NationStates Jolt Archive

This thread concerns the foundation of the United States of America, and the individuals who mainly created it.

Fass expressed his opinion that: when the United States was founded, it was not progressive relative to the rest of the world, as is commonly believed. He even states that the U.S. was extremely backward.

What is NSG's opinion of the old U.S. and its founders, relative to their time?

I would have to see what Fass mean by backwards. In some instances, he is correct. We still had slavery and we were following the ideals of others (ie Jefferson and France).

It might help to define the period we are talking about. The revolution? The creation of the Constitution?

Our founders do have a great deal of myths surrounding them. For example the image of them all meeting in one place to sign the DoI. Patrick Henry's sole drive was for freedom......

Shit look at us, we are still culturally backward.

Shit look at us, we are still culturally backward.

Meh. Culture is a matter of opinion.

Go to Stockholm and they will tell you the people out in the country are pretty backwards.....

In terms of political form, through the nineteenth century the US was definitely progressive for its time: it had no monarch, it had no established church, it had representative government right from the start, it got suffrage without economic class restriction reasonably quickly, and it had an extensive set of enforceable guarantees of civil liberties. We still have stronger separation of church and state restrictions than most other democracies.

The major strike against it is slavery, which it practiced considerably after France and Britain had gotten rid of it--and that's probably not a fair comparison because slavery did not play the kind of role in the domestic economies of France and Britain that it did in the United States.

I don't think slavery can be used against the founding fathers. After all, from all I know, they were against it and had to capitulate to form the US in the first place. Our first compromise - a nasty one, sure, but necessary.

In terms of political form, through the nineteenth century the US was definitely progressive for its time: it had no monarch, it had no established church, it had representative government right from the start, it got suffrage without economic class restriction reasonably quickly, and it had an extensive set of enforceable guarantees of civil liberties. We still have stronger separation of church and state restrictions than most other democracies.

The major strike against it is slavery, which it practiced considerably after France and Britain had gotten rid of it--and that's probably not a fair comparison because slavery did not play the kind of role in the domestic economies of France and Britain that it did in the United States.

Exactly. The OP may want to explain the evidence/basis for "Fass"'s theory. We did lag in eliminating slavery, certainly. The slave trade was outlawed fairly quickly (1807 or 1817, I believe) but the matter of actually revolutionizing the Southern economy was a drawn-out process.

When the U.S. was established, England had a King, Japan had an emperor and Russia had a czar. Not to mention, the U.S. was the largest democracy since Athens. Some of the founding fathers had some crackpot ideas, but when they compromised to form a government, it was excellent.

Notice I say, "was."

Who cares what Fass thinks?

Who cares what Fass thinks?

I used him as an inspiration for this thread, but this conversation is more about the opinions of the rest of NSG.

Who cares what Fass thinks?

Those who agree with him, perhaps?

Those who agree with him, perhaps?

Or those who disagree with him.

Or those who disagree with him.

A good point.

I used him as an inspiration for this thread, but this conversation is more about the opinions of the rest of NSG.
Well, I wish you had based less of the OP on his remarks, because he never even mentions the US except to bitch about how much he hates the very idea of its existence and to insult its citizens. It is impossible to have a conversation with him about it.

As for my opinion of the founders of the US: I think they were no more nor less "enlightened" than anyone else. Some of their ideas are progressive by today's standards. Those same ideas were usually considered radical by their own contemporary standards. They also had ideas and presumptions that are considered backward by today's standards but were considered normal and ordinary by the standards of their time.

The biggest knock against them was their support for or tolerance of (depending on which one you're talking about) slavery. That is a very serious fault, but then, we weren't there, so we don't know how they really thought and felt about it nor why they made the decisions about it that they did. We only have fragmentary evidence from their surviving writings, and the interpretations of historians who are products of their own time, not the founders' time.

So when it comes to enlightenment -- I don't look to political leaders of the past for enlightenment. When it comes to progressive attitudes -- I would challenge anyone in the 20th-21st centuries to find any place in the 18th century that was not either wholly "backward" or a distressing mix of radical progressiveness and extreme backwardness across the various strata of society. Reading history is one of my favorite pastimes, but it has really put me off time travel. I wouldn't want to be in any period before the 20th century.

The one score I always will give to the US founders, though, is that they were all very smart. Very, very smart. That is rare and admirable.

Have you ever read John Stuart Mill, Muravyets? His views on women can still be considered revolutionary.

Have you ever read John Stuart Mill, Muravyets? His views on women can still be considered revolutionary.
Yes, and...? Mill was not one of the US's founders.

Yes, and...? Mill was not one of the US's founders.

My comment had nothing to do with this thread. Is contradiction just what you do?

My comment had nothing to do with this thread. Is contradiction just what you do?
No. I do other things, too. One of the things I like to do is try to stick to the thread topic, especially when it is only just getting started.

I am nominally familiar with Mill. His opinions about women were ahead of his time and very welcome and refreshing to me. However, he is off-topic from the present discussion.

I don't think slavery can be used against the founding fathers. After all, from all I know, they were against it and had to capitulate to form the US in the first place. Our first compromise - a nasty one, sure, but necessary.

Agreed, Jefferson called the Great Compromise , "The Death Knell of the Union".

