If our Founding Fathers were alive today

[Seabiscuit]

they would:

[rzemanfl]

1. They'd vote in my poll. n/t

[snowbear]

4. Where's your poll?

[rzemanfl]

5. Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1479642&mesg_id=1479642

[tiptoe]

43. They'd sign here to DECLARE 'NO CONFIDENCE' in illegal CA-50 results:

Illegal Voting Machines Used in Busby/Bilbray Congressional Race Requires Immediate Manual Hand Count To Verify Results!

The BRAD BLOG reports that the Diebold machines used in the Busby-Bilbray congressional race to replace the corrupt Duke Cunningham are not in compliance with state or federal law. Sending them home with poll workers overnight immediately decertified them for use in the election by both state and federal law. This is another reason that Americans must demand the results are verified! Please sign our petition demanding a 100% hand count of the paper ballots and paper trails from that election. The CA-50 results are as suspect as possible because the machines and memory cards were unsecured prior to the election, and using non-compliant machines provides the basis for invalidating the election. Sign our petition demanding a hand count. Then spread the word! We have added Secretary of State Bruce McPherson’s email address to the petition now as well.

The Velvet Revolution online petition can be read and signed at:

DECLARE 'NO CONFIDENCE!'
PETITION TO DEMAND THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY REGISTRAR OF VOTERS CONDUCT A 100% COUNT OF THE BALLOTS IN THE BUSBY-BILBRAY SPECIAL ELECTION TO ENSURE CONFIDENCE IN THE RESULTS
Illegal Voting Machines Used In Busby-Bilbray Race Requires Immediate Hand Count To Verify Results.

Petition will be sent to:

Busby campaign

San Diego Registrar's Office

CA Sec. of State, Bruce McPherson's office.

Option to add and authorize submission of your own personal message as a letter to the editor of your nearest local daily newspaper

You call also call the Busby campaign directly at 760-479-0114 and the San Diego registrar at 800-696-0136.

New Folks Declaring "NO CONFIDENCE" in the Busby/Bilbray Election Results as Announced...

The Commonweal Institute

Progressive Democrats of Sonoma County

Clint Curtis
...Amongst those already having declared "No Confidence":

VelvetRevolution.us (Sign their petition here!)

California Election Protection Network (CEPN)

Progressive Democrats of America (PDA)

Election Defense Alliance (EDA)

Tribune Media columnist Robert Koehler

U.S. House Nominee Jeeni Criscenzo (CA-49)

MD U.S. Senate Candidate Kevin Zeese

MA Sec. of State Candidate & Constitutional Attorney John Bonifaz

[Seabiscuit]

45. Like CAPITAL LETTERS much?

[tiptoe]

48. on matters of capital and capitol importance, yes.

:)

[IndianaGreen]

2. They would declare Bush, the new King George

and would call for independence from this tyrant.

[napi21]

3. They'd call all the current leaders out for a duel! That's what they did

back then, ya know!

[blm]

6. They'd raise a tattered GADSDEN FLAG and shout Don't Tread on Me!

I certainly commend this poll question, Seabiscuit.

[dubeskin]

7. Other

I think they would constantly be meeting trying to keep the government the way they originally intended it to be like. ot necessarily against a certain party, just against certain government.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

8. I've done a little research on some of the FF

in the course of doing genealogy. John and Samuel Adams would have thrown Bush out on his ear, especially John, who would be deeply offended at Bush's brazen ignoring of the rule of law.

(Interesting fact: more folks are related to the Adams presidents than any other; I think it has to do with the fact that the early Adams families were quite large.)

[Seabiscuit]

14. I believe you are right!

I found this quote of John Adams which reminded me of your post.

"I have long been settled in my opinion, that neither Philosophy, nor Religion, nor Morality, nor Wisdom, nor Interest, will ever govern nations or Parties against their Vanity, their Pride, their Resentment or Revenge, or their Avarice or Ambition. Nothing but Force and Power and Strength can restrain them." -- letter to Thomas Jefferson, 9 October 1787

Just curious, in doing your genealogy research have you documented the Adams descendants religious or non-religious affiliations? Are there any "direct" descendants? For example, Thomas Jefferson's descendants seem to be a well organized group and seem to keep in touch.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

23. From my research,

the Adams family were what many in Massachusettes were at the time-at first, Puritans, and then, as that church evolved, Congregationalists and/or Unitarians. As you probably guessed, John Adams is a cousin of mine; I'm not a direct descendant, so I didn't check to see if there was some sort of John Adams Society. I know that my branch of this family were, up until my grandmother's time, Congregationalists, and that my grandmother and mother were liberal in their theology; my mother became a Uniterian in later life.

