United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: No, The American Founders Were Not Libertarians
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://thefederalist.com/2017/05/02 ... can-founders-not-libertarians/
Published: May 2, 2017
Author: Jonathan Ashbach
Post Date: 2018-01-25 08:43:41 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 3239
Comments: 148
Libertarians are still trying to claim the American Founding as theirs. One occasionally hears the argument that the principles of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are libertarian. One of the most recent instances of this claim resides in Nikolai Wenzel’s first-rate defense of libertarianism in “Selfish Libertarians and Socialist Conservatives?” (Stanford: 2017). Yet a closer look at the Founders’ thought about government makes clear that it was anything but libertarian. Wenzel notes there are different types of libertarianism. He clarifies that “unless I specify otherwise, I will use the term libertarian to mean minarchy.” Minarchist libertarianism holds that government exists only to protect individuals’ rights. “A libertarian government is forbidden from doing almost everything,” Wenzel states. “In fact, a libertarian government is empowered to do only one thing: defend individual rights.” Wenzel’s argument for a libertarian Founding rests largely on the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Indeed, his claims do seem superficially persuasive. The Constitution limits the federal government to the exercise of a few specific powers. Surely, this is a classic instance of libertarian philosophy limiting the sphere of government, is it not? As Wenzel argues, “By and large, the enumerated powers granted to the federal government under Article I, section 8, are in line with libertarian philosophy.” He recognizes that elements of the Constitution violate libertarian principles, but his overall evaluation is that “The U.S. Constitution was largely a libertarian document.” The Declaration, argues Wenzel, is more explicitly libertarian. It declares that all possess natural rights and that governments are created to protect those rights. “There, then,” says Wenzel, “is the political philosophy of the Declaration: The purpose of government is to protect rights. Period.” He calls this “a minimalist philosophy with which any libertarian would agree.” The Fatal Flaw: A Different Understanding of Rights So far, all of this sounds quite convincing, but there is a fatal flaw in Wenzel’s argument. Both libertarians and the American Founders describe the purpose of government as the protection of rights. But by “rights” they mean two very different things. For Wenzel, respecting others’ rights simply means refraining from coercion. The state exists only to protect rights, and therefore, “the state itself may not engage in any coercion, except to prevent coercion.” He argues that participants in immoral trades, such as “The drug pusher, the prostitute, and the pornographer,” do not violate others’ rights “as long as they do not coercively impose their wares on others.” Nor does the polygamist. Wenzel’s coauthor Nathan Schlueter points out the problem with this position: “Libertarianism essentially denies that…moral harms exist and maintains that the only real injustice is coercion. Accordingly, it promotes a legal regime in which some individuals are legally entitled to harm others in noncoercive ways.” Wenzel assumes that only coercion violates rights. The Founders profoundly disagreed. A Second Look at the Founding Creed Think again about the alleged libertarianism of the Founding documents. Wenzel makes a common mistake in assuming that the limitation of the national government to a few specific enumerated powers reflects libertarian belief. But this limitation has nothing to do with libertarianism. It has everything to do with federalism. The federal government was only created to fulfill certain limited, particular purposes. It was not created to do everything the Founders believed government should do. Most of those functions—and, on the whole, those less compatible with libertarianism—were entrusted to the states. The fact that the enumerated powers of the federal government are largely consistent with libertarianism does not mean the Founders were libertarians. It means nothing at all, in fact. It is a conclusion based on only half the data. Actually, the enumeration of federal powers is more an accident of history than anything else. James Madison’s original proposal was that the national government simply possess blanket authority “to legislate in all cases to which the separate States are incompetent.” The Constitutional Convention ultimately chose to list its powers, believing this was less liable to abuse, but this decision was by no means dictated by the Founders’ beliefs about government. As for the Declaration, it does not say that government exists only to protect individuals’ life, liberty, and property. A libertarian right to be free of coercion is not intended here. Instead, the Declaration states that life and liberty are included “among” the natural rights of mankind, as is something else referred to as “the pursuit of happiness.” The right to happiness was not simply sweet-sounding rhetoric. It was the centerpiece of the Founders’ political theory. Government for the Common Good The Founders’ political theory was not libertarian, because they believed that the preeminent human right was happiness. The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, for example, states: “All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness” (emphases