I don't think slavery can be used against the founding fathers. After all, from all I know, they were against it and had to capitulate to form the US in the first place. Our first compromise - a nasty one, sure, but necessary.

How could Jefferson be against slavery, but still own slaves?

How could Jefferson be against slavery, but still own slaves?

Like a 150 slaves, if I remember correctly.

How could Jefferson be against slavery, but still own slaves?

Ah, that classic contradiction. Its true though - he was against slavery.

http://afroamhistory.about.com/library/bljefferson_slavery.htm

For how:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson#On_slavery

How could Jefferson be against slavery, but still own slaves?

Virginia had laws that made it hard for one to free the slaves one owned.

Is it possible, Jefferson thought he could offer those slaves a better life - thats why he had so many?

Is it possible, Jefferson thought he could offer those slaves a better life - thats why he had so many?

That does not make any sense; if thinks blacks are better-off as slaves, how could he be against slavery? Would he not just pay them a salary?

Shit look at us, we are still culturally backward.

Go visit some third world nations and then get back to me and let me know if we are backwards or not.

Virginia had laws that made it hard for one to free the slaves one owned.

Please show me them.

Is it possible, Jefferson thought he could offer those slaves a better life - thats why he had so many?

Wasn't it Jefferson that had kids with some of the slave women?

How could Jefferson be against slavery, but still own slaves?

We have the wolf by the ears, and we can neither hold him nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, self-preservation in the other.

* On slavery, in a letter to John Holmes (22 April 1820)

What is NSG's opinion of the old U.S. and its founders, relative to their time?

I think most of the Founding Fathers didn't even study Swedish, much less speak it fluently, and so by that standard they were backwards.
In things like the role of government, political freedoms, and other things that are more important they were much more enlightened. However, I think it's an important point to remember that the American Revolution revolutionaries were much less radical for their time than the folks leading the French Revolution, and most later European ones. Maybe that's what Fass means, although I don't know how one gets "not incredibly radical" to mean "not progressive" or even "backwards."

That does not make any sense; if thinks blacks are better-off as slaves, how could he be against slavery? Would he not just pay them a salary?

Life was pretty shitty for a freed slave, especially in a slave state (but even in the North).

Because, you couldn't just outlaw slavery with the crack of your fingers at that point in time I'd imagine some anti-slavery people did some pretty wacky things to sooth their minds.

Wasn't it Jefferson that had kids with some of the slave women?
Jefferson certainly did; the last time I checked it was still unclear whether it was Thomas Jefferson or one of his relatives.

However, I think it's an important point to remember that the American Revolution revolutionaries were much less radical for their time than the folks leading the French Revolution, and most later European ones.
This is very true. The American Revolution was a purely political revolution, whereas the French Revolution was political and social. Which turned out pretty poorly for the French revolutionaries.

Please show me them.

"Manumission became much more difficult in 1723. Paragraph 17 of the 1723 Act Directing the Trial of Slaves, Committing Capital Crimes; and for the More Effectual Punishing Conspiracies and Insurrection of Them; and for the Better Government of Negros, Mulattos, and Indians, Bond or Free stated that “No negro, mullatto, or Indian slaves, shall be set free, upon any pretence whatsoever, except for some meritorious services, to be adjudged and allowed by the governor and council, for the time being.”"

Source (http://research.history.org/Historical_Research/Research_Themes/ThemeEnslave/Manumission.cfm)

This is very true. The American Revolution was a purely political revolution, whereas the French Revolution was political and social. Which turned out pretty poorly for the French revolutionaries.

Meh. They eventually got Bonaparte's government, which was less then what they were looking for, but still highly progressive compared to the rest of Europe.

That does not make any sense; if thinks blacks are better-off as slaves, how could he be against slavery? Would he not just pay them a salary?
The laws of the slave-holding colonies simply did not recognize that a black person was a person at all nor that they could be freed by anything less than a decree issued by the governor with the authority of the crown. A slave that was freed by his "owner" was, in the eyes of the local government, nothing more than abandoned property, free for the taking by anyone who wanted it. There were contemporary stories of freed slaves, and even black freemen from the northern colonies or other places, being kidnapped and (re)enslaved by someone else.

Jefferson was not alone among slaveholders, many of whom had had no experience with the slave system before they emigrated to the colonies, to have serious issues with it.

As it was, I believe Jefferson did grant assets and some inheritance to his slaves, all of whom he did eventually free.

Wasn't it Jefferson that had kids with some of the slave women?
Only one woman. He took up with her several years after his wife's death and remained in a more or less open relationship with her for many years.
He infamously brought her with him to Paris, where she was seen as his mistress, not his slave. He did not deny paternity of their child/children (I don't know how many there were), but his descendants did, for a long time. It was only recently, by the way, that the two branches of the Jefferson family reconciled and are now united.

As it was, I believe Jefferson did grant assets and some inheritance to his slaves, all of whom he did eventually free.

I don't think so. Jefferson did free the children of Sally Hemings, but he did not free her and no "other nuclear slave family."

Link (http://www.monticello.org/plantation/hemingscontro/hemings-jefferson_contro.html)

I don't think so. Jefferson did free the children of Sally Hemings, but he did not free her and no "other nuclear slave family."

