# If the Founding Fathers could see us now **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 20, 2012, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-founding-fathers-could-see-us-now/644640 "2012-12-20T17:21:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2012, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-founding-fathers-could-see-us-now/644640/41 "2012-12-20T22:43:00Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > If the whole point of the Revolution was to free the country from an overbearing “do what you’re told, you goddamn peasants” government, they would almost certainly conclude based on our country today that they had failed. The “whole point of the Revolution” was so George Washington and Ben Franklin could make money as land speculators in Arkadelphia. Well, almost the whole point. There was a practical issue with the money supply which argued for local sovereignty–and which doesn’t really apply to today’s fiat-money, welfare-state economy, in case you’re wondering–but it was largely a land grab for profit, literally _those two guys’_ profit. Sorry, but all this stuff about how awesome the Founders were is just the bamboozled confusion of suckers inside the cult. In future, when thinking about how awesome the leaders of the USA tell you the USA is, consider that the country most like us in disturbing ways is the Union of South Africa (Apartheid era). Imagine someone saying that the founders of the USA–Union of South Africa–were the greatest legal philosophers ever! No, sorry. The Founders’ reputations benefit from the ignorance of what they actually were: Godless, treacherous, corrupt, neighbor-killing, treaty-breaking pirates, reavers, and scofflaws–as opposed to the sainted figures of myth. And the Constitution is misinterpreted by people who lack the historical education to understand what the Founders were about and the context in which they lived. That said, once they had power, they had to use it responsibly enough not to be absorbed back into a European empire. Shockingly, they managed to pull this off. For the record, the Second Amendment is about the ability of the nation to police itself. Private gun ownership was not its purpose, and indeed the words “private,” “gun,” (nor “firearm”) and “own” are not in it. A distribution of arms to a militia (like the Swiss militia today, an organized citizen defense force) was a means to secure the actual purpose: the security of the community. The Bill of Rights was written during a weird period in history where there were no professional police forces in the English-speaking world; citizens had to bear arms on behalf of their communities. It’s arguable that the whole militia paradigm was rendered obsolete by the introduction of French-style professional police forces. It’s _alternatively_ arguable that we should go back to citizen militia. But “Second Amendment advocates” usually don’t know enough about history to even make that kind of argument. But since the point was never just “keep and bear arms” (which is not “own and sell guns” btw) but rather “keep and bear arms _in order to maintain security_,” if our present gun laws _don’t_ maintain security as well as a tight gun control _régime_ would, then we best serve the actual purpose of the Second by instituting a tighter gun control _régime._ However scummy the Revolutionaries were, the Framers (many of the same guys) managed to avoid social disintegration by writing a functional set of basic civil laws (the 1787 Constitution) and letting the judiciary maintain English Common Law. But it was a functional set of laws for the time, and still deeply, deeply flawed. There were still the Nullification Crisis, the War Between the States, Jim Crow, and the malignancy of the more recent Conservative Movement to come. We emulate the best of our avaricious, rebellious, genocidal, infidel, slaver forebears not by copying the bad stuff, but by trying to do the right thing with power, like one shockingly halfway decent thing they did with power once they robbed it at swordpoint: Write laws that work for the good of our people. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2012, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-founding-fathers-could-see-us-now/644640/42 "2012-12-20T23:07:40Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > No, the purpose of the Revolution was to found a country . . . No, it wasn’t, actually – the Patriots already **had** a country (as distinct from a state); and a nation/people who had developed some cultural commonalities while growing culturally distinct from the British. What they wanted was, essentially, to keep it. From [_The American Way of Strategy,_](http://www.amazon.com/American-Way-Strategy-Michael-Lind/dp/0195308379/sr=8-1/qid=1166282273/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-9788122-0265632?ie=UTF8&s=books) by Michael Lind: > [@](#): > > Many people remember vaguely that the American Revolution had something to do with taxes. A few remember that the issue was whether the power to tax lay with London or the American colonies. But this was a surrogate for the real issue: preserving the American way of life. > > In the first two-thirds of the eighteenth century, the British colonists in North America developed a distinctive way of life quite different from that of their British cousins. Something like Britain’s aristocratic society endured in the South and parts of the Northeast. But in general, colonial society was characterized by a degree of middle-class prosperity and widespread property ownership unknown in any other society in the world. Not only were America’s yeoman farmers, artisans, and merchants better off than most Britons and Europeans, but also the cost of government was much lower. > > The trouble began in the aftermath of the French and Indian War (Seven Years’ War) of 1754-63. The British imperial government insisted that the colonists pay more of the costs of their own defense. The colonists, however, feared that the London parliament was trying to destroy the system of colonial self-government that had grown up in the preceding generations. They remembered that the London parliament had destroyed the Scottish parliament in 1707 (it would eliminate the Irish parliament in 1801). They feared that the same thing was now happening to them. They would pay ever higher taxes, even as their