my strong opinion that in no way, shape, or form would they endorse the level of power and control the federal government enjoys today over the lives of the citizenry. There is no way they would endorse an entitlement society. I can't imagine any serious historian who is operating without an agenda trying to claim that the FFs would endorse the federal government's involvement in Social Security, welfare, Obamacare, education (as another poster suggested), etc....not a chance. At best....at the very best....they would say "that's an issue for state government (or in Jefferson's model - town government) but it's not the federal government's concern."

Government must insure that one person’s pursuit of happiness does not prevent another from attaining his/her own happiness. In the end government must serve as some sort of social conscience.....

Well that's a typical liberal point of view. Conservatives don't think that's necessarily the federal government's responsibility. They tend to believe that it's the responsibility of the state and of society as a whole. Social conscience can rarely be achieved through legislation....usually all that is achieved is social resentment. Regardless, the question should be "would the FFs agree with your assessment?" The answer is "some would agree more than others (particularly Jay and Hamilton) but only to a very small degree.". The DRs would completely disagree that it's federal government's responsibility or role. Jefferson's model was that town law would trump state law, which would in turn trump federal law. Jefferson and the DRs would have said "that's an issue for the town or state." Even in the Constitution we see this spelled out very, very clearly in the 10th Amendment, their approach to slavery, etc.

 

[BluePhantom]

Can you really say this is the philosophy the social conservative wing on the Republican Party that dominates today?

It is a heck of a lot more so than the Democrats and it's certainly the position of the Tea Party.

I would also argue that while yes the founding fathers were the elite they were also extremely independent and interested in a society where all could succeed. I find it hard to believe the founders would support the today's Republican efforts to replace public education with private voachers. Jefferson believed that education should be under the control of the government...

Well Jefferson certainly didn't try to involve the federal government in education while he was president. He did believe in a strong education (although to suggest that it should be available to all people might be a slight stretch - he also said that people need to be educated according to their status. For example, he saw no need for women to be highly educated because that was not their role in society), but he endorsed public education again as the responsibility of state or town government. He founded the University of Virginia, not the University of the United States.

Between Republican views on education and on the military I find it hard to believe Jefferson would have anything to do with today's Republican Party.

I have addressed the military several times already. On education, Jefferson would most likely look at the federal Department of Education and say the 18th century equivalent of "what in the fuck are you guys thinking?"

But again...we're looking at a level of minutia that is beyond the scope of my initial premise.

 

[BluePhantom]

I think most take Jefferson out of context.. Most take his writings as literal when they were philosophical... He was a philosophical based individual who was always searching for the truth but learning at the same time...

I don't think it's possible to over-emphasize this point you make, Nick. Jefferson in many ways was a very confusing guy. In some ways it's like reading the Bible. One minute it says this, and then the next minute it says something that appears to be completely contradictory. Jefferson was an enigma. Here's a guy who argued during the continental congress that slavery should be abolished and was rumored to have a black mistress, yet he owned slaves and did not free them upon his death. He was so incredibly impressed and inspired by the intellect and brilliance of Abigail Adams (to the degree that it's quite possible that had she not been married to John he would have made a play for her himself), yet at the same time he dismisses the education of his own daughters with the essential attitude of "you don't need a college degree to cook and sweep the floor." He can really be a puzzling guy and because of that it's so common to see people, who have not spent an enormous amount of time studying Jefferson, take a quote of two from him here and there and make an argument that is completely contrary to what Jefferson would have believed. I reference before that the Jefferson memorial in D.C. includes quotes of his that were misquoted and taken out of context so that it would appear that Jefferson would endorse FDR's New Deal. Pfft....no fucking chance he would go for that. Not in a million years.

And yes, Nick. Jefferson evolved tremendously. When one reads the exchange of letters between Adams and Jefferson after they had retired it really comes into focus how much he had evolved. In those letters here you have this absolutely brilliant legal mind in Adams making arguments on government and policy, but it's pretty much the same old Adams...this staunchy, arrogant, crotchety, old fucker completely self-assured of his intellectual superiority over all other human beings. Then you have Jefferson who is still sitting there thinking "hmmmmm....what if we had done this thing instead?"