Link (http://www.monticello.org/plantation/hemingscontro/hemings-jefferson_contro.html)
That's a good source, thanks. However, Jefferson freed other slaves in his will and allowed yet others to "escape" during his lifetime. The ones he freed in his will did, I believe, receive a small bequest to send them off with. As the following source shows, I have to correct myself -- Jefferson did not free all his slaves, but he did free many of them, and others were freed later.

http://www.monticello.org/plantation/lives/freed.html

How could Jefferson be against slavery, but still own slaves?

By being hypocritical.

That's a good source, thanks. However, Jefferson freed other slaves in his will and allowed yet others to "escape" during his lifetime. The ones he freed in his will did, I believe, receive a small bequest to send them off with. As the following source shows, I have to correct myself -- Jefferson did not free all his slaves, but he did free many of them, and others were freed later.

http://www.monticello.org/plantation/lives/freed.html

George Washington, I think, was the only Founding Father to free all of his slaves (not counting the ones who never owned slaves in the first place). I'm a little curious why, he doesn't seem to have thought as much about the issue as people like Jefferson, and while he may not have had children he certainly had heirs to his estate.

George Washington, I think, was the only Founding Father to free all of his slaves (not counting the ones who never owned slaves in the first place). I'm a little curious why, he doesn't seem to have thought as much about the issue as people like Jefferson, and while he may not have had children he certainly had heirs to his estate.

Of all our founding fathers, Washington was the least ideological and the most committed to the causes of liberty and America.

George Washington, I think, was the only Founding Father to free all of his slaves (not counting the ones who never owned slaves in the first place). I'm a little curious why, he doesn't seem to have thought as much about the issue as people like Jefferson, and while he may not have had children he certainly had heirs to his estate.
Maybe he did it because he didn't like being stuck with the slave system, either. However, his slaves did not fare as well, because I've heard that Martha reneged on George's last wishes and did not free the slaves.

Of all our founding fathers, Washington was the least ideological and the most committed to the causes of liberty and America.
How do you figure that? I'm not declaring you wrong -- it's just that I've never heard anyone say that before, so I'm interested in why you think so.

Maybe he did it because he didn't like being stuck with the slave system, either. However, his slaves did not fare as well, because I've heard that Martha reneged on George's last wishes and did not free the slaves.

According to Wikipedia (which I grant is not the most reliable source), his said in his will his slaves should be freed after Martha (not George) died. Martha "owned" one slave herself, but the rest were freed after her death.

According to Wikipedia (which I grant is not the most reliable source), his said in his will his slaves should be freed after Martha (not George) died. Martha "owned" one slave herself, but the rest were freed after her death.
That would make sense then. I heard it as, he freed the slaves after his death, but Martha kept them on. That made Martha seem like way more of a bitch than I had ever had reason to think her otherwise.

How do you figure that? I'm not declaring you wrong -- it's just that I've never heard anyone say that before, so I'm interested in why you think so.

Oh, it was a non-researched statement, but I mean... he led the Continental Army through a fight that must have seemed pretty damn hopeless, despite his calls for aid being ignored by a Continental Congress who could do nothing to help... he was reluctant to accept the highest office of the nation he had helped (to understate his assistance) to create, and when he did he served for only two terms, setting I would say one of the most important precedents for our nation, in terms of the democracy we run. He was, by all accounts, humble and self-sacrificing. I think a lot of people don't realize how easily our democracy could have failed - if Washington had given in to his tremendous popularity and the desires of power and taken over, who would have objected at the time if he ran for a few more terms, perhaps amended the Constitution to give himself a little more power... and so on, invalidating everything the founders had worked so hard for. Washington had no agenda, he was at first and last a servant of the republic he fought so hard to create.

And after it was all over, he retired to his farm to live out his days.

Quite often, we angel-ize (the opposite of demonize?) our founding fathers, but it is difficult to give Washington too much credit. The man was a BAMF. Off topic, I wonder if anyone else has seen the painting Washington Crossing the Delaware? I have seen it several times, and it is one of my favorite paintings. If you're anything like me, its easy to sit in stunned silence in front of it. Against the most professional army in the world, outnumbered, outgunned, out-everything-ed, here is Washington leading his ragtag band of starved and cold volunteers across a river of ice in a move of such daring as has rarely been replicated.

It really is awe-inspiring. I highly recommend it.

What is NSG's opinion of the old U.S. and its founders, relative to their time?
Slightly above-par in terms of freedom and such, shame the US' national myth basically deifies them, opening them to all kinds of attacks.

It really is awe-inspiring. I highly recommend it.
I already posted this in the political party thread, but since you mention Washington and art...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbRom1Rz8OA

Oh, it was a non-researched statement, but I mean... he led the Continental Army through a fight that must have seemed pretty damn hopeless, despite his calls for aid being ignored by a Continental Congress who could do nothing to help... he was reluctant to accept the highest office of the nation he had helped (to understate his assistance) to create, and when he did he served for only two terms, setting I would say one of the most important precedents for our nation, in terms of the democracy we run. He was, by all accounts, humble and self-sacrificing. I think a lot of people don't realize how easily our democracy could have failed - if Washington had given in to his tremendous popularity and the desires of power and taken over, who would have objected at the time if he ran for a few more terms, perhaps amended the Constitution to give himself a little more power... and so on, invalidating everything the founders had worked so hard for. Washington had no agenda, he was at first and last a servant of the republic he fought so hard to create.

