Founding fathers mysticism?

Great Debates
1

There’s something really peculiar to the US : the reverence for the founding fathers.
First, they benefit from a a lot of respect. That it understandable, due to the important role they played in US history, though for instance, one would expect to read from time to time a post or article basically saying : “was X a moron?”. After all they weren’t saints, and their positive actions don’t obviously make it for they arguable opinions (slavery immediatly comes to mind, but I guess an american would be aware of a lot more issues)
But it goes beyond that. On quite any issue, sooner or later, someone will quote the founding fathers. I can’t think of any country where such a thing would happen. Also, they seem to have a kind of absolute authority. Quite always, once a founding father is quoted, either the the statement stay unchallenged, either the debate switch to " did he really meant that or did you misunderstood his intents/thoughts?". Nobody ever answer along the line “who cares what this guy said?”

I can’t think of any western country where you could find a remotedly similar situation. Of course, someone could quote some famous philosopher, politician, etc…to support his opinion or claims. But there are no group of individuals who would be so overwhelmingly quoted as the founding fathers in the US, let alone being considered has having any kind of absolute authority. Actually, the opinion of someone who lived 200 years ago would in most be considered as not being very relevant when a current issue is debatted.

From the point of view of a foreigner, it seems very similar to a religious attitude. Some people (like the apostoles, the father of the church…) have an absolute authority and the debate focuses on the interpretation of their intents (like the interpretation of the bible for a religious person), not on the value of their opinion (“were they right or wrong?” or plainly “their opinion is irrelevant, give us facts and arguments instead of quotes”).

I tend to suppose (perhaps I’m wrong) that for an american accustomed to this situation, my comparison could appear as an intellectual, possibly somewhat artificial construction. But it is not so. I really perceive it that way. Reading a debate amongst american about a current issue, I often feel the same that reading an argument amongst christians, throwing bible’s verses in the middle of the discussion.

So, my questions would be :

How do you explain the very peculiar “holy” status of the founding fathers in the US?

On an individual basis, do you think that the opinions of these people should be considered as very important/relevant, especially when refering to the modern society?

Any other comment welcomed…

2

The Religious Character of American Patriotism, written in 1987 (and revised in 1994) by Frederick Edwords.

3

The founding fathers were the architects of the system of government- or the software designers, if you will. One doesn’t go lopping off portions of code or deleting files without some understanding of what the effect will be on the program.

A good chunk of our reality is a human construct- our laws, customs, values, morality, etc., and our Constitution, Bill of Rights is a reflection of those values and have served us well. So, it only makes sense to understand the motivations of the very people who designed the fabric of our government.

Holding them to our present day standards of counduct isn’t remotely fair; and they should be recognized for being forward-looking enough to realize they were ‘wrong’ in areas like slavery. The current round of bashing is rather contemptible and can lead to no good. They weren’t saints, but neither are we.

4

I think I see Kant quoted-- or at least referenced-- at least as much as the FF. Maybe its just me, though.

5

**

I think nations that have recently gone through radical revolutionary changes probably put a lot of weight in what their founders said. The USSR had Lenin, China has Mao, and the United States has Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, and a whole slew of founders.

On the other hand let’s take a look at England. About the earliest great English king I can think of is Alfred the Great. The English government is not the same government it was when Alfred ruled. So who cares what Alfred has to say about how the English government should work? The United States on the other hand has had the same government since 1787. So what Washington or Jefferson had to say is often times still applicable today.

Marc

6

This is an attempt to set the record straight for the individual who posted the article. It appears to me that he/she, (I will use he) is not an American. I do not pretend to speak for everyone. I do however, know the answers to many of his questions.

Speaking on the slavery issue, Almost all Americans at that time opposed slavery. Jefferson commented later in life that the thing he regretted most in his life, was that he allowed Ben Franklin, and James Madison to convince him to remove the paragraph condemning black slavery from the Declaration of Independence. Yes he had slaves, Jefferson would have set his free in a second, if all were forced to do so. But to set his free, while no one else did, would have meant financial ruin(he owned a plantation) and his place in history would have been lost. He removed it to unify the southern colonies into the supporting the separation idea.

On the matter of quoting these men the facts are clear. They are philosophers, who built on the writings of others before them. The Englishman John Locke, was clearly the most influential theorist, on the Founding fathers. Without going into detail simply see his two famous essays
An Essay Concerning Human Understanding and
The True Original Extent and End of Civil Government, also know as The Second Treatise on Government. Many web sites will supply these documents.

If you study these documents, Particularly Chapters 1,2,5,7,8,17,and 18 of The Second Treatise, (found at http://www.swan.ac.uk/poli/texts/locke/lockcont.htm )
you will begin to understand the quotes and the reasons that the words are considered not only correct, but indisputable.

