Would the Founding Fathers be proud of us?

[crispini]

“Posterity: you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it.” (John Quincy Adams)

Have we? Discuss.

[rwheeler31]

1. Well some of us are trying.

[crispini]

4. I think they would definitely have some sympathy

for those of us who are trying.

I think they would be kind of bemused by some of the shit we do.

"Ooookay, you guys run around and put signs in your yard with your candidate, and this is a big deal?"

OTOH, it's not that far off from pamphleteering. :rofl:

[magellan]

2. One of my ancestors fought in the Revolutionary War

I shudder to think what he'd make of what this country has become. It's FAR from what the framers intended.

[crispini]

6. I think they would be especially freaked out by the quantity of elections and WHO we elect.

"You elect the tax collector. You elect judges. You elect the Railroad Commissioner (what the fsck do they do?). Do you elect the dogcatcher too?"

Democracy. It's hard werk. :think:

[magellan]

14. I think if they'd had any notion that Congress would use elections

...as an excuse not to execute their duties under the Constitution or touch anything too controversial for two years, they would have rewritten a section or two of that quaint document.

[JeffR]

3. Other:

HOW THE HELL COULD THEY BE???????

Sorry for shouting.

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. Only occasionally, I'm afraid.

And hardly at all in the past generation.

[bushmeister0]

7. Ben Franklin, at least , would be proud of the DUers.

"I request all who are angry with me on Account of printing things they don't like calmly to consider these following Particulars

1. That the Opinions of Man are almost always as various as their Faces . . .

2. That the Business of Printing has chiefly to do with Men's Opinions; most things that are printed tending to promote some, or opposite others . . .

4. That it is unreasonable to any one Man or Set of Men to expect to be please'd with everything that is printed. . .

5. Printers are educated in the Belief that when Men differ in Opinion, both Sides ought equally to have advantage of being heard by the Publik; and that when Truth and Error have fair play, the former is always overmatch for the latter. . .

8. That if all printers were determine'd not to print anything till they were sure it would offend nobody, there would be very little printed. . .

Dr. Benjamin Franklin, Editor
The Pennsylvania Gazatte, 1729-1748"

http://philadelphia-aurora.blogspot.com/2007/05/note-from-ben-frankin.html

[crispini]

9. Ben Franklin was one wild guy.

Yeah, I think he'd fit right in here. :rofl:

[MannyGoldstein]

19. 'and can only end in Despotism'

"In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other." - Dr. Franklin, from his final address at the Constitutional Convention

[Traction311]

31. I think Ben and the rest of the Founding Fathers would HATE neo-cons

But wouldn't be Democrats either. Pretty safe to say they would be for Ron Paul.

[bushmeister0]

32. I don't know, I doubt Franklin would give Jerome Corsi the time day.

[Mz Pip]

8. I think they would be

hell of confused.

[crispini]

13. They're having a FEC filing discussion party over in GD P

I think the FFs would be VERY confused about things like that, but pleased, at least with the internets. Once they had it explained to them.

"Your Presidential candidates have to show everyone how much money they make and then people go and dig through it line by line? FOR FUN?" :D

[babylonsister]

10. No. Not yet. Maybe soon, but we've lost the

gist of what Franklin was fighting for, I'm afraid. I think a constitutional lawyer might recognize that and try to right this ship. I HOPE he does!

[Mind_your_head]

18. A constitutional SCHOLAR would not be the same thing as a constitutional LAWYER, no? eom

[stillcool]

11. I for one am pleased...

with some of the strides "we the people" have made in the struggles for our rights. Now it seems like one step forward, nine steps back. Constant vigilance.

[crispini]

12. "A republic, if you can keep it"

I sometimes wonder if we've already lost it, but we can only try.

[stillcool]

17. Whenever I get really overwhelmed...

I take out a book on ancient/world history.

[93ncsu]

15. Not only NO but HELL NO ...

I think the founders are rolling over in their graves at the sight of an ever-expanding and powerful centralized government that takes the freedom of choice out of the hands of the people. That is not the system they envisioned, designed or shed blood to establish.

I think they would be appalled at the ruling political class and would be kicking themselves for not including term limits for Congress and the President from the get-go.

I think they would be disgusted by the way lobbyists are rewarded by earmarks and would wish they had included a line-item veto to prevent wasteful spending that is nothing more than outright payoffs in many cases.

I think they would be astounded at our national debt and would be regretting not having included a balanced budget provision in the original Constitution.

I think many of them would argue that we have effectively replaced the tyranny of George III with the tyranny of Washington, DC.

[magellan]

20. Yes, our very own Mad King George

I think many of them would argue that we have effectively replaced the tyranny of George III with the tyranny of Washington, DC.

Your entire post is spot on. Welcome to DU. :hi:

[crispini]

23. We had this whole states vs. federal gvmt even back them.

One of the very first political parties was "the federalists" and Mr. Hamilton is still on the tenner.