And after it was all over, he retired to his farm to live out his days.

Quite often, we angel-ize (the opposite of demonize?) our founding fathers, but it is difficult to give Washington too much credit. The man was a BAMF. Off topic, I wonder if anyone else has seen the painting Washington Crossing the Delaware? I have seen it several times, and it is one of my favorite paintings. If you're anything like me, its easy to sit in stunned silence in front of it. Against the most professional army in the world, outnumbered, outgunned, out-everything-ed, here is Washington leading his ragtag band of starved and cold volunteers across a river of ice in a move of such daring as has rarely been replicated.

It really is awe-inspiring. I highly recommend it.
Well, yes, Washington does deserve all the accolades he gets, in my opinion. A very admirable person.

A vicious snob, of course. So notorious for being haughty and snooty that I heard some historian recount an anecdote in which one of the delegates to the Continental Congress made a bet with another that he wouldn't dare walk up to Washington and hug him in the assembly hall. The guy did it and won the bet, but wrote in a letter that Washington was not at all amused and that he, the hugger, "would never do that again." But hey, I like a hero with human flaws.

But while I would grant you that he was the least ideological, I would argue about calling him the most dedicated to the principles of liberty. I think the Adamses and Franklin, as well as some others were pretty damned dedicated to that ideal.

Not Hamilton, though.

The laws of the slave-holding colonies simply did not recognize that a black person was a person at all nor that they could be freed by anything less than a decree issued by the governor with the authority of the crown. A slave that was freed by his "owner" was, in the eyes of the local government, nothing more than abandoned property, free for the taking by anyone who wanted it. There were contemporary stories of freed slaves, and even black freemen from the northern colonies or other places, being kidnapped and (re)enslaved by someone else.

Jefferson was not alone among slaveholders, many of whom had had no experience with the slave system before they emigrated to the colonies, to have serious issues with it.

As it was, I believe Jefferson did grant assets and some inheritance to his slaves, all of whom he did eventually free.


Only one woman. He took up with her several years after his wife's death and remained in a more or less open relationship with her for many years.
He infamously brought her with him to Paris, where she was seen as his mistress, not his slave. He did not deny paternity of their child/children (I don't know how many there were), but his descendants did, for a long time. It was only recently, by the way, that the two branches of the Jefferson family reconciled and are now united.
she was his wifes half sister.

and, if he had freed her, she would have had to leave virginia.

but he should have freed her in his will.

as george washington did with the slaves he owned. (well he willed them to be free after martha died but martha grew afraid that one of them would kill her so as to free the rest so she set them free)

Maybe he did it because he didn't like being stuck with the slave system, either. However, his slaves did not fare as well, because I've heard that Martha reneged on George's last wishes and did not free the slaves.
washington wrote up an air tight will so that it would be impossible to keep the slaves longer than he mandated.

But while I would grant you that he was the least ideological, I would argue about calling him the most dedicated to the principles of liberty. I think the Adamses and Franklin, as well as some others were pretty damned dedicated to that ideal.
I forgot about Franklin - which is a statement even I can't believe I made. Franklin is my own personal God; he can do no wrong, and is the best at everything. What we really need is to take DNA from all of the founding fathers - Washington's selflessness, Franklin's genius (and skill with the ladies), Adams' commitment, Jefferson's writing ability, Hancock's balls... and create the ultimate superhero, FOUNDING FATHER, who actually can do no wrong and knows the right answer to every American problem. He would also know exactly what every founding father had in mind regarding the Constitution, so that would end judicial review...

she was his wifes half sister.

and, if he had freed her, she would have had to leave virginia.

but he should have freed her in his will.

as george washington did with the slaves he owned. (well he willed them to be free after martha died but martha grew afraid that one of them would kill her so as to free the rest so she set them free)
I'm not sure we know the full Sally Hemmings story. Jefferson was not known for keeping very good records of what he did -- he did with his work but other things, not so much. And his family were certainly not motivated to preserve that part of his history. Look how much time and effort it took to get the main line of the family to recognize the Hemmings branch only just a few years ago. I think it is possible some things went wrong with the disposition of Sally's status, because I find it hard to believe that he would have just forgotten about her while taking care of others, but not so hard to believe that his paperwork would have been totally screwed up.

I forgot about Franklin - which is a statement even I can't believe I made. Franklin is my own personal God; he can do no wrong, and is the best at everything. What we really need is to take DNA from all of the founding fathers - Washington's selflessness, Franklin's genius (and skill with the ladies), Adams' commitment, Jefferson's writing ability, Hancock's balls... and create the ultimate superhero, FOUNDING FATHER, who actually can do no wrong and knows the right answer to every American problem. He would also know exactly what every founding father had in mind regarding the Constitution, so that would end judicial review...
Same here. I like Jefferson in a lot of ways, not so much in others. Washington is very admirable, but as a role model, I can take or leave him (which is why my knowledge of him is so cluttered up with gossip, I guess). Hamilton makes me laugh and was hot. But Franklin -- I have said and will say again: The world would be a better place if everyone would try to be just a little more like Ben Franklin.