colonial assemblies lost authority to the London parliament. As a result, British North America might come to resemble Ireland or Scotland, impoverished countries where absentee landlords held vast tracts of land and where major decisions were made by well-connected aristocrats and merchants in London with little or no accountability to the people whom they ruled. > > \ > > This history may be familiar but the point is not. For Americans, the independence of the United States from Britain and its organization as a democratic republic was a means to an end, not an end in itself. The end was the safeguarding of the communal right to self-government and the individual liberties that the British settlers in America had already enjoyed for generations under British rule. Americans adopted their own strategy for defending the American way of life against imperial centralization – independence as a democratic republic – only because their first choice, self-government within a federal monarchical empire, was rejected. Democratic republicanism and national independence were only two of several possible methods for preserving what by 1776 was the traditional American way of life, characterized by personal liberty, widespread property ownership, low taxes, and an inexpensive military. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2012, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-founding-fathers-could-see-us-now/644640/43 "2012-12-20T23:18:44Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Yes, but it’s a useful milestone when discussing shifts in what is considered the proper role and powers of the government. That’s the sense in which I intended it. You really should go back and read what the\* Lochner \*court [actually did.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lochner_era) They were much bigger ideologues and much more activist than most of the later social liberals that followed. > [@artemis](#): > > But I do think they’d be having a cow over warrantless wiretapping, and extraordinary rendition, and the President declaring he can unilaterally declare an American citizen on foreign soil a terrorist and have him executed without any judicial review. Eh, Washington would probably be OK with it. > [@](#): > > And I think they’d be appalled at the degree of influence money has over our political system. Some of them, maybe. But some blatantly used presses they owned to Berlusconi themselves into power. > [@](#): > > They’d hate our huge standing army as well, along with our country’s propensity to meddle in conflicts all across the globe. This they would hate, yes. (Well, some of them.) > [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > [snip] > > However, for the RON PAUL types, the fact is that _they already tried this_. > > […] > > So yeah, people instill their own biases into these kinds of discussions. But it seems difficult for me to understand how even the most earnest states rights folks can ascribe their views to the founding fathers when it already failed under their own watch, no time machines needed. > > When some will completely ignore something as important and obvious as the failure of the Articles of the Confederation and come to the cockamamie conclusion that the founding fathers would be on your side - even when they already tried it your way and it was a dismal failure - shows that some are quite willing to suspend logic in the name of Dogma. This is an absolutely brilliant post. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2012, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-founding-fathers-could-see-us-now/644640/44 "2012-12-20T23:30:29Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > I contend that if the Founding Fathers could see us now they would conclude that the Constitution that replaced the Articles of Confederation went overboard 180 degrees the opposite direction. They replaced the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution because they saw the Articles were a failure and the country was not going to last very long if they were not replaced. > [@](#): > > If the whole point of the Revolution was to free the country from an overbearing “do what you’re told, you goddamn peasants” government, they would almost certainly conclude based on our country today that they had failed. I guess you’re going to argue that health insurance mandates or speed limits or education requirements are as bad as rule by King George III, and you’re wrong, because those actions (even if you personally don’t like them) are the acts of an elected representative government. The Founding Fathers had a very low opinion of “the peasants” and mostly wanted to make sure that they - the people with money and land - had a say in the formation of their own government. They achieved that. They espoused a lot of admirable ideas but they often fell way, way short of living up to them. In some ways we’re much closer to achieving their ideals than they were. Seriously now: if a bunch of aristocratic 18th-century slaveowners who thought women and non-property owners didn’t deserve to vote and thought Native Americans were an inconvenience wanted to tell me that the government I voted for is too tyrannical, I would have no problem telling them to fuck off. > [@Don't we have an obligation as a society to look at ways to curb gun violence?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-we-have-an-obligation-as-a-society-to-look-at-ways-to-curb-gun-violence/641871/310): > > I expect he means that they were intelligent, educated, thoughtful men who put a lot of time, effort and care into crafting the foundations of our system of government. This is in contrast to people who wish to make sweeping and immediate changes while in the throes of heightened emotions. They never would have done anything as rash as stage an armed rebellion over taxes. That snide remark to one side, this is a question I think about on a semi-regular basis. They would be stunned by a lot of elements of our government, I think. It’s easy to conclude they would think the government has become much too large, but then again, I doubt any of them ever imagined the United States would become a technologically advanced country of 310 million people or that the national and global economies could function as they do now. There were less than 3 million citizens of the 13 colonies (not counting the slaves, of course). State and local governments still have a significant amount of power even though there government has become more federalized. They might not approve of the idea that every adult is allowed to vote regardless of race, gender, or ownership of property, but then again, consider how much more education people get now than they did 230 years ago even though idiots are not in short supply. They probably wouldn’t approve of the direct election of Senators. