The "founding fathers" is a meaningless and misleading term.

[JackRiddler]

I consider myself as American or even more so than someone who thinks they're special because their family came in on the Mayflower, but I feel no need to acknowledge "founding fathers," especially when this term is so vague.

Notwithstanding the problems with the idea that a Republic should honor "fathers," and leaving aside the anti-democratic and racist views that prevailed among the elites of the time, the term basically collapses different parties who in reality competed with each other into a single myth.

I feel we should at least be true enough to the history to distinguish between the following three distinct groups:

a) the great rabble rousers for independence, like Tom Paine and Sam Adams

b) the signatories to the Declaration of 1776

c) and the framers of the Constitution of 1787.

Because it would have been trouble getting many members of these three distinct groups in the same room without a fist-fight.

I think barely any of the Declaration signatories participated in the Constitutional convention, so which are the founding fathers?

So, for starters: When mythmakers tell us about the "founding fathers," whether on behalf of nationalist claptrap or liberationist rhetoric: Why do they almost never say which ones do they mean?

Especially relevant example: Which Jefferson do they mean? The slave-holder and hypocrite? The writer of the Declaration? The scientist and would-be philosopher king? The guy who *rejected* the Constitution of 1787 and then embraced the French Revolution, and who was called an American Jacobin? Or the President from 1801-1809? Because those may as well be four or five different guys.

[wtmusic]

1. Through the mists of time they come to us

in any shape or form we choose to recreate them. Just like Jesus.

[TexasObserver]

2. Agreed. And all those founding fathers in Philly 1787 forgot about civil liberties.

That's why we have the Bill of Rights. All those wealthy men who met in Philly in the summer of 1787 wrote a constitution that didn't have protections for individuals. A small group of radicals caused the constitution's framers to accept the Bill of Rights as a condition for getting unanimous passage of the new constitution.

So when someone wants to talk to you about the framer's original intent for anything covered by the Bill of Rights, you should tell them "their original intent was not to have a right against self incrimination."

[JackRiddler]

3. Yes! The Founding PEOPLE are always left out...

You know, I always go on about this but forgot in the OP. Thank you for reminding me.

The Framers of 1787 did not include a Bill of Rights.

Enough people rose up against the federalists' proposed Constitution that they forced the inclusion of a Bill of Rights. That was the quid pro quo without which the Constitution probably would not have passed at that time.

The most precious and important document in American history, the true statement of a Republic founded in Liberty is not the Constitution but the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights did not come from the Framers or the "founding fathers." It didn't come from Washington, Madison or Hamilton, to name the most influential figures in creating the federal republic.

The Bill of Rights came from the FOUNDING PEOPLE.

They are the ones we should be honoring today.

And after 43 years of founding father rhetoric and despite my pride in my education, at this moment I can't even name ONE of them. Who can? Why aren't their names chiseled in stone?

[TexasObserver]

4. An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution by Charles Beard

If one really wants to know what the Founders were up to in Philly in 1787, it was protecting their various economic interests. Beard's book tracks the ownership and votes of various founding fathers, to demonstrate how they voted their pocket books, and how important establishing federal economic controls were to them.

We do owe our Bill of Rights to the rabble rousers, not the guys everyone lauds for their original intent.

[JackRiddler]

5. I need to read that finally, thanks.

Looking back and calling them all "founding fathers" may be the same simplification our age's "leaders" will also be subject to - all lumped together. Wonder what the current crop will be called?

[KneelBeforeZod]

15. "Founders" sacrifice ....

>> If one really wants to know what the Founders were up to in Philly in 1787, it was protecting their various economic interests.

I am aware that you were speaking of the Constitutional Framers of 1787, and not those who Declared Independence in 1776 ... but let's not allow ourselves to think that those lumped under the umbrella of "founding fathers" were interested only in the protection of their wealth.