[AndyTiedye]

9. They Would Be Extremely Susceptible to Small Airplane Crashes

[Demeter]

10. Now THAT I Can Believe!

[dave502d]

11. They would buy lot 's of rope.n/t

[JudyM]

12. They'd throw Scalia into Boston Harbor.

[Hippo_Tron]

13. The founding fathers couldn't possibly fathom modern weapons

In fact anybody who died before World War I really couldn't. Show the founding fathers an M-16, a hand grenade, and a tank and they would think twice about armed insurrection.

[neoblues]

20. Dying by Musket and Cannon

is still a pretty rough way to go--even toughing out traveling and living with an army in those days (especially with the hardships they faced) took enormous courage. While most of the 'founding fathers' weren't actually out romping around with the troops, they faced being arrested and hung; and that takes real courage.

As for modern weapons, they'd get over their shock pretty quickly and I don't doubt their courage would be as strong as ever. Courage was a valued and respected quality, much moreso then than now--and if it meant risking their lives, so be it.

It's the Bushistas and Republican Leadership that would wet their pants and run hide if there was the least chance they'd face danger.

[benEzra]

31. They could have understood small arms and artillery, yes...

explaining a tank would have been more difficult, and an aircraft would have taken a while. Surveillance and communications technology would have seemed a bit like magic, though.

I've mentioned elsewhere that one could explain the function and operation of a civilian (non-automatic) AK-47 lookalike to George Washington in five minutes, referencing only technology he was familiar with, and he not only would have fully understood how it works, but he could have immediately gone out and used it competently, since it is operated essentially the same as the rifles of his time; the main thing new would be how to insert the magazine and chamber a round, and that's a LOT simpler than loading a muzzleloader. He would have probably also muttered, "Why didn't I think of that?" at the concepts of cased ammunition, breech loading, and gas operation. The gun itself would have been pretty much within the manufacturing capability of his time, I suspect, but powder and priming chemistry has improved a great deal since then, so he wouldn't have been able to manufacture ammunition.

Once he got some trigger time on the non-auto, you could have explained a real AK or an M16 (automatic) in another 20 or 30 seconds, but it would take him a lot of practice to use it well.


Artillery would have been a breeze. Point him at a howitzer and tell him it's a cannon that loads from the breech.

[orleans]

15. i voted that they would "Advocate and organize an armed revolution against

an armed revolution against the neocons"

well, the founding fathers are unable to take up the cause
but we're still here,
and in memory of them:

what time does the revolution start?

[Seabiscuit]

17. What do we want?

Revolution!

When do we want it?

NOW!!!

:hippie:

[orleans]

19. (big smile. thanks!) n/t

[GubmitSpies]

16. Founding Fathers

They'd get the guns out OK but they would be too busy gagging and weeping to shoot those neocons.

BTW why not just call them what they are: cons? There's nothing new about conning people.

[Seabiscuit]

18. Are the 2 votes for "become neocons" a joke, or

are there two people here who seriously believe that?

If that's the case, I'd be interested in the reasoning in support of their votes.

[win_in_06]

21. Not a joke at all. They were religious, conservative, capitalists

who stressed faith-based education, low taxes and were pro-gun.

[Seabiscuit]

22. "religious"??? "faith-based education"??? "conservative"???

"pro-gun"???

BTW, the 8th Amendment addressed the kind of militia that helped out in the revolutionary war. It was not used to justify citizens arming themselves to the teeth to shoot anyone that might be mistaken for a "criminal".

What planet do you live on?

[annabanana]

24. ?

Several of them weren't even Christian. Guns were required to feed the family, the concept of "anti-gun" would have been foreign, as in completely out of context.

read around

[win_in_06]

36. Just answering the question, and don't ignore the obvious facts.

The founding fathers were religious, that is indisputable. They were basically conservatives in every way we define that term today.

That doesn't mean they were right about everything. They were clearly wrong about slavery.

[Seabiscuit]

39. The founding fathers were *not* Christians.

For the most part they were Freemasons, unaffiliated Deists, and Atheists. I don't know how you ever got the impression that they were indisputably "religious" unless you've bought into the Republican myth all your life that they founded a "Christian" nation (which they indisputably did *not*).