added). As the language makes clear, the rights of man could be expressed as a list of rights that includes life, liberty, and property. But the great right that encompassed all others was the right to pursue (or even obtain!) happiness. Assertions of this right to happiness appear in many Founding-Era writings, including other state constitutions. The purpose of government, in turn, was to help people achieve happiness by promoting their good. Delegate to the Constitutional Convention James Wilson wrote one of the most thorough expositions of the Founding philosophy—his famous “Lectures on Law.” In them, he explains that the purpose of government is to promote the well-being of those subject to it: “Whatever promotes the greatest happiness of the whole,” that is what government should do. Once again, this sort of talk is commonplace. Twelve of the 13 original states adopted a constitution in the Founding Era. Every one of these states described the purpose of government as promoting the well-being of citizens. The New Hampshire constitution of 1784 is typical, holding that “all government…is…instituted for the general good.” What Conservative Governance Means Because the general good includes the moral good, this meant discouraging immoral behavior. Wenzel speaks of voluntary drug and sexual matters as beyond the purview of a libertarian government. But such laws were universal in early America. Thus Mark Kann writes in “Taming Passion for the Public Good” that “the state’s right to regulate sexual practices…was undisputed” in early America, and Wilson notes bigamy, prostitution, and indecency as offenses subject to punishment on Founding political theory. Similarly, in “Federalist” 12, Alexander Hamilton cites the beneficial impact on morals as a justification for federal taxation of alcoholic imports. The Founders used government to discourage other noncoercive activities, as well. In 1778, Congress recommended to the states “suppressing theatrical entertainments, horse-racing, gambling, and such other diversions as are productive of idleness, dissipation, and a general depravity of principles and manners.” In his book, “The People’s Welfare,” William Novak details the extensive regulation of everything from lotteries and usury to Sunday travel, coarse language, and poor relief that was the norm during the Founding Era. The American Founders believed that government exists to protect rights, just as libertarians do. But their understanding of rights was radically different from the libertarian understanding. Libertarians like Wenzel believe that protecting rights means prohibiting coercion. The Founders believed that protecting rights meant seeking the moral and material well- being of society. The American Founding was conservative, not libertarian. Libertarians will have to look elsewhere to support their beliefs. Jonathan Ashbach is a PhD student in politics at Hillsdale College. Jonathan has worked in the hospitality industry and as assistant editor for the Humboldt Economic Index. His work has also been published on Patheos and Christianity Today.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-53) not displayed.
.
.
.
#54. To: Tooconservative (#53)
Got it. The conservatives were a monolithic group. Probably the liberals, too. Only Libertarians can claim not to be monolithic.
None of them are actually monolithic but some come closer. Republicans in Blue states are nowhere close to conservatives from the Bible Belt. Similarly, the liberal-Left Xlinton faction of the Dems (probably still a voting majority) is much more numerous than the noisier Bernie Bros Bolsheviki. And libertarians are a mixed bag too. So were the Founders. That was kinda the point I was making. I'll repeat my point: the Founders were far and away the most radical political thinkers of the entire Enlightenment era. And their republic endures today, well over two centuries later, something you can't say for other democratic countries (excepting Britain). The others all fell into dictatorship or conquest at one point or another or they are far younger governments than ours is. Our relative isolation helped but our political system, despite its many flaws, is more resilient than the parliamentary democracies.
Rarely. Generally it's settled by money power, except in revolutionary circumstances.
Being conquered by an aggressive and stronger foe doesn't count as a failure of democracy. Denmark and Holland were conquered by Nazi Germany in 1940. Truth is, they were going to be conquered by Nazi Germany regardless of the structure of their governments, and regardless of the structure of the German government. When it's elephant versus peanut, peanut always looses, and that loss isn't attributable to some fault in the government model, but to a fault in the aggressive minds of the invader that caused them to invade. After all, the American federal constitutional model failed and was conquered, in 1865, but the other half of the country wielding the same federal constitutional model. The difference between the twin brothers was a matter of muscle strength, not of system.
I don't agree though I grasp your argument. You overstate it to support your premise.
I'll post the statement again. Feel free to easily demonstrate that it is false, -- seeing that you haven't done so yet; -- your opinion on what is,-- or is not 'immoral' is not proof.. Our various levels of government have never been given the power to legislate morality.. Only a dumbass would think that govts could even define what is 'moral'. much less make constitutional laws that criminalize 'sinful' acts..