My understanding is that, of the 56 signatories of the Declaration of Independence --

- 9 died during the Revolution due to wounds or hardship;
- 12 had their homes burned to the ground;
- 17 lost everything they owned;
- All were victims of manhunts and driven from their homes;
- Several lost wives and children, and still more saw their wives brutalized during the war;
- One signer lost THIRTEEN children;
- Another saw his two sons captured and held on a ship, where they were tortured because of their father's identity ...

These men truly did pledge their lives and fortunes to the cause of American Independence, and despite such hardships -- not a single one defected or recanted (even the signer whose sons were held on the ship, who, toward the end of the war, was offered their freedom for his loyalty to the King).

KBZ

[TexasObserver]

16. As I stated, I am discussing the Founders of the Constitution.

When the Founding Fathers are referenced in modern political discussion, the subject is the constitution 99 times out of 100.

My statement stands exactly as I wrote it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

42. Debunked.

http://www.snopes.com/history/american/pricepaid.asp

[Common Sense Party]

55. Partially debunked.

Some truth to it, lots of exaggeration.

[noamnety]

46. interesting trivia, but not demonstrative of anything.

People on both sides of class struggles end up occasionally with burnt homes.
People on both sides of class struggles occasionally end up with their women being abused, because women are always used as war trophies.

The fact that they suffered consequences by angry masses does not by itself demonstrate whether they were the oppressed or the oppressors.

Even Czar Nicholas was driven from his home and eventually executed.

[enlightenment]

17. There are BETTER books than Beard,

who is woefully outdated at this point in time.

This site offers a nice overview and a specific annotated bibliography that overviews both Beard and other relevant monographs on the topic.

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/mcguire.constitution.us.economic.interests
(this is the Economic History website, btw)

Although it is also an older work, I would choose Gordon Wood's The Creation of the American Republic 1776-1787 (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1969) over Beard. Still flawed, but what history isn't?

[TexasObserver]

18. No, there aren't.

You poor dear. Don't you know that Beard's work is considered the basis for most modern analysis of the economics behind the constitution founder's efforts?

Woefully outdated? Spoken like someone who likes to think the books they've read are better.

Your condemnation of Beard is downright silly.

[brentspeak]

25. The only important thing to know is that the Framers DID ratify the Constitution

If they were against the Bill of Rights, they wouldn't have approved it.

[JackRiddler]

60. They didn't approve the Bill of Rights!

The Framers submitted the Constitution to the state legislatures without without the Bill of Rights. They had nothing to do with approving it. (If they had wanted it, it would have been in the original text.)

The Bill of Rights was passed separately by the States, using the Amendment process. That's why its 10 provisions are Amendments, not Articles.

Politically, this was the compromise by which the anti-federalists gave up the fight, otherwise the states might not have passed the Constitution.

[Raskolnik]

26. Jeebus you are condescending for someone that has apparently read one book on the subject.

You poor dear.

Do you talk to people like that in real life?

[TexasObserver]

31. Try one doctorate on the subject.

From a top ten university.

The problem is your lack of knowledge, not mine. I suggest you renew your acquaintance with your former con law professors before you start concluding you've got a better understanding of the constitution than me.

[Raskolnik]

32. And they only let you read one undergraduate-level book? I'd ask for my money back if I were you.

You made a sweeping statement that the the framers of the Constitution "forgot about civil liberties." I pointed out that this is not accurate, because the framers intended the Constitution to protect individual liberties by strictly limiting the federal government's powers. Instead of addressing that point, you have simply name-checked a book as if that somehow validates your statement. It does not.

Simply repeating the name of a book over and over does not really advance your argument that the framers ignored civil liberties in the drafting of the Constitution.

[TexasObserver]

35. It is one book that is most relevant to the post to which it replied.

That escapes you, because you think by making your silly allegation it somehow helps your weak comments about the topic. The Beard book is one book about an economic analysis of the constitution. It was the first such book, and I'm not the only person who considers it seminal.

It is you and the other gadfly who want to pretend that I have proposed Beard's book as the singular treatise on the constitution. It is one point of view, and provides important insights.

The framers did ignore civil liberties in the summer of 1787, and your repeating ad nauseam that they didn't won't change that. They ignored them, and that's the reason the Bill of Rights was added.