They took their inspiration not from the Bible or any organized religion, but from Socrates and the Enlightenment/Age of Reason.

Read some of the things Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson wrote about religion some day. It might open your eyes.

[win_in_06]

56. you pulled that out of your ****

Our 55 Founding Fathers were members of various Christian denominations and many were even evangelical Christians. Breakdown: 29 Anglicans, 16 to 18 were Calvinists, 2 were Methodists, 2 were Lutherans, 2 were Roman Catholic, 1 lapsed Quaker and sometimes Anglican, and 1 open deist, who was Benjamin Franklin.

One of the first official acts in the First Continental Congress was to open in Christian prayer, which ended in these words: "...the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Savior. Amen".


Let's not make this mistake as democrats: the repugs don't own Christianity. Let's not let the religious right define it for us, neither let us deny the impact of Christianity in our country.

[Seabiscuit]

62. Just for starters:

Check out:

http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm

"The men who lead the United States in its revolution against England, who wrote the Declaration of Independence and put together the Constitution were not Christians by any stretch of the imagination."

And: http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/dispatch/fathers_quote2.htm:

e.g.: "As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of government to protect all conscientious protesters thereof, and I know of no other business government has to do therewith." - Thomas Paine (Common Sense, 1776.)

BTW, I didn't see any links to justify the stats you posted. And where is Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine and John Adams in those stats? I don't see them anywhere.

Here's some more. Ben Franklin wasn't the only Deist by a long shot: George Washington, just to name one, was as well: http://www.sullivan-county.com/id3/debate.htm:

"Much of the myth of Washington's alleged Christianity came from Mason Weems influential book, "Life of Washington." Weems, a Christian minister portrayed Washington as a devote Christian, yet Washington's own diaries show that he rarely attended Church.

"Washington revealed almost nothing to indicate his spiritual frame of mind, hardly a mark of a devout Christian. In his thousands of letters, the name of Jesus Christ never appears. He rarely spoke about his religion, but his Freemasonry experience points to a belief in deism. Washington's initiation occurred at the Fredericksburg Lodge on 4 November 1752, later becoming a Master mason in 1799, and remained a freemason until he died.

"To the United Baptist Churches in Virginia in May, 1789, Washington said that every man "ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience."

"After Washington's death, Dr. Abercrombie, a friend of his, replied to a Dr. Wilson, who had interrogated him about Washington's religion replied, "Sir, Washington was a Deist."

And here's a real clincher: "only 7% of the people in the 13 colonies belonged to a church when the Declaration of Independence was signed."
See: http://www.postfun.com/pfp/worbois.html

7%? Pretty much demolishes your unlinked, undocumented stats.


More links later (for your edification).

[Seabiscuit]

65. A somewhat more scholarly example, with footnotes:

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

I don't mean to be too hard on you, and would never accuse you in a subject line of "pulling X out of your ass" as you did me.

But I do think you need to read up on the subject.

While most of the Founding Fathers may have been nominally affiliated with one Christian denomination or another, the fact is that most were not regular "religious" practitioners of any form of Christianity. They were inspired, as I said earlier, far more by the Enlightenment writers and philosophers than they were by the Bible.

You will find quotes in the links I already provided that distinguish the Baptist practices during the time of the signing of the Declaration of Independence from those known today - the contrast is like night and day.

And I for one was baptised and confirmed in the Catholic Church by my mother. Does that mean I have been a practicing Catholic throughout my adult law career? Certainly not.

Far more important is that the Founding Fathers created the clauses of the First Amendment regarding separation of church and state, and its corollary, freedom of religion. That amendment alone could personify what this poll's about - the Founding Fathers *must* be viewed as "liberal" and anti-neocon by today's standards by virtue of that amendment alone.

[Finder]

41. Everything in your post is incorrect...

and their views are documented.

[blm]

27. conservative and neo-con are two different species.

neo-cons are IMPERIALISTS. The Gadsden flag the revolutionaries fought under said Don't Tread on Me - a rattlesnake that would not fight unprovoked, but WOULD fight BACK.

[Seabiscuit]

33. One down.

[Greyhound]

55. You are viewing their actions through 225+ years of social change

What we "know to be true" now would have been meaning then. Slavery was a controversial issue then and the revolution nearly didn't happen because of it. A compromise on slavery made the establishment of our country possible.