Those two guys (and Madison as well) were absolutely amazing but from such dramatically different perspectives. It's no wonder they both died on the same day, 50 years to the day of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

 

[Bfgrn]

If our founding fathers supported such ideals, why did they reject the Articles of Confederation and replace it with a Constitution that clearly strengthened the national government? The founding fathers witnessed the near collapse of our fledgling nation under the Articles of Confederation. That government had allowed so much liberty and pursuit of happiness, that chaos like Shays’s Rebellion had become all too commonplace. So a Constitution was written that gave the national government the power of the sword (military) and the purse (the ability to tax). On top of that, the writers of the Constitution included an “elastic clause” which gave the national government the authority to “stretch “its powers to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities. Some of those responsibilities are found in the Preamble. Our founding fathers stated that two of the purposes of our national Constitution were to “insure domestic tranquility” and “promote the general welfare”. Applying the elastic clause to these principles, the implications of the government’s role in our pursuit of happiness is obvious.

Well I think you are correct in your characterization when comparing the Constitution to the Articles of the Confederation, but I think you over-emphasize the degree to which the FFs embraced expanding the power of the government. There is a reason why the 10th Amendment exists. I have said many times that the FFs made a lot of mistakes and the Articles was one of them. Under the Articles they ran into problems they did not foresee and since the Articles was written in such a way that altering it was not realistic, they had to pitch the whole thing out.

Armed with this new understanding they created the Constitution which addressed the problems with the Articles and included the elasticity, that you correctly mention, that the Articles lacked in order to deal with whatever else came up that they didn't already think of. BUT....they did not do this lightly. They were very careful and wary about making it too elastic. They made is possible but very difficult to amend the Constitution. They included the 10th Amendment which states, in effect, "whatever we haven't specifically addressed is up to the states to deal with".

So yes they understood that they had made the authority of the federal government too weak and inflexible under the Articles, but neither did they endorse going over to the opposite extreme in regard to government control and power. They were willing to give just enough to make it function, and that's it. It's my strong opinion that in no way, shape, or form would they endorse the level of power and control the federal government enjoys today over the lives of the citizenry. There is no way they would endorse an entitlement society. I can't imagine any serious historian who is operating without an agenda trying to claim that the FFs would endorse the federal government's involvement in Social Security, welfare, Obamacare, education (as another poster suggested), etc....not a chance. At best....at the very best....they would say "that's an issue for state government (or in Jefferson's model - town government) but it's not the federal government's concern."

Government must insure that one person’s pursuit of happiness does not prevent another from attaining his/her own happiness. In the end government must serve as some sort of social conscience.....

Well that's a typical liberal point of view. Conservatives don't think that's necessarily the federal government's responsibility. They tend to believe that it's the responsibility of the state and of society as a whole. Social conscience can rarely be achieved through legislation....usually all that is achieved is social resentment. Regardless, the question should be "would the FFs agree with your assessment?" The answer is "some would agree more than others (particularly Jay and Hamilton) but only to a very small degree.". The DRs would completely disagree that it's federal government's responsibility or role. Jefferson's model was that town law would trump state law, which would in turn trump federal law. Jefferson and the DRs would have said "that's an issue for the town or state." Even in the Constitution we see this spelled out very, very clearly in the 10th Amendment, their approach to slavery, etc.

As I said before: Debate and argument over the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Federalist papers has been going on for over 200 years by and between citizens, scholars, theologians and polemics. It is nothing new, and our founder's true intent on many issues has not become any closer to being resolved.

There is no way they would endorse an entitlement society. I can't imagine any serious historian who is operating without an agenda trying to claim that the FFs would endorse the federal government's involvement in Social Security, welfare, Obamacare, education (as another poster suggested), etc....not a chance

WHY? What is it about Social Security, welfare, Obamacare, education, Medicare etc. they would strongly object to? They represent some of the very best things government has done for We, the People. Would our founding fathers be among the crowd that yelled 'let 'em die' at the GOP debates?