Let's parse: "the Founders were far and away the most radical political thinkers of the entire Enlightenment era." I can't agree with that. The Jacobins were far more radical - in a bad way. I would agree with you that the Founders were on the cutting edge of practical, realistic, workable political thinking. The Jacobins were bat-shit crazy - we have to renumber the years and rename the months? Really? And bloodthirsty. The result was that they provoked a reaction that consumed them and their movement, and most people were very grateful for more executive Consulate to bring stability, and ultimately for an Emperor. The Founders were revolutionary, but practical. The Jacobins were more radical. "And their republic endures today, well over two centuries later," And that is where the practicality of the founders kicks in. The Jacobins were a lot more radical, but their Red Terror provoked a reaction and their own demise in the reaction that came a year and a half later (the White Terror, which was a whole lot less terrifying...unless you were a Jacobin). So yes, in a reasonably bounded sense I agree with you: the Founders were as radical as anybody could be in that era and produce a survivable government. There were greater radicals, who followed the logic of their movement down the road to proto-communism, mass-execution of the nobility, erasure of religion, and even renaming the months; but that was too extreme to survive. And now I'll say something uncomfortable to me: among the Founders, were those clear visionaries like John Adams who understood that American slavery was an evil that was incompatible with the ideals of the Revolution. He was right. But the practical reality was that the abolition of slavery - with all of the immediate evaporation of wealth that would come with that - was simply too radical for the Enlightenment generation. Adams was morally right, but it could not really be done in 1776. Had Adams prevailed on the moral point, the country would have been stillborn. The South would have remained British, and the North would have been conquered. Slavery was an evil that had to be addressed in another day. There are similar issues today that are simply a bridge too far for the people of our times, though eventually mankind will get there (example: the treatment of animals). " something you can't say for other democratic countries (excepting Britain)." Well, it depends on what you mean by "democratic countries". If you mean countries that have an elected legislature and some sort of franchise for some people, the oldest would be Iceland, whose Altding dates to the 9th century, a whole lot older than British "democracy". The Dutch Republic also predates this era. Britain wasn't really a democracy until the Reform Act of 1832, which is when the British people, properly speaking, got representation in Parliament. Before that, the franchise for Parliament was about 10% of the British population, and that was essentially the same level of voting as were represented in the French and British Parliaments and peerages of the middle ages. Britain was not a democracy in 1776. It was a country in which the merchant class, in the 1600s, overthrew the absolute monarchy and placed a check over it through a Parliament of what amounted to the new nobility. In truth, democracy proper, as we would call it, precedes the Enlightenment. The original American colonies - Virginia with its house of Burgesses, Massachusetts with its General Orders, Connecticut with its written constitution (first in the world) were more democratic than anything that existed anywhere else in the world at the time. Without royal governance, and with all of the demands of immediate action imposed by the frontier, the practical realities of colonial life created local democracies up and down the American seaboard, with the election of all officials. And though the landholding requirement for voting was a bit of a barrier, unlike in England and the rest of Europe, the ready availability of cheap land in America made the franchise quasi universal for white men anyway, in the 70-80% range. Nothing like that existed in England until after the Reforms that started in 1832. So, in truth, the democratic structure of American government is not a product of the Enlightenment at all, but of frontier conditions in the century preceding it. The American democratic government form already existed, the Founders did not create it. What they did was to replace the monarchy with our tripartite government at a national level, bringing into reality the vision of Montesquieu, and that really was Enlightenment thinking. But the state government that was the base model and center of American power, was completely sui generis to British America, and grew up from local conditions that had no precedent in modern Europe.
Your point is more valid that you even know. The oldest continuous democratic government in the world is the government of the State of Massachusetts. The second oldest is the government of the State of Connecticut. Virginia would be the oldest, dating back to 1619, but it's continuity was interrupted by the military occupation in 1865.
Our system is, because at root it is a kritarchy: the really permanent branch of government is the judiciary.
A new form of tyranny, just without the usual abusive monarch. Fundamentally reactionary. And it didn't last because it wasn't just radical, it was rabid. You can't compare the madness of the Reign of Terror with America's Founding. Anyway, that's my story, I'm sticking to it while wrapping myself in the flag. It is a workable argument. I'd mostly go along. And the late medieval state called the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. A few other examples exist. But none were truly durable or remotely comparable to the founding of the American republic. Face it, we're very special. I think you overlook the influence of Calvin's Geneva and the rising availability of quality Greek manuscripts in Europe. Even in England, the wags would say of our rebellion, "Cousin America has eloped with a Presbyterian parson". Not inaccurate though. The Presbyterians were a hotbed of rebels and all of the colonels (except one) in Washington's army were Presbyterian. The primary rebel families all used those Geneva bibles with the seditious footnotes that good King James I hated so much that he commissioned his Authorized Version to displace it. And it did eventually but not in time to help prevent the American Revolution. However, this does point back to your point about the Revolution having many foundations in the issues of the day back in England. We find it easy to think of the Founders as Americans. They weren't. They were rebels against the crown but they were Englishmen through and through and very much men of their era, just as we all are. We're kind of talking around the same points really.