I forgot about Franklin - which is a statement even I can't believe I made. Franklin is my own personal God; he can do no wrong, and is the best at everything. What we really need is to take DNA from all of the founding fathers - Washington's selflessness, Franklin's genius (and skill with the ladies), Adams' commitment, Jefferson's writing ability, Hancock's balls... and create the ultimate superhero, FOUNDING FATHER, who actually can do no wrong and knows the right answer to every American problem. He would also know exactly what every founding father had in mind regarding the Constitution, so that would end judicial review...
BY YOUR POWERS COMBINED, I AM CAPTAIN FREEDOM! Obligatory fuckin white text, it's a pretty lame-arsed regulation, no?

I'm not sure we know the full Sally Hemmings story. Jefferson was not known for keeping very good records of what he did -- he did with his work but other things, not so much. And his family were certainly not motivated to preserve that part of his history. Look how much time and effort it took to get the main line of the family to recognize the Hemmings branch only just a few years ago. I think it is possible some things went wrong with the disposition of Sally's status, because I find it hard to believe that he would have just forgotten about her while taking care of others, but not so hard to believe that his paperwork would have been totally screwed up.
yeah. there may have been some other arrangment made.

or she may not have been HIS to free.

she was his wifes half sister.

and, if he had freed her, she would have had to leave virginia.

but he should have freed her in his will.

as george washington did with the slaves he owned. (well he willed them to be free after martha died but martha grew afraid that one of them would kill her so as to free the rest so she set them free)
Thanks for clearing that up. Too much founders gossip. So, Washington willed them freed after Martha's death, but Martha freed them earlier because she was afraid of that "after her death" provision.

I'm not sure we know the full Sally Hemmings story. Jefferson was not known for keeping very good records of what he did -- he did with his work but other things, not so much. And his family were certainly not motivated to preserve that part of his history. Look how much time and effort it took to get the main line of the family to recognize the Hemmings branch only just a few years ago. I think it is possible some things went wrong with the disposition of Sally's status, because I find it hard to believe that he would have just forgotten about her while taking care of others, but not so hard to believe that his paperwork would have been totally screwed up.

It's a tough call. Jefferson did have enemies and having slave children was still something that was used as an insult.

There is a site that talks about the DNA study they did awhile back.

It's interesting reading from both sides.

http://jeffersondna.com/

Thanks for clearing that up. Too much founders gossip. So, Washington willed them freed after Martha's death, but Martha freed them earlier because she was afraid of that "after her death" provision.
and of course washington owned the minor number of slaves at mt vernon. the majority were owned by martha and her family. none of them were willing to free any slaves.

it greatly hampered washington's desire to free his since the 2 groups had intermarried and freeing his meant breaking up families.

But Franklin -- I have said and will say again: The world would be a better place if everyone would try to be just a little more like Ben Franklin.
I read a Franklin biography, the one by H.W. Brands (The First American: The Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin), and it was definitely the best biography I've ever read. His story reads like fiction, because he did and succeeded at absolutely everything. The only biography that I can confidently say never stopped being riveting.

It's a tough call. Jefferson did have enemies and having slave children was still something that was used as an insult.

There is a site that talks about the DNA study they did awhile back.

It's interesting reading from both sides.

http://jeffersondna.com/
And yet, Jefferson's affair with Hemmings was hardly kept secret. One of the reasons Jefferson had the enemies he had was because he did not really cater to their opinions. He was a very interesting person.

and of course washington owned the minor number of slaves at mt vernon. the majority were owned by martha and her family. none of them were willing to free any slaves.

it greatly hampered washington's desire to free his since the 2 groups had intermarried and freeing his meant breaking up families.
What a fucking, miserable mess. And to think, more than half a century later, we had to fight a civil war to get rid of that disgraceful abuse. I can't help thinking, what the hell with some people? What the frigging hell?

And yet, Jefferson's affair with Hemmings was hardly kept secret. One of the reasons Jefferson had the enemies he had was because he did not really cater to their opinions. He was a very interesting person.


What a fucking, miserable mess. And to think, more than half a century later, we had to fight a civil war to get rid of that disgraceful abuse. I can't help thinking, what the hell with some people? What the frigging hell?
the subject fascinates me.

growing up, GW took slavery for granted. but there were black soldiers in the revolutionary war who fought with such valor that he could not keep up the mental pretense that they werent really people with their own rights.

then what do you do? he wanted to set up a system not just to free slaves but to make sure that they could make some kind of living...but he couldnt get martha's family to go along with it.

the subject fascinates me.

growing up, GW took slavery for granted. but there were black soldiers in the revolutionary war who fought with such valor that he could not keep up the mental pretense that they werent really people with their own rights.

then what do you do? he wanted to set up a system not just to free slaves but to make sure that they could make some kind of living...but he couldnt get martha's family to go along with it.
To me, that's a nightmare scenario, like something out of Poe, only grander in scope and with nobody getting buried alive.

Go visit some third world nations and then get back to me and let me know if we are backwards or not.