WHY does it always boils down that our founding fathers would fully support you right wing social darwinists? Is it arrogance or ignorance?

Social Security and Medicare would not be much use in our founder's day. Very few people lived to a ripe old age. The average lifespan was 33 years.

There would be little call for a health care plan, medicine was still in the medieval apothecary and home remedy age. George Washington probably would have lived longer if he had told Martha to lock the doors at Mt. Vernon and kept the doctors out. His doctors administered bloodletting, bowel evacuation, dried beetles on his throat and rammed toxic compound calomel (Mercury chloride) up his ass! Modern medical professionals believe Washington died of asphyxiation and exsanguination. His doctors killed him!

Please explain what ideology would prevent our founding fathers from supporting programs that have saved millions of lives?

"I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect, and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself." --Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:29

 

[daveman]

The founding fathers opposed voting rights for people who did not own property and did not pay taxes...and you think they would support OWS?!?!?!?

Leftists like to claim the FF were fellow travelers, but the truth is modern leftists would have informed on the revolutionaries to the Crown in order to show their support for big government.

They want to be subjects, not citizens.

conservatism
noun

- disposition in politics to preserve what is established

- a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change

- the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change

Loyalists - Conservapedia

Loyalists were colonists who remained loyal subjects of the British crown as the thirteen American colonies declared independence in 1776 and became the United States of America.

The Loyalists were conservatives who rejected the radicalism of the new nation; those who went to Canada resisted democracy there and became famous for their loyalty to the British crown, their admiration of royalty and aristocracy, and their anti-Americanism.


WOW...the Loyalists description of the Patriots sure sound like today's conservatives description of the OWS crowd...

The Loyalists
In late 1776 Catherine Van Cortlandt wrote to her husband, a New Jersey merchant fighting in a Loyalist brigade, about the Patriot troops who had quartered themselves in her house. "They were the most disorderly of species," she complained, "and their officers were from the dregs of the people."

Like the Van Cortlandts, many Loyalists thought of themselves as the "better sort of people." They viewed their adversaries as "lawless mobs" and "brutes." Conservative,
wealthy, and well-educated, Loyalists of this breed thought a break with Britain would invite anarchy.

Conservatives support small government. Leftists support large, oppressive government.

You would gladly have denounced George Washington as a traitor.

 

[The T]

I had just made this point on Facebook about a day before they eliminated the Discussion Boards. I thought I would post it here since it got deleted there. Besides I think I will get a much better response here.


A frequent thing that seems to come up in political debates and discussions is the political views of the founding fathers: would they be Democrats or Republicans in the modern era? It seems that the answer to this question lends credibility to the argument that anyone tends to make. I would like to address this in detail. The first thing we must do is to define the “founding fathers”. Historians have different definitions of this term. Some include anyone who did something that dramatically and irrevocably altered the path of the United States. By this definition one might include Abraham Lincoln, Susan B. Anthony, or even Franklin Roosevelt. I tend to view this as far too broad as those people had nothing to do with the actual “founding” of the nation.

Other historians include any signatory of the Constitution (USC) or Declaration of Independence (DI) and those who did something significant in order to gain independence or structure the nation. According to this definition (which is what I generally endorse) you see people like Samuel Adams, Thomas Paine, or Abigail Adams. Still others only accept those who signed the USC or DI or participated in the Continental Congresses or Constitutional Conventions. Even with this narrower definition we are still looking at the monumental task of getting inside the heads of well over 250 men who lived 250 years ago.

Fortunately, we can narrow it down even further. This is because those men had a strong tendency to coalesce behind a very few individuals whose opinions, insights, and leadership were really the driving force behind achieving the goals of independence and establishing the structure and philosophy by which the United States would operate. We will call them the “super eight”. Those men are: John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, and James Monroe. Now the first seven stand without debate, but the inclusion of Monroe would require some justification. Doing so thoroughly would take several pages of arguments which I will skip except to say that I have included him because he was a contributing member of both the Constitutional Convention, Virginia House of Delegates which was crucial in regards to the ratification of the USC, and as the 5th POTUS he was instrumental in establishing the course of the nation after the first four presidents dealt more with ensuring the survival of the new republic.