I did know about Massachusetts (darn them). Didn't know that CT was #2 though.
And CT has the distinction of having the oldest WRITTEN constitution (hence the "Constitution State" on the quarter). Massachusetts Bay Colony (and the Massachusetts diaspora (specifically, CT, which was settled by Puritans who left Boston in 1637 because they found it too LIBERAL. LOL!)) also had the first universal public school system in the world. All the way back in the 1620s they were teaching every boy and girl to read, because everybody had to be able to read the Bible. Those "embattled farmers" who stood at Lexington Bridge and "fired the shot heard round the world" were actually, as a group, probably the best-educated people in the world. The men in fancy red uniforms facing them were mostly illiterate. That "rabble" had as much formal education as the English Parliamentarians. The whole population did. This is something that ought to be noted, and that definitely contributed to American victory, though it is rarely commented upon. The British Army marching through the American colonies, and their Prussian allies, were the functional equivalent of a bunch of Kongo illiterates marching around in modern America, trying to control the population. The same was true when British warships were engaging the American ships. The British soldier and seaman was an illiterate ignoramus. Every farm that he marched past in New England had a family in it as well-educated as the nobility of England or France. There was no comparison. The highest concentration of human brainpower on the planet in 1776 was the "rustic" population of New England. When in 1777 the English marched their army under "Gentleman Johnny" Burgoyne, and they were surrounded at Saratoga by New England and New York Minuteman farmers, it was an army of well-armed illiterates who NEEDED officers to guide them, versus a "rustic" army of fully literate men who were able to communicate with each other and back home, etc., in writing. The Redcoats were actually the Rubes. New England was, in fact, a FAR more educated people than London or Paris. It wasn't even close. One of the reasons that the American Revolution was able to stay on the rails of reason, while the French - and later the Russian - revolutions went berserk and animal - is because the Americans were an advanced, literate population, at least North of the Mason-Dixon line. The French peasants and Russian proles were neither, and were carried along much more easily by mob passions. The point: the English were more poorly educated and intellectually inferior to their American adversaries. They were incapable of independent action, and limited by the abilities of their officers. And it showed both in the development of American government FROM THE BEGINNING (in the 1620s) all the way forward. America, at least New England, was the far more educated place in 1776 than England. The English in England were very much like the South: they had an educated and elite gentry, but the average Englishman was as dumb as dirt.
Writing, piffle. It seems obvious you're cleverly trying to sidestep the (initially) unwritten Iroquois constitution which predated our own by a few centuries. I thought it odd you omitted it. NYSlimes: IROQUOIS CONSTITUTION: A FORERUNNER TO COLONISTS' DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES, 6/28/87 That same impluse operated as America spread west and the American Sunday School Union similarly promoted universal literacy across the plains and mountains. Unsung heroes, really. But they had the example of Massachusetts to consider. There was a time when MA really was the universally recognized as a thought leader to the entire country, the indispensable state. Now I suppose people would argue that it is NYC or LA. But no one would mention Boston unless they're one of those asshole Patriots fans (which I am). While their literacy was remarkable for a colony, there were areas of high literacy in Europe and in Britain. I don't think your argument holds up. It didn't take that much education to know that it was easier and safer to hide behind trees and play sniper to terrorize the Redcoats and reduce their numbers. The Brit officers complained bitterly about those dishonorable rebels. Those darned colonists refused to follow the European code of honor for soldiers where the two armies were expected to dutifully line up in the open wearing colorful livery and allow the enemy to take clean shots at them with flintlocks and cannon shot. Anything else was cowardice. That little tradition cost the Brits very dearly. I don't think they ever recovered their morale. You'll recall how much our own military complains about some wily natives resisting our "visits" to their countries and using guerilla tactics against us, resulting in our rather dismal counter-insurgency campaigns. During the Revolution, we were the wily natives with no regard for the honorable traditions of European war. Of course, we would have lost immediately if we had made war according to the customs of the Old World. You are definitely hitting the nail on the head. Hence the remarks of our Founders that our nation can only exist for long with an informed and educated electorate.
The Americans were not the first ones to come up with the idea of a voting council of leaders. Scandinavia mostly had that. So did the Indians. In fact, pretty much everywhere that there are primitive people it starts that way. But once populations get big, through land ownership and greater and lesser wealth, those systems become traditional, while real power reposes with rich houses - who become the nobility. OR the tribe is in an "exciting" location and faces violence from other tribes. Then, the trauma of war creates a warrior caste, and if they are victorious, THEY become the nobility. Sparta had its council, of course, but in the end it was dominated by military captains. Rome marched to war under the banner of SPQR - Senatus Populusque Romani - The Senate and People of Rome - who, by the end, where the two least significant parts of the whole imperial system.