They are also culturally backward, more so than us, but we are still pretty damn backward.

This thread concerns the foundation of the United States of America, and the individuals who mainly created it.

Fass expressed his opinion that: when the United States was founded, it was not progressive relative to the rest of the world, as is commonly believed. He even states that the U.S. was extremely backward.

What is NSG's opinion of the old U.S. and its founders, relative to their time?

Fass? When did he return?

Dunno anything about them.

What a fucking, miserable mess. And to think, more than half a century later, we had to fight a civil war to get rid of that disgraceful abuse. I can't help thinking, what the hell with some people? What the frigging hell?
I suspect that Washington and Jefferson would have thought, or at least hoped, that slavery would slowly die off of its own accord. Slavery and the tobacco indistry in Virginia was on the decline both before and after the Civil War, and the state legislature and State constitutional convention held in the 1820s, if I remember rightly, seriously considered gradual emancipation.

I suspect that Washington and Jefferson would have thought, or at least hoped, that slavery would slowly die off of its own accord. Slavery and the tobacco indistry in Virginia was on the decline both before and after the Civil War, and the state legislature and State constitutional convention held in the 1820s, if I remember rightly, seriously considered gradual emancipation.

That's true. Slavery and the Cotton Industry made a comeback after a period of decline with the creation of the Cotton Gin which made the industry a lot more productive. Without the creation of that machine, I'd dare say slavery would have died away with cotton plantations - and then the issue of nullification, controversial southern expansion and the Civil War wouldn't of even happened. Mexico would probably be a part of America!

Anybody want to get in a time machine and go back to kill Eli Whitney?

I'll bring Popcorn?

I suspect that Washington and Jefferson would have thought, or at least hoped, that slavery would slowly die off of its own accord. Slavery and the tobacco indistry in Virginia was on the decline both before and after the Civil War, and the state legislature and State constitutional convention held in the 1820s, if I remember rightly, seriously considered gradual emancipation.
I was thinking more of "what the hell" with the people who resisted emancipation, who insisted on brutalizing people, breaking up families, etc. Like Washington's in-laws.

But, yes, you and Unibot make a good point.

In Adams' writing he touches on slavery. It wasn't a hot-button issue with him, but he clearly believed that slavery was on the decline, and that the US would be better for it's passing.

When the U.S. was established, England had a King, Japan had an emperor and Russia had a czar.

Big changes: England has a Queen, Japan has an Emperor and Russia has The Putin.

Anyway, back in the XVIII century, the US were quite innovative. Of course they had to make some compromises.

Fass expressed his opinion that: when the United States was founded, it was not progressive relative to the rest of the world, as is commonly believed. He even states that the U.S. was extremely backward.

Of course Fass believes that. And Im sure, in typical Fass fashion, he offered nothing aside his opinion, and expected us all to just buy it 100% just because he said it.

The US, despite being a slave holding nation, was democratic before the vast majority of Europe. So, it depends on how to define 'progressive'. I call being a democracy 'progressive'.

Fass? When did he return?

Right about the time Portugal became the leader of the free world, :rolleyes:

By being hypocritical.

A politician, hypocritical? Who'da thunk it!? :p

We were truly blessed to have such wonderful founding fathers. They were pretty wise and they did our country a great service.

Who cares what Fass thinks?

*does his best Luke Skywalker* "I care!"
Although I have been told that I should fear you . . .

I'm aware that as someone posting on page six of a thread my comments are likely to have been repeated at least several times before this point, but hey I'm drunk and lazy so I'm going to say it anyway.
One thing I've always found hard to understand both as a student of history and a British citizen is the reverence typically displayed towards the 'founding fathers' in America, and the (seemingly) common belief that firstly there ideas were so amazingly revolutionary or new; secondly that they were somehow able to predict all the possible technological changes of the future and take these into account.
This is probably mainly due to me being unconvinced of the brilliance of a written and unchangeable constitution, especially its ability to withstand the passage of time, and being quite a lefty socialist kinda guy but I would be very interested to hear any thoughts people might have in relation to my query.
Once again apologies for the moderately rambling drunkeness of this post and for the laziness and indifference to all preceding posts I have professed.

Who cares what Fass thinks?

No one.

I'm aware that as someone posting on page six of a thread my comments are likely to have been repeated at least several times before this point, but hey I'm drunk and lazy so I'm going to say it anyway.
One thing I've always found hard to understand both as a student of history and a British citizen is the reverence typically displayed towards the 'founding fathers' in America, and the (seemingly) common belief that firstly there ideas were so amazingly revolutionary or new; secondly that they were somehow able to predict all the possible technological changes of the future and take these into account.
This is probably mainly due to me being unconvinced of the brilliance of a written and unchangeable constitution, especially its ability to withstand the passage of time, and being quite a lefty socialist kinda guy but I would be very interested to hear any thoughts people might have in relation to my query.
Once again apologies for the moderately rambling drunkeness of this post and for the laziness and indifference to all preceding posts I have professed.
Well, while the ideas themselves were not new, they had never really been put into place before. Again, it's easy to look back now when most of the developed world are all representative democracies and note that their ideas were nothing special, but when you look at where all those democratic countries were at the time.