Locke proved many things in his writings. Things which can not be disputed. A couple are the state of nature, and the right to property. But his ideals go much deeper, they form the basis for why man enters into society. They explain why man forms government, and his right to determine the powers of government. Most importantly is mankind’s right to abolish government which does not adhere to the wishes of the people. Argue all you will with these statements, but once you read his writings you will be forever changed in your perception of law, and human rights.

In conclusion, the relavance of the quotes of the Founding Fathers, will always remain deeply rooted in the advancement and freedom of mankind throughout the world. This is the reason people are unable to argue with the quotes, (for the most part) the reason they are excepted as fact. Because they are indisputable. Simply look at the Soviet Union, and other countries as the suggle toward self determination.

Replys welcome after you read writings

7

The British do seem to be fond of quoting some of their more influential PMs in this fashion - the ones that shaped the state. Disreali (who’s name I think I’m misspelling) comes to mind.

Regarding the OP, our law is based on the documents these men wrote. And it takes a substantial amount of effort to change law based on these documents. Hence, a substantial amount of effort goes it to determining what these men actually wrote. In order to determine that, we need to know who they were and what they wrote outside of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

If we don’t like it, we CAN amend the constitution…but first we have to know what it says. And changing it is a major pain in the butt. So, often, a founding fathers quote that proves a point will trump.

8

Flame me for being a heretic, but whoever wins the war gets to write the history. The FF were criminals. John Hancock was a smuggler, for christ’s sake. That’s why he signed his name so big–it was a slap in the face to the King of England. The Boston Tea Party happened so that people who were desperate for tea would buy their smuggled, illegal goods.

If they hadn’t won, they’d have all the philosophical cachet of Dave Koresh.

9

Because in a nation of laws, it’s not possible to just say “to heck with the intent of those who wrote the laws.” If we feel that the values in those laws are no longer applicable to us, then we must go through the legal process of changing/updating those laws…if the issue we feel is outdated was, in fact, addressed in those laws in the first place. So it’s important to understand the intent of the founding fathers in interpreting law.

10

Because it’s easy to find, in the Constitution itself or the surrounding commentary by its writers, support for almost any position one wants to take. Rather than defending or opposing a position on an issue on its merits, it’s easy to cite a relevant passage and thereby try to shut off a debate which might lead to a less-favorable result. There is actually a school of Constitutional study that enshrines that as “Strict Constructionism”, despite its clear result-oriented interpretation techniques. Scalia and Bork are members of it, even though their interpretations are plainly rationalizations rather than adherence to the principles they state.

One of the most prominent examples of such result-oriented interpretation is the endless quoting of the second half of the Second Amendment, and refusal to address the first half - even though it’s just a single sentence.

That is in spite of the text in the document itself, and much of the surrounding commentary, about how the Founding Fathers knew the country would change, that they knew they couldn’t predict how, that succeeding generations would have to address the same issues and would have to have a way to amend the document. They plainly saw the Constitution as a living document, not a set of stone tablets they were retrieving from Mount Sinai with the Word of God.

In short, idolatry of that bunch of fellow well-meaning humans is a way to avoid debate, or thinking from first principles, or even considering what first principles are. IMHO the Founding Fathers themselves would first laugh, and then be frightened, to find that they were viewed as anything more than serious citizens.

11

  1. Locke significantly influenced the Declaration; I have recently been convinced that Montesquieu had more influence on the Constitution itself (separation of powers).

  2. Locke wrote about extremely interesting ideas; to say he “proved” the state of nature (more typically thought of as Hobbes’ principal idea) and the right to property doesn’t make sense semantically and you will find plenty of people who will dispute whether Locke’s formulation of how to understand these things is the best we can do.

  3. You may want to reconsider your phrasing when you suggest readings–people on message boards want to discuss and, provided they don’t spout certainty with respect to things they haven’t read, the conversation goes much better when we try to include people with a genuine curiosity.

To the OP: this interesting article by Harvey Mansfiled, a well-respected scholar, contains a paragraph which struck me as true: the founders were very well-educated and wrote very well–so much so that we should rightly be embarrassed that there is no group of citizens today who could write anything like The Federalist in pursuit of a cause.

12

To take a slightly different tack. The fondness for quoting founding fathers is an offshoot of one of the varieties of Constitutional interpretation. In the US, we have a few “theme” arguments to make when debating what constitutional law means, for example, citing precedent. One of these themes is reference to the original intent of the ratifers of the Constitution. One style of argument is an attempt to determine what the Constitution meant to those people who decided it was a good idea to use as a form of government. But, determining what all the ratifers had in mind is not easy. This is part of the reason that the Federalist Papers are often cited - they were written to persuade ratification.
The founding fathers fit into this two ways. First, what they said is relatively easy to find in comparison to what ratifers had in mind. And second, people misunderstand this style of argument and refer to it as the original intent of the founding fathers. The ff certainly had powerful beliefs and very likely had strong feelings about the documents they authored, but their thoughts aren’t as important to the meaning of the document as the thoughts of the people who gave it legal effect.