The end of republics is typically that the voice of the people becomes the voice of The Person. In other words, things drift toward demanding to be ruled by a tyrant. We're not immune. The presidency is already far too powerful.
We're not immune. The presidency is already far too powerful. I think Trump is finding out that his power is greatly exaggerated. I'd say that our checks and balances are working in that aspect. Overall however, government power has been increased to the point that even a benign dictatorial type presidency may not be able to save the Republic.
And if Ron Paultard managed to get as lucky as it takes to win the Power Ball lottery, and win the position of POTUS, with a 6% backing, HE'D GET EVEN LESS DONE THAN TRUMP. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
I support Trump. You're such a fanatical crazy, he wouldn't want your support.
That wasn't my point... dumb dumb. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Most of the time, youre incapable of making a valid point, and don't even know it...
If the willful KOOKIFONIAN says so. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
We're not immune. The presidency is already far too powerful. But the true driving force behind it is that people find it very, very difficult to vote, of their own volition, to do what is necessary for the common good. Everybody has self interest, of course, and government must reasonably accomodate individual desires and self-interests. Dictatorships that don't are eventually overthrown. But once you have a republic, more people are happy, but a set of people are still in misery, and when self- interest of the electoral majority runs its course, the result is that the interest of the more to have backs to crack to make their lives better than the overall resources warrant, this leaves those at the bottom in as great, and often greater, misery than ever. Then, there is a larger and larger constituency for somebody to overturn the oligarchy. And when it comes, it comes from the organized military and paramilitary ranks, who are organized, armed, and much closer to the bottom than to the top. Dictators, Emperors and Presidents-for-Life do a better job, for awhile anyway, at addressing the needs of the bottom than democracies do. Why? First, because they're closer to the bottom - army ranks are not filled with middle and upper class people. Second, because they understand that restless and suffering masses are relatively cheap to appease, and offer a wide base of supporters who are angry and resentful of those above them, and thus more likely to support the Emperor. When the students were crushed iin Tiananmen Square, the army initially balked. And so fresh units were called in, from the provinces, military composed of farmer kids who had had hard lives their whole lives and who never had a hope in hell of being as privileged as these protesting students. THEY were perfectly willing to drive their tanks right over the students and gun them down. Of course, once any sort of peace is restored, unless you maintain an absolute reign of terror (which the Kims have managed to do in Korea but nobody else has managed for very long), things settle down to normal economic activity, and those same interests that accumulate money want a say, and gradually, they get it. Eventually they get power. Then they neglect those below them again and the cycle resets. The only way to have stable, permanent anything would be for people to act like Jesus called for people to act. But who really wants to do THAT?
You sound kinda pessimistic. But then, so were the Founders so you're in good company.
TooConservative: Nicely done.
But they never applied that radical thinking to their own states. They created the U.S. Constitution -- a radical document that defined and limited the newly formed federal government only. It would have been very easy to extend the federal Bill of Rights to the states when it was written. The Founders chose not to.
A tip of the hat to Bill Cosby: "Suppose way back in history if you had a referee before every war, and the guy called the toss. Let’s go to the Revolutionary War." "Capt. Hartman of the British, this is Capt. Soble of the settlers. Capt. Soble of the settlers, this is Capt. Hartman of the British. "Call the toss, there, British. British call heads. It's tails. You lose the toss, British; the settlers win. What we do, settlers? All right. The settlers say that during the war, they will wear any color clothes that they want to, shoot from behind the rocks and trees and everywhere; says your team must wear red and march in a straight line."
First, its should be noted that America has always been unique among Republics in all of history. THE "voice" of the American Republic was as unified a nation was ever going to be given its commonality of faith, culture, and Western-European heritage. The genesis and facilitator of THE End of the American Republic has always been the erosion of Judeo-Christian values, i.e., ethics and morality based on Biblical principles and honor. The Secular Humanism rebellion and its hijacking of America via public school and academic indoctrination has gradually unloosened this mooring. The ouster of prayer and God in Public School was THE breaking point. By introducing wide-spread immigration from nations that did not share the Judeo-Christian moral and ethics AND culture also attributed heavily to our demise and full tyranny in the near future. America America was broken by the late 1960s, and now splintered irrevocably. Conveniently now, ONLY a Strong Man (or gubmint) can truly keep this nation of relative mongrels and mutts together. This will sound cliche to Unbelievers, but this Republic -- even America -- was bound to inevitably drift toward chaos, then Tyranny by abandoning God and Bible-based morals and ethics. Most laws are about the HONOR SYSTEM in any case -- meaningless if as according to Secular Himanism, "everything is relative."