[enlightenment]

54. Nah - just spoken like any historian.

We have nothing better to do with our time than attack each other.

Note that I am giving you credit for an education you may not have - and unlike you, I choose not to assume you are an idiot instead of just the condescending ass you clearly are.

History progresses and so does historiography. New scholarship builds on the old. I don't condemn Beard, I simply believe there are better, more rigorous works written since he wrote. Beard may have been the basis for most modern analysis, but that doesn't mean his work is the be all and end of the study - just the opposite, in fact.

Get over yourself and try reading something written more recently. You're free to worship Beard, but don't expect everyone to agree with you.

[Adsos Letter]

27. Bernard Bailyn...

He doesn't address the issues of Beard's thesis (an incompleted study, IIRC) but "Ideological Origins of the American Revolution" is still a great read.

[hfojvt]

43. Wood? He drastically underestimates the impact of social distinctions

predicated upon wealth, especially inherited wealth :P

[ZenKitty]

63. "And after 43 years of founding father rhetoric...

...and despite my pride in education, at this moment I can't even name ONE of them."


Sleep through history class did you? What Is Your Point? I'm trying to figure out why you are so distressed about something that you clearly admit to knowing nothing about.

[JackRiddler]

64. Cherry-pick and mis-read, much?

Without looking it up: Can you name the leaders or spokespersons of the (mainly anti-federalist) push for a Bill of Rights to be added to the Constitution in the years 1787 to 1791?

They're the ones I meant I couldn't name, after 43 years of rhetoric about the "founding fathers" (which usually refers to the Framers of the 1787 Constitution, if it refers specifically to anyone). By contrast, I can name many of the Framers. Was it unclear what I meant?

And I'm not particularly distressed about anything here, including whether you understand (or want to fairly read) what I wrote or not.

[Raskolnik]

10. That's not accurate.

The Constitution as originally conceived was intended to create a govenment of strictly limited powers. Many (if not most) of the founders intended the federal gov't to *only* have those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution. If the Constitution was silent in an area, it didn't mean that the right didn't exist, it meant that the federal government had no authority to involve itself in the issue.

The current conception of the Constitution, however, takes an opposite approach. Unless the Consitution specifically protects a right, we assume it does not exist and the government may regulate with impunity.

[TexasObserver]

14. Yes, it is accurate. You are misinformed.

The Bill of Rights was added to guarantee that we would have the rights listed therein, and could be assured our newly formed central government could not abridge them. The Founders who met in Philly in 1787 certainly wanted to limit the federal government, but they entirely failed to provide protections for individual rights. That's why the Bill of Rights was needed and why they were added.

You really need to expand your knowledge in this area. Why don't you start by reading An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution, by Beard, then read the 87 essays known as the Federalist Papers, and THEN come back to discuss the constitution and its history?

[Raskolnik]

23. I don't believe you understand what I said.

The Bill of Rights was added to guarantee that we would have the rights listed therein

Indeed they were. No one is saying otherwise.

(the framers)entirely failed to provide protections for individual rights

That just is not accurate. The framers intended for the Constitution as orinally conceived to protect individual rights by strictly limiting the powers of the federal government. You can make an argument that such an approach would not have been effective, but that does not mean the issue was ignored.

Many of the framers immediately began to doubt whether their system of protecting individual rights by limiting the federal government would be sufficient. Hence, the Bill of Rights. That does not contradict my statement that our current method of interpreting individual rights by what is contained in the Constitution opposed to what governmental powers are absent from the Constituion is significantly different than was originally intended. Your statement that individual rights were ignored by the framers simply cannot be sustained.

You really need to expand your knowledge in this area. Why don't you start by reading An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution, by Beard, then read the 87 essays known as the Federalist Papers, and THEN come back to discuss the constitution and its history?

You know, if you're going to be snotty, it helps to be right. You may have read Beard, but with all due respect I don't think you have a very good understanding of the issue you raised.