To the first part of the OP, I find it hard to belief that the US is singular in its reference to its founding fathers. In my experience, many countries still refer to the people or person who gave that country shape. The Kurds, for example, still tell of the man who overthrew a tyrant to create their country. That happen a few thousand years ago. Our founding Fathers had much to say about the government they fought to create. As long as we stick to this form of government, and find something to argue about, we’ll likely still refer to them.

13

Bingo! I couldn’t have said it better. It’s a similar parallel to people invoking the bible in social or moral debates.

14

Perhaps part of the reason for the penchance of Americans to quote the FFs is the relatively young age of the United States? 200-some-years is just a drop in the bucket compared to how long countries like England, France, and (pre-Mao) China have been around, after all.

15

Since they wrote the Constitution itself, it’s only logical to quote them. Other rationalizations are just smoke and mirrors, typically by those who want to twist their words to their own ends.

16

It’s a combination of factors.

First, there’s a nice clear line where US history begins. Before Washington, Jefferson, Adams, et al there was no US. Afterwards there was, and it’s the same goverment we have today. (There were some murky times in there during the Articles of Confederation, but we just ignore 'em.) Not every country can say that. For example, you can’t point to a single point in English history and say, “This is when England began.”

Second, the founding fathers did not screw up in any major way … in the short term. Lots of countries have rather awkward early histories, where the history books contain a lot of “he was great despite major flaws…” and “one step forward, two step back” explanations. (cough Like France cough) Not in the US. Once Hamilton had cleared up the financial mess of the Revolution, the US was on firm footing, with no awkward coups, government collapses, or rebellions to worry about. (Except for Shay’s rebellion and the War of 1812, which really just goes to show how dull early US history is compared to the early history of other nations.)

Of course, slavery was a ticking time bomb, but it didn’t go off until the founders were dead and their reputations secure.

Third, as others have said, people obssess over the founders because what they said is still legally relevant for the application of the day-to-day law, e.g. the debate over gun control. This isn’t true in countries that have gone through many constitutions since they were founded. (cough Like France cough)

Of course, it has turned into a sort of religious cult (even among atheists!) The most troubling aspect of the cult is the widespread assumption that the founding fathers were a bunch of perfect, divinely inspired geniuses who agreed about everything. Of course, a quick look at the record will show that they were instead a bunch of cantankerous, occasionally crackpot schemers who disagreed about everything. But we can’t bear to think of them as mere politicians, so we enshrine them as saints.

17

Very interesting reading. Thanks.

18

Hijack

Elvis:

This was addressed, by myself and Anthracite.

You ignored or discarded as factually inconvenient the relevant U.S. Code and grammatical evidence we cited, and never directly responded to either of our posts with anything more than a dismissive attitude.

[/Hijack]

Time has indeed worn the rough edges off of the personalities of the FF, but the genius displayed in the Constitution is still with us.

It did not try to be all-inclusive, and had the mechanisms of revision built into it.

And in spite of their differences of opinion, they did eventually agree and sign the damned thing. I doubt such bipartisanship could be found in todays political leadership.

You’d either get the smug, condescending attitude of the left, or the smug, sanctimonious attitude of the right, and a deadlock on the issue.

But when it comes to proposed changes in the Constitution (like some people who want to take white-out to the 2nd. Ad.), I can only recall the words of Thomas Jefferson:

-and-

19

Yes, but in my opinion in goes far beyond mere attempts to understand their intent. It looks more like a will to follow their intents, without questionning them that much. Also, in other countries, such attempts would usually be made mainly by scholars, not by ordinary citizens. Not that it’s a bad thing. But at least a peculiarity.

Certainly, it’s not fair. But at least it casts some shade on their ability to design solution which can take place in the modern world and its set of values.

Also, I quoted slavery out of ignorance (I don’t have any knowledge about the founding fathers), but I suspect that like any other human beings, they have other flaws and have proven wrong on numerous instance. So, one would expect that at least some people would question the reverence they benefit from…

20

Usurper,

Concerning slavery, as I said before, it was only an example,and I already replied in my previous post.

I took note of your recommandations concerning Locke. However, I strongly doubt that the words of a philosopher would be considered as “undisputable”, as “proving” something even by someone who has a great admiration for the said philosopher. That’s not philosophical vocabulary.
Also, though his words obviously have a strong appeal to you, stating that reading them will “forever change your perception” of everybody is illusionary, IMO.

Actually, most of the content of your post sounded very “religious” in nature for me. If you replace “Locke” by “God” and his writings by “bible” in your post, you’ll perhaps understand what I mean (or by “Marx” and “The Capital” for that matter)

Also, even assuming you’re right, Locke isn’t “the founding fathers”. So, he could be the most enlightened philosopher ever without explaining my original question. Actually, I don’t think I often saw Locke mentionned in most of the debates concerning american society, contrarily to them.

And by the way, is there a kind of “official list” of the founding fathers, or is it a more blurry concept?

Indeed, I’m not american (I thought it would be obvious)