If the Founding Fathers could see us now

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.

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, by Michael Lind:

You really should go back and read what the* Lochner *court actually did. They were much bigger ideologues and much more activist than most of the later social liberals that followed.

Eh, Washington would probably be OK with it.

Some of them, maybe. But some blatantly used presses they owned to Berlusconi themselves into power.

This they would hate, yes. (Well, some of them.)

This is an absolutely brilliant post.

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.

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.

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.

“Arrgghh, me hearties! A penny stole is a penny earned!”

– “Blackheart Ben” Franklin, Captain of the Roving Letch

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Exactly what in that history would have led to that regret?

CMC

I happen to believe that the Founding Fathers would support my own political views. Therefore, you are wrong.

I Googled this and the first thing I came up with was a NY Times article dated April 21, 1861.

I think it must be fake, though. There was no internet back then, obviously.