Our relative isolation helped but our political system, despite its many flaws, is more resilient than the parliamentary democracies. It's on its Death Bed, Jim. But yes, the Founders were radical. So radical especially in the sense that they eschewed any sniff of creating an American royalty class from which to rule generations like 99% of nations on the planet. Best intentions and execution of a Republic ever. Best laws and protections ever (better late than never on the actual implementation.) Too bad Secular Humanism ruined it in under 200 years.
If that were so, the Republic would have burnt itself out within decade. America was a Judeo-Christian based Republic that was libertarian around the edges. Tough, perilous balancing act, but we'd pulled it off. For about 200 years. We now see just how fragile it was. The Republic is not even a "Republic" any more, the facade of a "representative constitutional republic" exposed as a charade. The "Republic" part of USA is currently trashed and on Life-Support.
They were still Englishmen with all the baggage of the era. At the risk of stating the obvious, they were the richest and most desired colony in the world with unimaginable wealth on the continent. And they instituted a government that entirely lacked a monarch. That alone made them extreme radicals. It is worth mentioning that Cromwell did execute his king, Charles I, (rightfully IMO) and then made himself the Lord Protector (dictator for life) of England and Britain. So that did provide an example well-known to the Founders of rule by non-monarchs but the Founders couldn't have desired to overthrow a tyrant just to replace him with a different tyrant. They wanted an entirely new order, a Novus ordo secularum, a "new order of the ages". And our fiat currency still contains that motto from the Great Seal of the United States. The Founders were very much men of the Enlightenment and very much Englishmen.
We've had great fun from the beginning, ridiculing the Redcoats for behaving according the Euro codes of honor. We consider it much less humorous when guerillas and terrorists refuse to recognize and behave according to the civilized rules of war to which we subscribe. Like when they use car bombs and IEDs against our troops when they are in foreign countries. Funny when we do it, not so much when others do it to our soldiers. But there is the advantage of insurgencies.
Forbidding titles was wise. Placing a high bar to prove treason was another notable contrast with the European monarchies. There were many features of the early Republic that showed how aware they were that the monarchies of Europe, even in countries like England with a parliament, were quite corrupt and easily brushed aside.
It ain't over until we say it's over. And it ain't over. We were just saved from Hitlery's reign of terror by the electoral college that the Founders implemented. Nope, it ain't over by any means.
Upupupupupupup.... "Many"?? No. Some noted ones? Yes. They DID however subscribe to Biblical principles. IOW, Jesus presented as only a moral teacher and philosopher. Yes. To the few Founders (The usual suspects: Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, etal.) who were purely Deists.
Simply the evolution of war. WWII did not use the trench warfare tactics of WWI. Guerilla warfare is not war. Where are the uniforms, for example? Any combatant out of uniform receives no protection from the Geneva Convention.
Neither illegal, immoral, or unethical. UNLESS ABUSED, like many things. Washington wasn't his customers' babysitter.
There were many features of the early Republic that showed how aware they were that the monarchies of Europe, even in countries like England with a parliament, were quite corrupt and easily brushed aside. Nicely explained.
We were just saved from Hitlery's reign of terror by the electoral college that the Founders implemented. Ok. Technically we have a temporary respite. Trump is the blood transfusion phase of the Republic, that's all. The die is cast, Jim. We're on life support until a Democrat wins the WH. And then all hell breaks loose and we get a Hitlery in everything but name.
What part of "warfare" did you miss?
You're dumb. The Geneva convention doesn't protect anyone. In war you kill the enemy any way you want to.
Comments (95 - 148) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestThe conservatives of the era were all royalist Tories.
#55. To: misterwhite (#54)
(Edited)
Got it. The conservatives were a monolithic group. Probably the liberals, too.
#56. To: misterwhite (#50)
And that would be the power of the majority of people acting through their elected representatives.
#57. To: Tooconservative (#55)
The others all fell into dictatorship or conquest
#58. To: Vicomte13 (#57)
After all, the American federal constitutional model failed and was conquered, in 1865, but the other half of the country wielding the same federal constitutional model. The difference between the twin brothers was a matter of muscle strength, not of system.
#59. To: A K A Stone (#52)
You made a stupid statement that was easily demonstrated as false.