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2012, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-founding-fathers-could-see-us-now/644640/45 "2012-12-20T23:47:43Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > No, sorry. The Founders’ reputations benefit from the ignorance of what they actually were: Godless, treacherous, corrupt, neighbor-killing, treaty-breaking pirates, reavers, and scofflaws-- . . . “Arrgghh, me hearties! A penny stole is a penny earned!” – “Blackheart Ben” Franklin, Captain of the _Roving Letch_ ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2012, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-founding-fathers-could-see-us-now/644640/46 "2012-12-20T23:54:36Z")
They would realize the Constitution failed as a document to protect individual liberty. Also, they would realize that the republican system they devised to limit the government power was remarkably effective for many years before it was overcome by the tyranny of the majority. Finally, they would have instantly regretted omitting the right to secede to states and individuals. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-founding-fathers-could-see-us-now/644640/47 "2012-12-21T00:00:00Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > they would have instantly regretted omitting the right to secede to states and individuals. Not at all. Did a single Constitutional Convention participant support the New England states that threatened to secede in 1814? No less than James Madison was president at the time. Was he supportive? The idea that anybody would have endorsed the idea of letting _individuals_ secede is even more ridiculous. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-founding-fathers-could-see-us-now/644640/48 "2012-12-21T00:15:34Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Not at all. Did a single Constitutional Convention participant support the New England states that threatened to secede in 1814? No less than James Madison was president at the time. Was he supportive? The idea that anybody would have endorsed the idea of letting _individuals_ secede is even more ridiculous. Well, as you know, supporting the right to secede is different than supporting secession in the particular instance you are referring to. Did Madison threaten war on New England if they went through with secession? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-founding-fathers-could-see-us-now/644640/49 "2012-12-21T00:41:33Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Well, as you know, supporting the right to secede is different than supporting secession in the particular instance you are referring to. I didn’t ask about supporting secession. I asked about the right to secede. Did President Madison, the primary author of the Bill of Rights, or any of the surviving Founders in any way acknowledge that the states of the pissed-off conventioneers had the right to secede or indicate that the Constitution should have granted them that right? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-founding-fathers-could-see-us-now/644640/50 "2012-12-21T00:52:18Z")
Would people of George Washington’s generation be surprised that we consider the United States to be our country instead of Virginia? Probably. The United States didn’t exist when Washington was born so it’s not surprising he felt Virginia was more “real” than the country he had seen created in his onw lifetime. But so what? We don’t live in George Washington’s time. Augustine Washington, George’s father, died in 1743 - he would have been surprised to see his son’s generation putting their loyalty to Virginia above their loyalty to Britain. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-founding-fathers-could-see-us-now/644640/51 "2012-12-21T00:57:52Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I didn’t ask about supporting secession. I asked about the right to secede. Did President Madison, the primary author of the Bill of Rights, or any of the surviving Founders in any way acknowledge that the states of the pissed-off conventioneers had the right to secede or indicate that the Constitution should have granted them that right? No. Madison explictly said that states did not have the right to secede. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-founding-fathers-could-see-us-now/644640/52 "2012-12-21T01:04:31Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > No. Madison explictly said that states did not have the right to secede. Then it seems pretty unlikely they would have wished they had granted states (or individuals!) the right to secede. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-founding-fathers-could-see-us-now/644640/53 "2012-12-21T01:14:32Z")
Personally, I’d love to see the Founding Fathers not just see us now, but take a tour of the country’s history, kinda like the Christmas Carol’s Ghost of Christmas Future, except with multiple stops. First stop could be the antellbellum South, so they could see that slavery didn’t just phase itself out economically. Maybe give them a little time in the skin of a slave, so they might understand that their inability to take a solid stance against slavery (or actually being pro-slavery), caused all but irreparable harm to our country. Then show them the Civil War, the lack of willpower to fight for true equality, Jim Crow, the civil rights movement, and all the current problems our country has had, and continue to have with race relations. Throw in a trip to the slaughters of Native Americans. Maybe then they’d wake the fuck up. Maybe then we could take them to view the Civil War again, so they could witnesses firsthand the deaths of hundreds of thousands of US citizens because the whole state’s rights thing didn’t really work out so well as some of them anticipated. Maybe we could add stops to see woman’s sufferage, the effect of unregulated greed of huge companies, the Great Depression, the increase in power taken by the President when we are at war, including the imagined war against terror, and the dozens of other big events in this country’s history. That would be interesting. But you know what would likely happen. Some of the Founding Fathers would be appalled by the big federal government, some would be appalled that it took a Civil War to deal with slavery and state’s rights, and some would be thinking we didn’t go far enough. Because anyone who thinks the Founding Fathers had one coherent view of all of these issues, or anyone who thinks the FF would speak with one voice on the multitude of issues, simply hasn’t been paying attention. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-founding-fathers-could-see-us-now/644640/54 "2012-12-21T01:25:06Z")