While I am impressed that you can name-check a book about the Constution and you know of the existence of the Federalist Papers, if I have a question about about consitutional history I can send an email to one of my former consitutional law professors. Thanks.

[TexasObserver]

33. Of course I did. It wasn't complicated, just wrong.

When the constitution was submitted to the states for approval, a howl went up from the rabble rousers about the lack of protections for individual rights from the newly forming central government. Because the country was then under The Articles of Confederation, all states had to approve the new constitution, or it would fail. Rather than see it fail, the drafters of the constitution agreed to add the Bill of Rights, specifically designed to respond to the concerns of the citizenry.

[Raskolnik]

37. Apparently it was too complicated for some, because you're still ignoring the point.

When the constitution was submitted to the states for approval, a howl went up from the rabble rousers

Yes, that's true. Because they did not think that the framers' *method* of protecting civil liberties through strict limits on the federal government's powers was adequate.

You took the position that the framers ignored civil liberties. That is not a position that can be seriously argued.

Far from "ignoring" civil liberties, the framers were preoccupied with the best method of protecting them. Many framers felt (with some justification) that if the Constitution contained a Bill of Rights, it would lead to the implication that anything *not* specifically protected in the Constitution was not an individual right. The best way of protecting civil liberties, according to many of the framers, was not a laundry list of rights that people have, but an understanding that people *kept* any and all civil liberties in the absence of specific governmental power to infringe upon them. You can make a good case that this was not an adequate protection, but you cannot make a good (or even a reasonable) case that the framers "ignored" civil liberties in drafting the Constitution.

Now, without resorting to a name-check of the most bestest book about the Constitution *ever*, with what in the above paragraph do you disagree?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. Agreed. It's a canard.

The founding fathers would have said so themselves.

[SidneyCarton]

7. Let's understand something about Jefferson...

We have an awful tendency in this country to transform our founders into alabaster saints, bloodless and perfect, only to rediscover their flaws later and utterly abandon them. Such is the case with Thomas Jefferson.

Like the rest of us (albeit perhaps more gifted and brilliant) Jefferson was a human being. He was subject to the same passions, hypocrisies, desires and prejudices as any other man of his time. As such he provides us with a perplexing riddle: How could the man who penned the Declaration of Independence own slaves? Furthermore, how could he keep Sally Hemmings in a state of effectively enforced rape during his lifetime? Was he a hypocrite, clearly. Did he know so, I assume he did, much like I know my personal hypocrisies, and each of us who isn't flatly delusional realizes that our actions and lives all to often fall short of our ideals. If it is healthy to recognize this and aspire to do better, perhaps we should extend the same healthy courtesy to Mr. Jefferson, who fell short of his own ideals, and yet gave our nation a set of ideals we collectively have yet to live up to.

[JackRiddler]

8. I'm not dumping on Jefferson at all...

Just seeing him for the several conflicting Jeffersons that he embodied, as an illustration of the absurdity of the term "founding fathers" as though its meaning were self-evident.

Jefferson of course penned the words most frequently cited by today's progressives:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident..."

Number two would be Eisenhower:

"...Beware the military-industrial complex..."

[SidneyCarton]

9. Indeed, thanks for the reply.

You likely embody several Jacks and I embody several Sidneys, all of which is further complicated by the fact that neither of which are likely to be our last name. (Hence the Internet allows disconnected personalities even more than the 18th Century.)

Your point on the Founding Fathers is well made, I strongly agree.

K & R

[Autonomy]

11. Cultural conservatives can use this argument, too

to throw out Enlightenment ideas of separation of church and state, equal representation, etc, etc.

[JackRiddler]

58. How is this relevant?!

I really don't care, you don't even link to a specimen of this nonsense and I don't see how the argument would even be made in a remotely coherent or logical way. Which wouldn't surprise me, with "cultural conservatives."

Furthermore, the main thrust what I am saying is not so much an argument as a clarification of fact: there was no single group of "founding fathers" who can be invoked as though who they were and what they thought is self-evident. People should say "the framers of the Constitution" (for example), if that is what they mean. Or "Madison, Hamilton, Washington and Adams," since that is usually what they seem to mean - the Republicans of the time.