#60. To: Tooconservative (#55)
I'll repeat my point: the Founders were far and away the most radical political thinkers of the entire Enlightenment era. And their republic endures today, well over two centuries later, something you can't say for other democratic countries (excepting Britain). The others all fell into dictatorship or conquest at one point or another or they are far younger governments than ours is. Our relative isolation helped but our political system, despite its many flaws, is more resilient than the parliamentary democracies.
#61. To: Tooconservative (#55)
The others all fell into dictatorship or conquest at one point or another or they are far younger governments than ours is.
#62. To: All (#60)
Our relative isolation helped but our political system, despite its many flaws, is more resilient than the parliamentary democracies.
#63. To: Vicomte13 (#60)
I can't agree with that. The Jacobins were far more radical - in a bad way. I would agree with you that the Founders were on the cutting edge of practical, realistic, workable political thinking.
And now I'll say something uncomfortable to me: among the Founders, were those clear visionaries like John Adams who understood that American slavery was an evil that was incompatible with the ideals of the Revolution. He was right. But the practical reality was that the abolition of slavery - with all of the immediate evaporation of wealth that would come with that - was simply too radical for the Enlightenment generation. Adams was morally right, but it could not really be done in 1776. Had Adams prevailed on the moral point, the country would have been stillborn. The South would have remained British, and the North would have been conquered. Slavery was an evil that had to be addressed in another day. There are similar issues today that are simply a bridge too far for the people of our times, though eventually mankind will get there (example: the treatment of animals).
If you mean countries that have an elected legislature and some sort of franchise for some people, the oldest would be Iceland, whose Altding dates to the 9th century, a whole lot older than British "democracy". The Dutch Republic also predates this era.
The American democratic government form already existed, the Founders did not create it. What they did was to replace the monarchy with our tripartite government at a national level, bringing into reality the vision of Montesquieu, and that really was Enlightenment thinking. But the state government that was the base model and center of American power, was completely sui generis to British America, and grew up from local conditions that had no precedent in modern Europe.
#64. To: Vicomte13 (#61)
The oldest continuous democratic government in the world is the government of the State of Massachusetts. The second oldest is the government of the State of Connecticut.
#65. To: Tooconservative (#64)
I did know about Massachusetts (darn them). Didn't know that CT was #2 though.
#66. To: Vicomte13, tpaine (#65)
And CT has the distinction of having the oldest WRITTEN constitution (hence the "Constitution State" on the quarter).
Massachusetts Bay Colony (and the Massachusetts diaspora (specifically, CT, which was settled by Puritans who left Boston in 1637 because they found it too LIBERAL. LOL!)) also had the first universal public school system in the world. All the way back in the 1620s they were teaching every boy and girl to read, because everybody had to be able to read the Bible.
Those "embattled farmers" who stood at Lexington Bridge and "fired the shot heard round the world" were actually, as a group, probably the best-educated people in the world. The men in fancy red uniforms facing them were mostly illiterate. That "rabble" had as much formal education as the English Parliamentarians. The whole population did.
When in 1777 the English marched their army under "Gentleman Johnny" Burgoyne, and they were surrounded at Saratoga by New England and New York Minuteman farmers, it was an army of well-armed illiterates who NEEDED officers to guide them, versus a "rustic" army of fully literate men who were able to communicate with each other and back home, etc., in writing. The Redcoats were actually the Rubes. New England was, in fact, a FAR more educated people than London or Paris. It wasn't even close.
One of the reasons that the American Revolution was able to stay on the rails of reason, while the French - and later the Russian - revolutions went berserk and animal - is because the Americans were an advanced, literate population, at least North of the Mason-Dixon line. The French peasants and Russian proles were neither, and were carried along much more easily by mob passions.
#67. To: Tooconservative (#66)
It seems obvious you're cleverly trying to sidestep the (initially) unwritten Iroquois constitution which predated our own by a few centuries. I thought it odd you omitted it.
#68. To: Vicomte13 (#67)
Rome marched to war under the banner of SPQR - Senatus Populusque Romani - The Senate and People of Rome - who, by the end, where the two least significant parts of the whole imperial system.
#69. To: Tooconservative, y'all (#68)
The end of republics is typically that the voice of the people becomes the voice of The Person. In other words, things drift toward demanding to be ruled by a tyrant.
#70. To: tpaine (#69)
I think Trump is finding out that his power is greatly exaggerated.
#71. To: GrandIsland (#70)
#72. To: tpaine (#71)
I support Trump.
#73. To: GrandIsland (#72)
That wasn't my point...
#74. To: tpaine (#73)
Most of the time, youre incapable of making a valid point, and don't even know it...
#75. To: Tooconservative (#68)
The end of republics is typically that the voice of the people becomes the voice of The Person. In other words, things drift toward demanding to be ruled by a tyrant.