Also, I would note that the US Constitution can be changed and indeed has been 27 times. It is just that it is difficult to enact change, but that keeps any one group from getting radical changes made just because they happen to have a simple majority.

This is probably mainly due to me being unconvinced of the brilliance of a written and unchangeable constitution, especially its ability to withstand the passage of time, and being quite a lefty socialist kinda guy but I would be very interested to hear any thoughts people might have in relation to my query.
Once again apologies for the moderately rambling drunkeness of this post and for the laziness and indifference to all preceding posts I have professed.
First, it's not unchangeable; there are amendments. But I think part of the impressive part is that it hasn't been changed that much, and still seems to function pretty well. The rest of the country has changed more than the Constitution, so maybe its flexibility is really in how vague it is, but it's still very good for a second try.

*does his best Luke Skywalker* "I care!"
Although I have been told that I should fear you . . .
Why, I'm sure I don't know what you mean. *looks innocent*


I'm aware that as someone posting on page six of a thread my comments are likely to have been repeated at least several times before this point, but hey I'm drunk and lazy so I'm going to say it anyway.
One thing I've always found hard to understand both as a student of history and a British citizen is the reverence typically displayed towards the 'founding fathers' in America, and the (seemingly) common belief that firstly there ideas were so amazingly revolutionary or new; secondly that they were somehow able to predict all the possible technological changes of the future and take these into account.
This is probably mainly due to me being unconvinced of the brilliance of a written and unchangeable constitution, especially its ability to withstand the passage of time, and being quite a lefty socialist kinda guy but I would be very interested to hear any thoughts people might have in relation to my query.
Once again apologies for the moderately rambling drunkeness of this post and for the laziness and indifference to all preceding posts I have professed.
My theory is that the adulation of the founders is related to the fact that, since their time, the quality of our leaders has been going steadily downhill. This is especially true of their intellects and their ability to wear knee-britches and not look like over-dressed golfers.

My theory is that the adulation of the founders is related to the fact that, since their time, the quality of our leaders has been going steadily downhill. This is especially true of their intellects and their ability to wear knee-britches and not look like over-dressed golfers.

That theory's not half bad. I would have had much more respect for President Bush if he had worn a powdered wig, even if nothing else was different.

My theory is that the adulation of the founders is related to the fact that, since their time, the quality of our leaders has been going steadily downhill. This is especially true of their intellects and their ability to wear knee-britches and not look like over-dressed golfers.
I've always thought of it as, being a nation that is primarily composed of immigrants and who told the mother nation to go screw itself, that we needed something to act as a cultural binder and the Constitution, and the men who wrote it, are it.

But I do like the notion that it is because they could look good in knee britches.

I'm aware that the US constitution can and has been changed, I just happen to think that written constitutions can create too much inertia slowing rapid reform/change.

Muravyets, think you have a very good point about the ol' dress and the respect felt.

New Limacon, I'd disagree with you on only one point; that the US constitution functions well, feel free to dispute this but I'm rather tired so don't expect an amazingly coherent or impassioned defence of my position.

I'm aware that the US constitution can and has been changed, I just happen to think that written constitutions can create too much inertia slowing rapid reform/change.
That's what it's SUPPOSED to do. The thing is, it works for our protection as well. Congress can't just suddenly pass a law stating that all people with red hair must be shot. Change isn't always good after all. At the risk of a Godwin, it'd note that Nazi Germany arose due to rapid reforms and changes.

New Limacon, I'd disagree with you on only one point; that the US constitution functions well, feel free to dispute this but I'm rather tired so don't expect an amazingly coherent or impassioned defence of my position.
We've been hanging around for 230+ years with it and have had very few constitutional crisis. Jokes about the 2000 presidental elections aside, there have been very few electorial issues as well as no issues with the transfer of power between administrations. Seems like it's working well to me.

That's what it's SUPPOSED to do. The thing is, it works for our protection as well. Congress can't just suddenly pass a law stating that all people with red hair must be shot.
But it also can't suddenly pass a law banning the private ownership of firearms. And with that massive foray into controversial territory, I'd like to say that your statement also has merit. However as the entire system of checks and balances incorporated in the system are kind of ruined by the influence of money & capitalism the advantages and disadvantages inherent in a written constitution is kind of irrelevant.

But it also can't suddenly pass a law banning the private ownership of firearms. And with that massive foray into controversial territory, I'd like to say that your statement also has merit. However as the entire system of checks and balances incorporated in the system are kind of ruined by the influence of money & capitalism the advantages and disadvantages inherent in a written constitution is kind of irrelevant.
I'd just like to note however that the checks and balences in the US's written constitution has also kept a lot of the problems with the influence of money at bay. Bribe a senator? Ok. But you're gonna need a lot more of them as well as a lot of the state legislatures to get an amendment ratified.

But it also can't suddenly pass a law banning the private ownership of firearms. And with that massive foray into controversial territory, I'd like to say that your statement also has merit. However as the entire system of checks and balances incorporated in the system are kind of ruined by the influence of money & capitalism the advantages and disadvantages inherent in a written constitution is kind of irrelevant.
No system is perfect, and I agree with NERVUN that, without the checks and balances/separation of powers, the influence of special/moneyed interests would be far worse. You stated that you are British citizen. I assume then that you are also a resident of the UK. If so, then I would put it to you that you are not in a good position to observe the actual workings of the US governmental system to judge whether it is effective and operational or not.