[mitchum]

12. But you can't have the American Way without ignorance, sentimentality, and jingoism

[tinymontgomery]

13. An interesting book

is called "Founding MYTHS" by Ray Raphael. He writes about how the myths of this country were started and why. I found it very interesting and also brought it at a national park book store while touring a battle field.

[KneelBeforeZod]

19. "Founding Fathers"

>> Notwithstanding the problems with the idea that a Republic should honor "fathers,"

I see no particular problem with honoring those who set this country in motion. They were truly a remarkable bunch. That they were all white men is simply a reality. That they were each flawed in their own way is also a reality.

>> and leaving aside the anti-democratic and racist views that prevailed among the elites of the time

The travesty of slavery has been duly noted. As for anti-democratic -- it was their opinion that there should be checks and balances throughout the system. There are checks on the executive, the legislature, the judiciary, and the people.

To my mind, being anti-democratic isn't inherently wrong -- the Bill of Rights itself is anti-democratic. A true democracy cannot limit the power of the electorate to limit the rights of a minority. The rights of free speech, free religion, etc. are entirely anti-democratic.

>> I feel we should at least be true enough to the history to distinguish between the following three distinct groups a) the great rabble rousers for independence, like Tom Paine and Sam Adams; b) the signatories to the Declaration of 1776; c) and the framers of the Constitution of 1787.

These three groups are distinct in some respects, I suppose, but they are generally considered the major players in a larger story which began in 1775 with the "intolerable acts", continued with Independence, the Revolutionary War, the Articles of Confederation, and ended with the Constitutional Convention of 1787 (and the establishment of the American Government over the next few years). There were many individuals involved in multiple portions of this story, including Franklin, Washington, Jefferson, J.Adams, Hamilton, Dickinson, Jay, Madison, Hancock, etc.

Despite their varying functions and performances throughout the 12-year ordeal of the founding of the United States, it seems logical that they be referred to as the "Founding Fathers" or "Founders".

>> Because it would have been trouble getting many members of these three distinct groups in the same room without a fist-fight.

This surely was a problem, even at the time. Many did not get along. So what?

>> I think barely any of the Declaration signatories participated in the Constitutional convention, so which are the founding fathers?

There were a few -- Franklin, Morris, Dickinson(didn't sign Declaration, but participated in Continental Congress), etc. The short answer is -- ALL of them are the founders. Founding the country was a lengthy and bloody process -- many were instrumental, many more were involved in the process, some died during the process. Washington didn't sign either the Declaration OR the Constitution, and wasn't particularly a "rabble-rouser" -- but was nonetheless instrumental in the establishment of the United States.

>> When mythmakers tell us about the "founding fathers," whether on behalf of nationalist claptrap or liberationist rhetoric: Why do they almost never say which ones do they mean?

Depends on what they're talking about. Generally, they're referring to the entire group, not any particular individual. I don't buy that the story of the founding of the United States is entirely "myth" or "claptrap" ... there is a genuinely remarkable story to be told of the years 1775-1787.

KBZ

[baldguy]

20. Ben Franklin's famous admonition "A Republic, if you can keep it." was addressed to a woman.

[fascisthunter]

21. was that Abigail Adams?

[baldguy]

22. Legend has it that it was a passerby in the street.

Once upon a time, our political leaders were normally accessible to the general public.

[fascisthunter]

24. imagine that

[bryant69]

28. all generalizations have an element of over-simplification in them

On the other hand they are useful, if not essential, for the understanding of the world around us.

People usually aren't that confused by the phrase Founding Fathers - rather they know who you are talking about - at least Washington and Jefferson and Franklin - but others as well, including Adams, Hamilton, Madison, Henry, Revere and so on.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Adsos Letter]

29. A few books which I have thoroughly enjoyed regarding these matters:

Bernard Bailyn "The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution"

Gary Nash "The Unknown American Revolution"

Gordon Wood "The Radicalism of the American Revolution"

and "Redeemer Nation" by Tuveson (for some broader perspective on the intellectual origins of American Exceptionalism)

[tishaLA]

40. the first three are excellent and accessible.

but I'm not familiar with the last.