#76. To: Vicomte13, tpaine (#75)
#77. To: Tooconservative (#66)
Vicomte13:
The point: the English were more poorly educated and intellectually inferior to their American adversaries. They were incapable of independent action, and limited by the abilities of their officers. And it showed both in the development of American government FROM THE BEGINNING (in the 1620s) all the way forward. America, at least New England, was the far more educated place in 1776 than England. The English in England were very much like the South: they had an educated and elite gentry, but the average Englishman was as dumb as dirt.
It didn't take that much education to know that it was easier and safer to hide behind trees and play sniper to terrorize the Redcoats and reduce their numbers. The Brit officers complained bitterly about those dishonorable rebels. Those darned colonists refused to follow the European code of honor for soldiers where the two armies were expected to dutifully line up in the open wearing colorful livery and allow the enemy to take clean shots at them with flintlocks and cannon shot. Anything else was cowardice. That little tradition cost the Brits very dearly. I don't think they ever recovered their morale.
#78. To: Tooconservative (#55)
I'll repeat my point: the Founders were far and away the most radical political thinkers of the entire Enlightenment era.
#79. To: Tooconservative (#66)
#80. To: Tooconservative, Vicomte13 (#68)
The end of republics is typically that the voice of the people becomes the voice of The Person. In other words, things drift toward demanding to be ruled by a tyrant.
#81. To: Tooconservative, Vicomte13, misterwhite (#55)
(Edited)
I'll repeat my point: the Founders were far and away the most radical political thinkers of the entire Enlightenment era. And their republic endures today, well over two centuries later, something you can't say for other democratic countries (excepting Britain)....
#82. To: A K A Stone (#0)
Libertarians are still trying to claim the American Founding as theirs.
#83. To: misterwhite, Vicomte13 (#78)
But they never applied that radical thinking to their own states.
They created the U.S. Constitution -- a radical document that defined and limited the newly formed federal government only. It would have been very easy to extend the federal Bill of Rights to the states when it was written. The Founders chose not to.
#84. To: misterwhite (#79)
What we do, settlers? All right. The settlers say that during the war, they will wear any color clothes that they want to, shoot from behind the rocks and trees and everywhere; says your team must wear red and march in a straight line."
#85. To: Liberator, tpaine, A K A Stone, sneakypete (#80)
The Secular Humanism rebellion and its hijacking of America via public school and academic indoctrination has gradually unloosened this mooring. The ouster of prayer and God in Public School was THE breaking point. By introducing wide-spread immigration from nations that did not share the Judeo-Christian moral and ethics AND culture also attributed heavily to our demise and full tyranny in the near future.
Many key Founders were Deists and did not subscribe to traditional Christian theology. Look sometime at the Jefferson bible for an example. He cut/pasted NT passages into his own bible, one that eliminated all references to Jesus as divine and all miracles. IOW, Jesus presented as only a moral teacher and philosopher. People like to talk about Jefferson and the Declaration (which he did plagiarize from a letter circulating among rebellious Presbyterians) but they don't like to recall the Jefferson bible. Similarly they love that story about George Washington chopping down that cherry tree but they really don't like for anyone to mention that George Washington was also very wealthy because he was the biggest distiller of whiskey in North America, a regular peddler of the demon rum.
#86. To: Liberator (#81)
But yes, the Founders were radical. So radical especially in the sense that they eschewed any sniff of creating an American royalty class from which to rule generations like 99% of nations on the planet.
#87. To: Liberator (#82)
We now see just how fragile it was. The Republic is not even a "Republic" any more, the facade of a "representative constitutional republic" exposed as a charade. The "Republic" part of USA is currently trashed and on Life-Support.
#88. To: Tooconservative (#85)
Many key Founders were Deists and did not subscribe to traditional Christian theology....
#89. To: Tooconservative (#84)
We've had great fun from the beginning, ridiculing the Redcoats for behaving according the Euro codes of honor.
#90. To: Tooconservative (#85)
...They really don't like for anyone to mention that George Washington was also very wealthy because he was the biggest distiller of whiskey in North America, a regular peddler of the demon rum.
#91. To: Tooconservative (#86)
Forbidding titles was wise. Placing a high bar to prove treason was another notable contrast with the European monarchies.
#92. To: Tooconservative (#87)
It ain't over until we say it's over. And it ain't over.
#93. To: misterwhite (#89)
Guerilla warfare is not war.
#94. To: misterwhite (#89)
Guerilla warfare is not war. Where are the uniforms, for example? Any combatant out of uniform receives no protection from the Geneva Convention.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]