Now that we have them defined we need to define the political spectrum of their times. While there was no “right” or “left” in the 1700s there was most certainly some extreme partisanship between what would eventually be called the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans (DR). Note that the term “Democratic-Republican” is a modern term historians use to distinguish between the Democratic Party that would eventually arise from a vicious dispute between Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams and the Republican Party that arose around Lincoln. At the time, they referred to themselves as “Republicans” but have no direct line of descendancy to the modern Republican Party.

Like today these men did not always agree on everything even within a given political label. There were those that were very hardcore and those that were far more moderate. The following is where each of those men stood in terms of political extremity from Federalist to DR:

Hamilton* – Jay – Adams – Washington – Franklin – Monroe – Madison - Jefferson

Now we have two questions to ask: 1) Where was the political center in the 1700s? and 2) what is the direction on the spectrum from “left” to “right” in regards to Federalists and DRs? The answer to the first question is very easily answered. Washington was the political center….the exact center may be JUST SLIGHTLY to the right of Washington as he tended to favor the Federalists more than the DRs but not by much. Indeed, Washington was an Independent who refused to affiliate himself with either side and he spoke strongly against the formal development of ANY political party. His policies and views on government; however, had a SLIGHT Federalist lean.

The answer to the second question gets a little trickier. What would be Jefferson or Jay’s position on abortion, for example? To some degree it could be argued that the answer would depend on the time frame. If abortion (as we know it today) was a common institution in 1770 one can see Jefferson opposing it because in those days people needed large families. They relied on their sons to help work the farm or operate their business. They relied on their daughters to help maintain the home and do light gardening. Children were absolutely vital in regard to maintaining property and in turn contributing to the community. As such Jefferson would likely see abortion as an economic disaster that hindered society’s ability to survive and thrive. As such he would probably oppose it. Now if Jefferson was alive in 2011, he would likely notice that a large family is not vital in maintaining property and prosperity and in fact can be an economic hindrance. Given Jefferson’s staunch belief in state’s rights, a strong argument could be made that today he would say that abortion should be left to the states to determine for themselves. So in regards to questions like abortion, just as an example, we have to concede that we really can’t say WHAT they would think with any overwhelming degree of certainty, and again it also depends on the context of time (1770 vs. 2011).

We CAN; however, look at their positions on other moral issues to gain some insight. If we consider slavery, for example, and limit it to a moral question (ignoring the economic arguments for or against slavery) we begin to realize that ALL of these men were opposed to slavery strictly on moral grounds. While many of them owned slaves, their support of slavery was economic in nature. Jefferson described it as “holding a snake by the head. It’s the last thing you want to do but you don’t dare let it go.” If we equate the moral question of slavery to the moral question of abortion, the evidence would suggest that all of them would likely be pro-life and the Federalist side (which was tenaciously against slavery) would be HEAVILY pro-life. Now again this is just one example of a multitude of social issues that didn’t exist at the time and upon which I am simply relying on their other views to…well…take an educated guess. The reality is we really don’t know how they would feel.

What we CAN look at and draw a very specific alignment from; however, is each side’s positions on taxation, the size of government, the scope of government, and the power balance between the federal government and the states. The Federalists, as their name would imply, favored a larger and stronger central government, heavier levels of taxation, higher levels of federal control over a greater number of issues, and the balance of power to favor the federal government over the states. The DRs were just the opposite in every degree. Given this we can very safely set the modern day “left” to coincide with the Federalists, and the modern day “right” to coincide with the Democratic-Republicans. This alignment is further backed up by each party’s positions on free trade, the foreign relations, the role of the military, interstate commerce, etc. As such we can VERY confidently put the DRs cleanly in the camp of modern day Republicans.