I'd agree with the rest of your points, though. :hi:

[MannyGoldstein]

16. This Is Exactly What They Expected

And this is why they designed our government the way the did.

Looks like it's still working.

[crispini]

24. It feels like it's lurching along on square wheels.

Then I think about Mr. Churchill who said something to the effect that Democracy is the worst form of government, except for everything else.

:D

[MannyGoldstein]

37. That's What They Expected

The Founders recognized that people are generally stupid when they don't have to be smart, which would allow nefarious folks to take over (e.g., Bushco). However, they also believed that when the going got tough and people had to be smart, they could be smart. So The Founders put into place an elaborate system to slow down the bad guys long enough so that The People could wake up, figure out what was happening, and use the vote to change government.

[KSinTX]

21. Other

Some of them would be horrified at how we've turned out, but the greater question is: Given the views of some on women's voting rights and slavery coupled with their patrician mistrust of the general citizenry, would we be proud of them?

[crispini]

22. Well, they were people of their time,

just as we are people of ours.

200 years later we still haven't figured out how to undue the damage done; what does that say about us?

and boy oh boy do I see "distrust of the general citizenry" around HERE on a regular basis.

[KSinTX]

30. That last line gave me a chuckle - thanks for that!

[magellan]

27. Those views haven't changed all that much at the top

There are still many in gov't who want to keep women, minorities and the poor down, and largely view citizens as a dangerous rabble. Shamefully, we haven't progressed as much as we should where those things are concerned.

200 years on, I think our founding fathers would be shocked to see just how far behind we are on those issues compared to other democracies.

[lligrd]

25. Depends Upon Who You Mean By Us

DUers yes. Americans in general, no.

[soothsayer]

26. Not since we gave up our sovereignty by allowing the Fed to control our money,

and allowed the Nat. Security Act of 1947 create the CIA and allow money to be allocated, wars to be fought, etc. without congressional oversight or public knowledge. Honestly, we've been living in a pretend democracy since then (probably earlier).

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

28. Worse than no. Really really pissed off.

[Breeze54]

29. Yes, they would be proud of us!! All of 'us' that have been fighting back since 2001! n/t

[Solon]

33. What is the point of this question?

I'm honestly puzzled here, many of the founding fathers were parochial slave owners and imperialists themselves, one of the reasons they declared Independence was to expand the colonial territory to the Mississippi river, most of this territory was in Native hands. Settlement in this region, west of the 13 colonies, was restricted by the British government, due to treaty obligations with both the French and many Indian tribes.

The only two founding fathers I can think of offhand that would generally disapprove of current American actions and that would be Ben Franklin and John Adams. But then again, such speculation is useless since all it does is leave us with a feel good feeling that our American Gods approve of us. Indeed, I believe that such need to seek approval with men who have been dead for 200 years is actually counterproductive to actual progress.

Yes, quotes and writings from many of these men were used to advance many great causes, but they also have held progress back as well. Similarly to how people quote from the Bible, people take chosen words, ignore the inconvenient parts, whether actions described in history, or inconvenient words, and then attempt to use those words they choose to use to make one cause or issue legitimate over all others. The Founding Fathers, our secular saints, our American Gods, were mortal men who were as imperfect as any contemporary person. They accomplished damn near the impossible, facing down the largest, strongest empire the world has ever seen, and won, and that's a great accomplishment, and they should be remembered for that, but they shouldn't be used as a guide for what to do in the future.

They set up a Republic on this continent that was lucky enough to not have any strong enemies nearby, to allow it to grow into some semblance of a Democracy over the years, though that was far from their original intention, most of them not being very Democratic themselves. They even fucked up during the founding of the nation, first with leaving the Slavery question open, leading eventually to the Civil War, and also with the Articles of Confederation, which were so weak, the nation would have dissolved very easily in the early days.

The fact is that I don't want the Founding Fathers to approve of us, not at all, they were men of their time, and we are people of ours, let us seize on that and focus on the present and future, and learn from the mistakes of the past, so as to not repeat the Founding Fathers' mistakes. But don't seek their approval.

[BlooInBloo]

34. They'd want their slaves back, and women to shut up.

[ellisonz]

35. No.

[MrSlayer]

36. No. Jefferson would be pissed off that we haven't revolted several times already.

He would have been appalled at what we have sat through for the past 7+ years.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

38. Crispini, that quote is by John Adams,not John Quincy. It was used at the end of the HBO miniseries

John Adams, last night.

It is an excellent quote.

[Telly Savalas]

39. Although it was only in reference to the freedom of white males.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

40. I don't think that thought ever entered his mind when he said that. John and Abigail were against

slavery and the person whose opinion he valued the most on this planet was Abigail's.

John Adams did not write the Constitution.

[JitterbugPerfume]

41. I am reading Freethinkers by Susan Jacoby

Madison , Jefferson , Franklin and Thomas Paine would be appalled by what is going on