They were flawed human beings who literally staked their lives on accomplishing that which had never been done before in history, and thereby changed the world forever.

Who is there today that can compare?

[Mad_Dem_X]

25. They'd be disgusted!

I think they would be furious at what this country has become.

[Totally Committed]

26. And, I think they would have pulled away from BOTH Parties,

at this point, and gone head-to-head with the other side. That having been said, they would have been as disgusted with what the Republicans have done to this country and her Constitution, and would have wanted their country back as badly as we do.

TC

ONE NOTE: Please remember though, in the romanticization of our "Founding Fathers", their incredibly complex and complicated views need to be factored in: Most were slave-owners or believed in owning slaves. Most did not believe in suffrage for women. And, most believed in an ownership society where white men called the shots and were the only ones allowed to possess property.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

75. true. the FF were not conservatives, they were flaming liberals.

For centuries, all power came from the throne. The crown held sway over all decisions. Life and death. Taxes. Trade permits. Shipping rights. EVERYTHING.
By forcing the royalists out and replacing them with a republican form of democratic government, this was so radical that even today, much of it is hard to understand. (especially for the religious reich)

[Penndems]

28. If The Framers were alive today, we'd be in the midst of the Second

American Revolution. :patriot:

[Uncle Joe]

29. They would be pissed off because we buried them.

Sorry could not resist.:hide:

[Bamboose]

77. best answer yet! nt

[benEzra]

30. George Washington would be busted by the DEA for growing hemp...

and Jefferson would be on the administration's No-Fly List for his "antigovernment" statements.

Not sure about the others...

[Seabiscuit]

32. In that light, I think they'd all settle in CA and Oregon.

[El Fuego]

34. They'd be Dems, and O'Reilly would be trashing them every night

about their godless liberal ideas.

[OzarkDem]

35. Funny story

My son once had a project in 4th grade in which the students had to dress up as a famous president or leader from the past and talk about themselves as parents and guests interviewed them.

My son chose Teddy Roosevelt, so we dressed him up as a Rough Rider. He talked about environmentalism, trust busting and the national park system. When his script called for him to answer the question "If I were alive today, I would be ....." he answered "A Democrat".

[jjrjsa]

37. So much hero worship in this thread...

The founding fathers were slave-owning rich elites.

Who do you think rich white men would side with today? Oh yeah, they'd hate GW :sarcasm:

[Seabiscuit]

38. To the extent that our Founding Fathers were slave owners,

their vision did not extend beyond the social customs of the day.

To the extent that they sincerely wanted to create a better world by their participation in creating the Continental Congress, the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution they were true visionaries.

You can't merely denigrate them for their failure to completely distinguish themselves from the times they lived in without deliberately evading the entire point of this poll.

[Finder]

42. And they were against slavery...

I think it is hard for some to understand the difference between indentured servants and the type of slavery practiced in the US during that time.

The founding fathers who did have/own slaves had mostly indentured servants and skilled slaves that had been in their families for generations. For example, Sally Hemmings was the daughter of Jefferson's father in law.

[Outer_Limit]

44. Excuses

And just how did they become indentured? I'm tired of these excuses for these founding fathers who were obviously racists who saw other human beings as inferior.

[Seabiscuit]

46. Can you tell us the difference

between a slave and an indentured servant?

[Outer_Limit]

49. Indeed I do

Indentured servants sold themselves to work for a period of time with no pay, usually in exchange for food and housing. Very early on there were white indentured servants. However african slaves began to replace indentured servants in the late 17th century. In addition to this, race was used as a reason to keep some indentured servants indefinitely, long after they fulfilled their duties, hence becoming full slaves. The majority of founding fathers were content with considering africans as inferior human beings and that, no matter the social construct of the time, is morally reprehensible.

Add to that even those africans that were lucky enough to walk free during the country's founding, they basically had zero rights and very little in means to defend themselves. They didn't have full citizenship and were considered only 3/5 human.

[Seabiscuit]

51. Very good. Now please tell us...

how it was determined when indentured servants who provided service in exchange for food and housing had "fulfilled their duties", since their duties consisted of daily chores in exchange for food and housing.

Then, tell us how someone could "keep some indentured servants "indefinitely", long after they fulfilled their duties, hence becoming slaves."

Finally, please provide some solid evidence that the Founding Fathers kept their indentured servants "indefinitely", "long after fulfilling their duties" (if that's even possible), and how this made them "slaves". And please provide some evidence that the Founding Fathers considered Africans to be "inferior human beings."