But we have one further question to answer: has the political center shifted since the 18th century? Just because Adams, for example, was a Federalist back then and we have established that Federalists were on the “left” in the 18th century, has the political center shifted to such a degree that Adams would be a Republican today, regardless of his disagreements with the DRs? The short answer is “there’s absolutely no question about it.” The political center has shifted left to the degree that the spectrum I posted above would go from Washington as the political center to Jay as the political center and he would land just SLIGHTLY right of center in today’s climate. The reason why is a question of degrees.

While it’s true that the Federalists favored stronger central government, a more expansive central government, higher levels of taxation, etc, never in a million years did they intend for the federal government to have THIS MUCH power and influence on the lives of the citizens. Indeed Jay and Adams flipped a bitch when they were asked if they favored extending voting rights to those who didn’t pay taxes or own property. They were against taxation without representation but they were equally against representation without taxation. Dealing with the poor was, in their opinion, an issue for the state and the church and for the DRs, an issue for the individual communities to worry about. In fact Adams commented “next you will want voting rights for the town drunk.” The entitlement culture regarding social security, welfare, Obamacare, etc….the Federalists would have an absolute conniption fit and the DRs would flat out have a coronary and drop dead. In regards to tax money going to assist illegal immigrants even the Federalists would have an absolute, 100% heart attack. They favored a larger and more powerful government ONLY to the degree that was necessary to maintain the security of the nation, enhance foreign trade, and moderate disputes between the states. That was ALL. By contrast, the DRs felt that, with the exception of national security, it was all up to the states to figure out for themselves.

When one understands this they begin to see VERY clearly that in today’s climate, the Federalists have far more in common with the Republican Party, while the Democratic-Republicans have far more in common with the Tea Party.

Now I have to explain the asterisk in regards to Alexander Hamilton. All the other men may have disagreed upon the best way for the United States to be structured, how power should be balanced, etc but ALL of them had the desire for the nation to grow, firmly establish itself, and proceed as a republic. Initially, Hamilton may have had the same motivation as well but very quickly his motivation changed. He really wanted some extreme levels of taxation and federal power, even the degrees of which we see today, NOT because he necessarily thought it was best for the people but because it was best for HIM. It was Hamilton’s intention to build an economy that was highly subservient to the federal government and backed up by a powerful military that would protect our trading ships AND enforce taxation and policy within the United States. Now why this is important is because HE was the Secretary of the Treasury and he fully intended to be the top commander in the military. In such a scenario the office of the presidency and congress would become dependent upon HIM (they would essentially be his puppets) and HE would control government. His failure to accomplish that, because Adams had the audacity to actually think he was in charge, is precisely why Adams only served one term. When it became clear that Adams was not going to allow Hamilton to take over, Hamilton launched a VICIOUS political attack (strongly supplemented by Jefferson) that destroyed Adams. Adams was essentially getting hammered by both sides. So while Hamilton endorsed a government system that is most in line with today’s Democratic Party, it’s not because he felt that was the best thing for America. It’s because that was his key to dominating and controlling government and through it becoming, essentially a dictator who operated a figurehead government.

Suggestions that the founding fathers would be modern day Democrats can only be explained by ignorance of history, misunderstanding of the views of the founders, or propaganda from the left. And we see this propaganda all the time. On the Jefferson Memorial, for example, the quotes inscribed are misquotes or partial quotes, or taken out of context. They are inscribed that way because it was an effort to suggest that Jefferson would have supported the New Deal. Pfft…good bloody luck. Jefferson just might have organized another rebellion had he been alive to see THAT one. But while there may be an occasional issue here or there that the founders might have looked at and said “yeah on this one we would agree with the Democrats”, as a whole, considering the collective political philosophy of each party, there’s simply ZERO CHANCE that they would endorse a modern liberal view of government.

Back in those times? You had 1/3 that sided with Independence, 1/3 that sided with the Crown, and the other 1/3rd that didn't wish to take sides, but were more often than not forced to in some form or fashion after the hostilities broke out. Most sided with Independence seeing the tyranny and being directly subject to it.

And one minor note? Being called a Democrat in those times was a major slur that would have erupted into duels...

Liberty or bust.