As I mentioned before it has existed under a different system. Further we’re much more integrated than then. Under the articles of confederation people say they were Georgian, or a New Yorker. Now we all see ourselves as Americans. If we woke up with a king and a prime minster tomorrow we’d still be Americans.
And that’s the last time I swim in either ocean.
I agree, and I suspect several of them would agree as well.
Freudian slip?
On that note, I’d say they succeeded way beyond their wildest dreams. It’s their political descendants who have by and large failed (“hindered” progress that is, or at least attempted to).
I think they were very successful in making a framework which has survived the test of time. However, there is a great deal of Founding Father Fetishism. They were the products of their time and culture. We can’t expect 18th century agrarian aristocrats to have insight into the needs of a 21st century multicultural industrial society. What did the FFs think about controlling 18th century weaponry? I could not care less. We need to take them off their pedestal and think for ourselves.
We also have to stop thinking of the Founding Fathers as a monolith. There was plenty of bitter factionalism and vicious infighting (along with greed and favoritism) among them - stuff that makes our current partisanship look tepid.
Yes, absolutely. The work which gives the Founding Fathers the greatest claim to genius was really a matter of compromises. (The irony being that those who deify the Founders the most don’t tend to be the type of people fond of compromises.)
And, to add one more to the chorus, some of those compromises really aren’t justifiable, and are/were incredibly hard to fix. For example, the 3/5ths compromise, the disenfranchisement of Americans living in the nation’s capital, and the very contrived electoral college, not to mention the crappy, imprecise writing that has generated decades worth of debate on the meaning of various provisions of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
But the system of government that they stumbled upon – ambition countering ambition, etc., is a wonderful achievement.
A pointless bit of arrogance from the Left, which confuses admiration with adoration, at least whereever they are not themselves making a fetish of the Foudning Fathers (amazingly, it seems this coincides wherever it is convenient).
Secondly, it’s outright wrong. The key difference between them and today’s political class, particularly the Left which you so love, is that they actually pondered deeply about the nature of government, man, and society, and how to integrate them into something worthwhile. While they didn’t get it perfect, they also accomplished something which has never been equalled, and perhaps never rivalled, since. And their essential insight and structure remains absolutely relevant for the basic reason that humans have not changed. It is they who are young and ready to lead, and your set, with your proud but ultimately silly and transient ideals, which old and already heading towards the graveyard of thought.
If that’s not a quote, you’re really coming of as ridiculous and precious sounding, if it is a quote, there’s the “”…
And no, it is fetishism, in the sense that it is unquestionable Wisdom, the Jesus Christ kind, there’s no reason in it, just adoration.
Why does nobody ever hold up the Massachusetts State Constitution as being an even greater work of genius, since it is still in use, and pre-dates the US Constitution by almost a decade?
It, too, created a bicamerial legislature. It, too, allows amendments to keep up with the times. Its structure was copped by the Framers. It wasn’t the product of a legally questionable process (seeing as how the Framers were called together to make amendments to the Articles of Confederation, and ended up going WAY beyond their mandate, as politicians are wont to do).
Not pointless nor arrogant nor particularly leftist. There’s a difference between having a respect for great men of their time and assuming that they were unique among mortals in having timeless wisdom and that their every word should be deemed as sacred, unchanging truth. They were great, but human.
They passed along the representation of Indians, too.
But I take issue with those that say such archaic racial attitudes should have been addressed at the start. These attitudes were firmly entrenched in society, much as God is today (imagine trying to abolish all churches!). Abolitionists and those who felt Indians should be treated better were at the political fringe, not mainstream. If these issues had been tackled too soon, I don’t think we would have had a country at all.
The genius of the founders was knowing when to compromise and when not to. They pushed through a federal system when that alone was a radical idea. They got just enough accomplished at just the right time – not a perfect union, but a more perfect union than had ever before been tried.
By their own criteria, they were incredibly successful. Remember, the first attempt at a new country was a miserable failure, and most people didn’t the think the second attempt would work out either.
The fact that their system endures today would probably not concern them overmuch (some, like Jefferson, would probably hate the idea), and in any event came down largely to luck. Had the royalists won the English Civil War, we might say the same thing about the British political system, and it would be just as untrue.
Looking back, it’s probably fair to say they did a better job of drawing up framework for government than anyone else ever has. On the other hand, there’s a good chance there are other frameworks - perhaps some which exist today - which will outlast theirs.
Jefferson didn’t want the system to endure?
Not the present constitution so much, no.
If a constitution doesn’t mean what it says there’s no point in having one.
Considering that the United States is still using the same core Constitution created by the founding fathers and has survived the addition of 37 states, a Civil War, two World Wars, many smaller wars, a potentially nuclear Cold War, the abolition of slavery, womans suffrage, the equal rights movement, a Great Depression, many recessions, all the recessions and depressions that happened prior to the 1930s and whatever other major social and political changes I can’t think of off the top of my head, it’s actually pretty remarkable.
I doubt he had opinions on the present constitution which did not exist in his lifetime. I’ve heard of his concerns about the document prior to the addition of the Bill of Rights. Can you provide more information?
Jefferson’s writings suggest that he wanted the whole thing thrown out and rewritten every now and then:
Interesting, thank you. I think time limits on the acts of Congress would be helpful, the entire Constitution I’m not so sure about. I doubt the next one would be superior to what we have. I wonder if Jefferson would hold the same view if he were alive today (and not simply hooked up to machines to keep a 267 year old man alive).