Remember, "slaves", unlike indentured servants, were bought and sold at slave auctions.

[Outer_Limit]

53. No Problem! I am happy to reply with additional information

By fulfilling their duties, I simply meant if they had served the time allotted in their contract. So they had determined when the servant fulfilled their duty by keeping track of the number of years served. This can be gathered from the following quote:

"From 1619 on, not long after the first settlement, the need for colonial labor was bolstered by the importation of African captives. At first, like their poor English counterparts, the Africans were treated as indentured servants, who would be freed of their obligations to their owners after serving for several years. However, over the course of the century, a new race-based slavery system developed, and by the dawn of the new century, the majority of Africans and African Americans were slaves for life."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/map1.html

Now how people, both white and african, found themselves in indentured servitude is not an entirely rosy scenario. This is an example of how some Africans found themselves to be indentured servants.

In 1619, a Dutch ship that had pirated the cargo of a Spanish vessel -- captive Africans --anchored at Jamestown in the mouth of the James River. The ship needed supplies, so the Dutch sailors traded the Africans for food. The colonists purchased the Africans, baptized them, and gave them Christian names. At least some of these Africans, like their white counterparts, were purchased according to the usual terms for all indentured servants. They and other Africans who were transported to America at this time would become free after their years of service."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1narr2.html

A person could be placed in servitude by the action of a county court. In 1773, for example, a Frederick County female servant was adjudged for bastardy, having a child "begot by a Negro." The child had been born free because that was the status of the mother. The white mother was sold for 7 years of servitude and her mulatto daughter, 11 months old, was sold as a servant to serve until age of 31 years.

http://www.mdarchives.state.md.us/msa/refserv/html/servant.html

A more general description is found in Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" he states (page 43 in the edition I have):

"In the 1600s and 1700s, by forced exile, by lures, promises, and lies, by kidnapping, by their urgent need to escape the living conditions of the home country, poor people wanting to go to America became commodities of profit for merchants, traders, ship captains, and eventually their masters in America"

Now, as to how they could keep some indentured servants indefinitely. This was done in a variety of ways. One was through "contract extension"

More often than not, the indentured servants were shocked by their new conditions. Rather than finding venues in which they could practice their profession, like gardens and orchards, overseers marched servants out to the fields. Many died, attempted to return, or ran away. In addition to mistreatment, many servants also encountered contract extension, a popular punishment of planters for rowdy indentures.

http://curry.edschool.virginia.edu/socialstudies/projects/jvc/unit/econ/servantlife_bkgd.html

An indentured servant's contract could be extended as punishment for breaking a law, such as running away, or in the case of female servants, becoming pregnant.

http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/investigations/212_indenturedfeature.html

Another method was to segment the servant population by religion, and declared those not Christian as slaves. The following quote is from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1narr3.html

"In 1705 Virginia declared that "All servants imported and brought in this County... who were not Christians in their Native Country... shall be slaves."

Or simply put, to pass laws declaring a specific race of indentured servants as slaves.

In 1619 the first black Africans came to Virginia. With no slave laws in place, they were initially treated as indentured servants, and given the same opportunities for freedom dues as whites. However, slave laws were soon passed – in Massachusetts in 1641 and Virginia in 1661 –and any small freedoms that might have existed for blacks were taken away.

http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/investigations/212_indenturedfeature.html

Do I have solid evidence that the founding fathers kept their indentured servants indefinitely? The answer is no. However, I never made that claim. But some, including Washington and Jefferson, kept most of their slaves until they died. As to evidence that the founding fathers considered Africans to be inferior. Here is a quote from Thomas Jefferson's notes on the state of virginia

"I advance it therefore as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstances, are inferior to the whites in the endowments both of body and mind. It is not against experience to suppose, that different species of the same genus, or varieties of the same species, may possess different qualifications......... This unfortunate difference of colour, and perhaps of faculty, is a powerful obstacle to the emancipation of these people. Many of their advocates, while they wish to vindicate the liberty of human nature, are anxious also to preserve its dignity and beauty. Some of these, embarrassed by the question `What further is to be done with them?' join themselves in opposition with those who are actuated by sordid avarice only. Among the Romans emancipation required but one effort. The slave, when made free, might mix with, without staining the blood of his master. But with us a second is necessary, unknown to history. When freed, he is to be removed beyond the reach of mixture."