I have seldom seen professional historians since the 1960s refer to this thing known as "founding fathers," although my interest in feminist historiography, cultural history, and history of sexuality from the period might color my perceptions. Even so, I don't think I know a single scholar post- "republican synthesis" who uses that terminology.

[Adsos Letter]

44. Ernest Lee Tuveson...

"Redeemer Nation: The idea of America's Millennial Role" (University of Chicago Press, 1968)

it is one of the seminal works on the origins and function of the idea of American Exceptionalism.

Other good works along this line include:

Ruth Bloch, "Visionary Republic: Millennial Themes in American Thought, 1756-1800"

Conrad Cherry, "God's New Israel" (a compilation of primary documents, with some interpretive work)

The list goes on and on...

I am retired and working on a graduate degree in History (almost done!) and the whole idea of American Exceptionalim and its influence on American foreign and domestic policy has been an interesting study over the years.

My interest developed from an initial interest in how apocalyptic/eschatological ideas/beliefs have influenced history.

:hi:

[tishaLA]

48. Prof Bloch is on my dissertation committee

She's my "outside reader"--I'm a grad student in literature, not history, and work in sexuality and aesthetics in the early republic. As I'm sure you know, she is one of the most important voices in the field of early American sexuality.

[Adsos Letter]

49. Interesting! I know she published a work on "Gender and Morality" in 2003

but I am familiar with her primarily from the work I cited.

Curious: have you read Joan Wallach Scott's "Gender and the Politics of History?"

EDIT: I just re-read your list of primary interests, so I am pretty certain you have read Scott's work...I am pretty sure it is considered one of the seminal works in the field of gender studies. :dunce: :hi:

[tishaLA]

50. Yes, I really like Joan Scott

I first became familiar with her work because of a book she co-edited with Judith Butler, Feminists Theorize the Political. Scott has an essay in it, IIRC, about the limitations of experience as a way of understanding history (its relationship to narrativity, memorialization, etc.); she struck me as incredibly smart and, while I don't necessarily read her slavishly, I am always impressed by her work when I stumble upon it.

Prof Bloch had a very good essay in a special edition of W&M Quarterly about sex in early America called "Changing Conceptions of Sexuality and Romance in Eighteenth-Century America" and has recently published a really compelling piece about the construction of American privacy (hint: it's about wife beating) in the early republic (that article, I think, appeared in Early American Studies).

[Adsos Letter]

51. Ah, reading widely in the field I see...

typical grad student :D

I read the work by Scott in a Methods seminar...I found her take on binaries of power interesting. It made me more aware of the often unrecognized preconceived structures of historical inquiry, so I consider it to have been a personally worthwhile read, although I do wish she had used the occasional metaphor in some places. :rofl:

[suston96]

30. I don't know where to start....The "Bill of Rights" was in the Declaration of Independence.....

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. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Uh, repeat: ....that among these (rights) are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

And by the way: There is NO "right to life" in that precious Bill of Rights".

The Founders are the Founders because they did something no one ever did before: they helped the people form a government based on their natural "unalienable" rights.

Sorry, I see more good in what the Founders did than the evil that is being offered here.

[Xenotime]

34. They are not my father.

[Raskolnik]

39. Seriously?

You mean several dozen men that lived in the 18th Century aren't your father? That seems odd.

[Xenotime]

53. [sigh]...no

They were a group of slave owning, racist biggots. Building a country on "ideals" that have failed us everyone except the wealthy.

[Raskolnik]

56. What "ideals" do you think have failed?

The founders were human--they were products of their time that suffered from most of the attendant flaws of their time.

Many of them, however, were also men that produced and refined ideas that were nothing short of revolutionary for the time. They undoubtedly fell short of many of the ideals they espoused, but the fact that they put forth those ideals in elegant, often beautiful form, is what made them geniuses.