This thread concerns the foundation of the United States of America, and the individuals who mainly created it.

Fass expressed his opinion that: when the United States was founded, it was not progressive relative to the rest of the world, as is commonly believed. He even states that the U.S. was extremely backward.

What is NSG's opinion of the old U.S. and its founders, relative to their time?
They clearly understood the danger of tyranny, majority rule, and Congress. This suspicion and distrust is exemplified by the phraseology used throughout the Constitution, particularly our Bill of Rights, containing phrases such as Congress shall not: abridge, infringe, deny, disparage or violate.

You know, they were correct to fear unlimited federal power. Nowadays, we appear to think that Congress has the constitutional power to do anything they want, provided they get a majority vote.

Why, I'm sure I don't know what you mean. *looks innocent*



My theory is that the adulation of the founders is related to the fact that, since their time, the quality of our leaders has been going steadily downhill. This is especially true of their intellects and their ability to wear knee-britches and not look like over-dressed golfers.
Not a bad theory... Who, today, would be of comparable in stature to James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and John Adams? I guess it would be 'giants' like Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Olympia Snowe and Nancy Pelosi.

Well, while the ideas themselves were not new, they had never really been put into place before. Again, it's easy to look back now when most of the developed world are all representative democracies and note that their ideas were nothing special, but when you look at where all those democratic countries were at the time.


Britain was at the time a constitutional monarchy and had a representative parliament - hence why it was such a bone of contention that the colonies were being taxed in it without being represented. Parliament did have quite significant powers at the time (less than now certainly but nor could it be ignored by the monarch). In many ways I have always seen the system set up by the founding fathers as an extension of the pre-existing parliamentary democracies in Europe rather than a radical new invention that many seem to believe.

Not a bad theory... Who, today, would be of comparable in stature to James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and John Adams? I guess it would be 'giants' like Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Olympia Snowe and Nancy Pelosi.
Oh, for sure, along with such lights of political reasoning as George "My Way or the Highway" Bush, Dick "I'm The God!" Cheney, Larry "Where's the Men's Room?" Craig, Dick "Army" Armey, Newt "Newt?" Gingrich, David "Aint This Bill a Little Steep for Just a BJ?" Vitters, and John "Spray Tan" Boehner.

Oh, for sure, along with such lights of political reasoning as George "My Way or the Highway" Bush, Dick "I'm The God!" Cheney, Larry "Where's the Men's Room?" Craig, Dick "Army" Armey, Newt "Newt?" Gingrich, David "Aint This Bill a Little Steep for Just a BJ?" Vitters, and John "Spray Tan" Boehner.
I think Newt would actually be able to hold his own against the likes of Madison and Jefferson. He carries around a lot of baggage, but he's brilliant.

Let's not start naming idiots in government. The Democrats have a majority, so I certainly have more ammunition. And people as dumb as Maxine Waters count at least twice.

Interestingly, I didn't see the need to add cute nicknames. Does that make the idiots you nominate somewhat worse than mine? Or are you just a nasty person?

I think Newt would actually be able to hold his own against the likes of Madison and Jefferson. He carries around a lot of baggage, but he's brilliant.
Oh, do you think so? I would only just love it if such a debate were possible. Gingrich versus, say, John Adams or John Jay. That would be EPIC. We could make a bet on it. :D

Let's not start naming idiots in government. The Democrats have a majority, so I certainly have more ammunition. And people as dumb as Maxine Waters count at least twice.

Interestingly, I didn't see the need to add cute nicknames. Does that make the idiots you nominate somewhat worse than mine? Or are you just a nasty person?
You are truly hilarious. You felt the need, unprovoked, to turn my remark about the general quality of American politicians into an insult against a list of Democrats, and when you get a little of your own medicine back, you whine and pout and call other people "nasty." Well, you would be the resident expert on being nasty, as well as petty, about this sort of thing.

Thank goodness we have you, Myrmi. Since the spectacle of John Adams politely making mincemeat out of Newt Gingrich is forever lost to us, we can console ourselves with your antics.

I think Newt would actually be able to hold his own against the likes of Madison and Jefferson. He carries around a lot of baggage, but he's brilliant.


I never thought I would see the day that somebody would liken Newt Gingrich to James Madison and Thomas Jefferson.

Newt doesn't even compare. Newt could never create something like the DoI or the Constitution. Newt couldn't even write something for the Federalist papers.

I think Newt would actually be able to hold his own against the likes of Madison and Jefferson. He carries around a lot of baggage, but he's brilliant.
Thats the funniest thing Ive read on NSG today.

Either John Adams or Old Man Eloquence (his son for fucks sake) would be able to destroy just about anybody in an intellectual debate, that's just who they were - though Webster or Honest' Abe were the truely memorable orators.

Either John Adams or Old Man Eloquence (his son for fucks sake) would be able to destroy just about anybody in an intellectual debate, that's just who they were - though Webster or Honest' Abe were the truely memorable orators.

Well when you followed the shrub, the standards tended to collapse.....