I know he’s not a founding father, but Abraham Lincoln professed to be a white supremicist who opposed abolition.
“I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”
That was during the 1858 Lincoln-Douglas debates, when Douglas was race-baiting him in conservative downstate Illinois. Very, very few people in Lincoln’s time believed in the absolute equality of the races. Remember that this is the same man who signed the Emancipation Proclamation, was praised by Frederick Douglass for treating him as a friend and equal, who pushed for the abolition of slavery under the 13th Amendment, and who also said:
“I now do more than oppose the extension of slavery. I am not a Know-Nothing. That is certain. How could I be? How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that ‘all men are created equal.’ We now practically read it ‘all men are created equal, except negroes.’ When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read ‘all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and catholics.’ When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty — to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be take pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy [sic].” (1855)
“Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it.” (1859)
“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.” (1862)
“I have always thought that all men should be free; but if any should be slaves, it should be first those who desire it for themselves, and secondly, those who desire it for others. When I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.” (1865)
Well, there may have been other factors contributing to that outcome, such as the fact that they found themselves in control of a huge landmass full of good farmland and natural resources, that they felt free to treat as if it were empty of any people who counted, and ripe for the pickings.
As for being the most successful country in all history, maybe it will make sense to make such a claim when the preeminence of the U.S. has lasted for some reasonable fraction of the time Rome, Byzantium, or China (to mention but a few) maintained their power. Heck, even in “modern” history, it is far from clear that U.S. hegemony has yet equaled the British Empire in either size or staying power.
Really, if you are going to make grandiose claims about history, try to learn some history first!
The Founding Fathers haven’t been ruling our country for the past 200 years. We can’t actually know what they would think of any modern debate or movement, since we can’t ask them, what with their being dead and all.
What we’ve had is other people trying to do what they thought the Founding Fathers would have wanted, to a greater or lesser extent. That’s not at all the same thing as what the Founding Fathers would have wanted, as anybody who’s ever gotten a bad holiday gift can tell you. There’s also a strong motivation to claim that the Founding Fathers would have wanted what the speaker wants, whether that’s true or not.
You also can’t assume that the Founding Fathers would have kept a static view of things, if they were somehow still alive today. People change their minds in the face of experience, and the Founding Fathers presumably did this just like everybody else does.
Define what makes a “successful country”.
Really, if you’re going to make grandiose claims about someone’s ignorance of history, try to learn what the word “maybe” means before opening your trap.
MODERATOR STEPS IN.
Let’s all take a deep breath before we post. Try to cut down on the hostility of our posts.
Thank you.
Nah, I think you were caught fair and square (although admittedly rather rudely) on your unqualified “modern history” claim:
And as for “all history”, I think it’s fair to say that even with your “maybe” qualifier, it seems a little skewed to set up the US’s scant 235-year-history in competition for the all-time-greatest gold medal with the several-century lifespans of some earlier states.
Well, as far as “crazy” talk there was this:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
There’s not a shred of evidence that we are created equal, either by direct measurement or outcomes; for individuals or groups; or any two populations of your choice. Not in genes; not in potential; not in circumstance; not in ability; not in demonstrated success…
We may choose as a society to assign equal “worth,” of course, but the devil is in the details and no society has managed to actually effect it however naively they cling to the abstract notion. No-one is “created” equal. That’s just poppycock and not even remotely “self-evident.” In fact a brief look at the entire history of every human who has ever existed makes exactly the opposite quite evident.
On the “endowed by their Creator” phrase front, there’s even less proof, if such a thing is possible.
It is heart-warming rhetoric, though, and it beats out the divine right of kings as a starting point to create a more noble society.
Sorry, I still think the US is among the top two if not number one. You have to take into account everything. What’s 100 years when it takes more than a year to go from one of the Empire to another? How about 50 years when it takes 1 day to go around the entire globe? Back in Rome’s day, China could have 10 revolutions a day and the impact on Rome would not be measurable. Today, if a minor dictator in Bumfuckistan gets the runs, the world market reacts and the dollar moves against the Euro. Longetivity is overrated as a measure.
Would it reflect the intent of the original passage better to say “no classes are inherently superior or inferior to others”? Of course some individuals are better than others, I think the point the FF were trying to make was that you won’t find these superior specimens in a group.
Thomas Jefferson thought a good way to displace the Indians was to sell them goods on credit, and then offer to clear the debt in exchange for land cessions.
Jefferson was also an early proponent of removal of eastern Indian nations to the far side of the Mississippi.
Well, then the USA can never, ever be judged as possibly (maybe) being the greatest until (if) it survives several hundred centuries? It’s completely fair, but only if a qualifier is used. “Maybe” is a nice, short qualifier, but one could say, “Based on the recorded histories of such known previous republics, empires, nations, and countries, the United States (culture, finance, prosperity, insert-something-here) is currently trending in such a way that in 1,200 years, historians will say that the United States was the most successful nation in history.” Using “maybe” seems perfectly reasonable.
I’m not sure whole debate is relevant to the thread.