[cherokeeprogressive]

36. I will NEVER use the term "Founding Fathers" again. Wow. The world ALREADY seems a better place.

Thank you so much for the enlightenment. When does the choir start singing? What next, a crusade to ban the singing of the National Anthem at NASCAR events? :sarcasm:

[JackRiddler]

59. There's no need to ban the singing of the national anthem at NASCAR...

Once gas goes over $10 a gallon, the NASCAR fans probably won't be able to afford attending it anymore, and it will go out of business.

I'm afraid I've come to expect such posts from you: for example, that you seem to think I called for the banning of anything in the OP. Not at all, in fact that's an outrageous conclusion on your part. So let's be clear: Far as it's up to me, which it isn't, you are free to continue speaking of the "founding fathers," and Santa Claus, and compassionate conservatism, and whatever else you believe in.

[Pacifist Patriot]

38. I remember being surprised to learn only 9 signers of the Declaration were also delegates...

to the Constitutional Convention. I also find it fascinating that Massachusetts prides itself on the birthplace of liberty when five signers from PA were also delegates to the convention. For the trivia buffs among us, only one delegate each from CT, DE, VA, and MA were at both.

In my humble opinion, Founding Fathers is a just vague enough term to be co-opted by anyone who wants to support their position.

[suston96]

41. Massachusetts is indeed the birthplace of the new nation - "the shot heard around the world....."?

1775 - Lexington? Concord? Massachusetts was alone fighting the British for quite some time.

You are mixing the start of the war - 1775 - with the convention -1787 - which were actually 12 years apart.

[Pacifist Patriot]

45. LOL! No, not at all. I'm well versed in American history. It was said a bit tongue in cheek.

My family consists of folks from Boston, Philadelphia and Atlanta. The ones from Philadelphia love to remind the ones from Boston of Franklin's contributions and the fact that it was the first U.S. capitol. I know darned well much of the initial separatist activity took place in the Bay Colony. And well before April 19, 1775.

[Pacifist Patriot]

47. Oh go figure. One of my PA relatives gave me his $.02 on the matter...

"Alright babe, I'll give those crusty New Englanders credit for conception and more than their share of labor pains. But where exactly was the Continental Congress where the Declaration was signed, the Constitutional Convention and the capital of our nation during Georgie boy's first term? You got it, Philly. Birthplace of the new nation. The bean eating snots will never convince me otherwise."

Okay, so he makes a couple of good points. :) Cheers!

[deaniac21]

52. It's not a very difficult concept for most.

[JackRiddler]

61. My caveats concern the fact that it is a simplistic concept.

Difficult it's not. Just wrong.

[deaniac21]

62. I guess you'll be in the very short line then. Good for you!

[suston96]

57. More about the missing Bill of Rights......

A right does not have to be specifically enumerated in the Constitution to have legal impact as a constitutional right.

Here is my favorite quote from Chief Justice Lemuel Shaw, of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (c1820s).

“In considering constitutional provisions, especially those embraced in the Declarations of Rights, (Massachusetts), and the amendments of the Constitution of the United States, in the nature of a bill of rights, we are rather to regard them as the annunciation of great and fundamental principles. to be always held in regard, both morally and legally, by those who made and those who administer the law, under the form of government to which they are appended, than as precise and positive directions and rules of action; and therefore, in construing them, we are to look at the spirit and purpose of them, as well as the letter.

Many of them are so obviously dictated by natural justice and common sense, and would be so plainly obligatory upon the consciences of legislators and judges, without any express declaration, that some of the framers of state constitutions, and even the convention which formed the Constitution of the United States, did not originally prefix a declaration of rights.”

The right of privacy is probably the most famous of the unenumerated rights that the US Supreme Court has referenced in recent times.

Once more, there is no 'right to life' in the Bill of Rights nor in the rest of the US Constitution. On what basis, therefore, are all those statutes, federal and state, against murder and homicide and deadly assault, based on?

[Zhade]

65. Paine ruled - and Washington let him rot in a French prison for 2 years.

NT!