Given the opportunity to see contemporary America, I expect that Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Monroe, and even Franklin would be too paralyzed by future shock to have meaningful opinions. ETA: Given that at least two of those gentlemen might well have owned me had I been alive during their time, and would have declined to free me before their deaths if even then, I don’t see why I should give a damn what they’d think on issues of social justice. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-founding-fathers-could-see-us-now/644640/55 "2012-12-21T02:02:17Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I didn’t ask about supporting secession. I asked about the right to secede. Did President Madison, the primary author of the Bill of Rights, or any of the surviving Founders in any way acknowledge that the states of the pissed-off conventioneers had the right to secede or indicate that the Constitution should have granted them that right? What would that have to do with my assertion? The hypothetical involves the founders knowing all of US history up until today. I suggest that, armed with this knowledge, they would regret omitting a right to secede in the Constitution. In your example, the founders had no knowledge of the transformation of the federal government that was to take place from their respective deaths until today. You don’t seem to be grasping the hypothetical nature of this thread. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-founding-fathers-could-see-us-now/644640/56 "2012-12-21T02:11:41Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > What would that have to do with my assertion? The hypothetical involves the founders knowing all of US history up until today. I suggest that, armed with this knowledge, they would regret omitting a right to secede in the Constitution. In your example, the founders had no knowledge of the transformation of the federal government that was to take place from their respective deaths until today. So the fact that they addressed that exact same thing (or more accurately, didn’t address it in the manner you desire) doesn’t dissuade you from thinking that maybe the founding fathers have a dim view of secession. Because you can invent a situation (like, maybe those states have become infected with zombies!) where they think leaving the country that they helped found despite the fact that when a situation that did come up while they were around, they were not on your side at all. This is exactly what I was saying about Dogma trumping logic in these discussions. There is no evidence that you are right about this. There is direct evidence that you are wrong about it. Yet, you cling to your predisposed views anyway, logic be damned. It’s pretty simple, dude: The scenario came up. Not a single one of them said “you know, there may be situations where it makes sense to secede, but this isn’t one of them,” which is something that I - who makes no claim to be as wise as the founding fathers - say all the time to my 10-year old when a ton of situations come up. You’d figure that one of them would have wrote down in a letter or in a speech that they felt this way, especially when a secession was happening right in front of their faces. That someone would have said that “while I agree that states should be able to secede, not now and not for this.” Yet, you remain undeterred that your view is correct, all evidence and logic be damned. Just like **Lumpy** and his “states rights” nonsense. It would be comical if it wasn’t so sad. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-founding-fathers-could-see-us-now/644640/57 "2012-12-21T02:23:15Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > What would that have to do with my assertion? I don’t think this is really that complicated. You proposed that they would have supported the right of states and individuals to secede. I pointed out that some of them actually faced a secession situation and did not support the right of states to secede. To me, that makes it unlikely they would have come around to your position. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-founding-fathers-could-see-us-now/644640/58 "2012-12-21T02:27:12Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > … The hypothetical involves the founders knowing all of US history up until today. I suggest that, armed with this knowledge, they would regret omitting a right to secede in the Constitution. … Exactly what in that history would have led to that regret? CMC ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-founding-fathers-could-see-us-now/644640/59 "2012-12-21T02:29:25Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > This is exactly what I was saying about Dogma trumping logic in these discussions. I happen to believe that the Founding Fathers would support my own political views. Therefore, you are wrong. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-founding-fathers-could-see-us-now/644640/60 "2012-12-21T02:42:54Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > No. Madison explictly said that states did not have the right to secede. I Googled this and the first thing I came up with was [a NY Times article dated April 21, 1861](http://www.nytimes.com/1861/04/21/news/what-madison-thought-of-secession.html). I think it must be fake, though. There was no internet back then, obviously. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-founding-fathers-could-see-us-now/644640.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-founding-fathers-could-see-us-now/644640.md?page=4)