In reference to your last sentence, indentured servants in some cases were indeed sold in a similar manner as slaves. Another quote from Zinn's book:

"Indentured servants were bought and sold like slaves. An announcement in the Virginia Gazette, March 28, 1771, read:

'Just arrived at Leedstown, the Ship Justitia, with about one Hundred Healthy Servants, Men Women & Boys ... The Sale will commence on Tuesday the 2nd of April'"

There is also literature that outlines the severe lack of rights that indentured servants had. In many cases, there isn't a discernible difference between their treatment and that of slave that existed in the 18th and 19th century.

[Le Taz Hot]

57. I've been on DU since 2001

and that is, by far, the stupidest, most ill-informed, undereducated post I have ever read on these boards. Ever. To reduce their monumental contributions to this nation, their unbelievable sacrifices, to the fact that some of them owned slaves? That's it? That is the sum total of their existence? I'm not even going to address the idiocy in your post except to make one suggestion: Educate yourself!

[Outer_Limit]

58. I don't see any idiocy in that post

They owned slaves, and were participants and profited from a large crime against humanity. I fail to see how that post was ill informed and uneducated. The poster stated an obvious fact. Of course, owning slaves isn't the sum of one's total existence. However, like it or not, owning fellow human beings, no matter what the laws were back then, is criminal and absolutely disgusting, and makes one a hypocrite for touting democracy and freedom. I do not give any credit or admiration to those who owned slaves.

And as to telling that poster to educate themselves, I would suggest reading some books on the slave trade, and also reading "A People's History of the United States".

[Mythsaje]

68. Yet the very NOTION of Democracy

emerged from a slave-owning society.

Ironic, isn't it?

[brentspeak]

84. Troll much?

[Montauk6]

40. ... and saw the deeds done and ideas espoused in their name, they wouldn't

stop throwing up.

[Don1]

47. I put other.

I think they would try to work within the system and failing that, they would start a democratic revolution.

[Seabiscuit]

52. I have a question.

I imagine they'd begin very much like the rest of us at DU - educating themselves about what the neocons have been doing to the Constitution, etc., and that it wouldn't take them long to become at first alarmed and then enraged.

What "democratic revolution" would/could they start that we can't?

[Don1]

59. I think they would come up with some smart ideas.

Separation of corporation and state, perhaps. Or more participatory democracy to counter the way in which the representatives no longer represent their constituents. Could we do the same thing? Maybe.

[Seabiscuit]

67. Along that line,

do you think they might want to now do away with the electoral college?

If they had before 2000, Al Gore would have been our President.

And what a different world it would be today.

[McCamy Taylor]

50. Taxation w/o Representation is Tyranny! Boston Tea Party anyone?

[Greyhound]

54. Other; they would advocate and lead a revolution against the same tyranny

they did before.

Of maybe they'd just move to Canada where people are relatively sane. :shrug:

[anewdeal]

60. they would be clawing at their coffins

[Rocknrule]

61. Coulter would write her next book about them

[Seabiscuit]

74. She's call for them to be "shot on sight". In fact, that might even be

the title of her book.

[Seabiscuit]

63. I still can't believe

that eleven (11!!!) people voted that the Founding Fathers would "become neocons".

I see only two posters attempting in vain to justify their votes (through utter misconceptions about our history). Where are the other nine? Are they (1) just fucking with this poll? (2) displaying not just bad taste but a bad sense of humor? (3) just don't get it, that this poll has to do with what the people who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution would think of the neocon agenda including the unitary (urinary) executive theory? (4) too cowardly to post what they think to justify their votes? (5) they're all just freepers invading our territory for their own sick purposes?

[Dark]

64. They'd be pissed. n/t

[Yupster]

66. They'd be Libertarians

They'd be shocked at what government does today. Department of Energy, Transportation, Labor, Agriculture, FBI, CIA. They'd see it as giving away our liberties.

[jjrjsa]

69. DAMN IT! It's not about racism...

It's about elitism. If you believe the wealthy in this country are constantly screwing over the lower classes, you can't think too highly of the founding fathers. They were pro-elite and anti-common man all the way. Need I remind you that in the original constitution:

-The President was unelected (This is still there, but de-facto he is elected by popular vote... 'cept in 2000)

-The senate was un-elected.

-A black man counted as 3/5s of a man.

-Women could not vote.

-You could not impose progressive taxes.

There is nothing to suggest the founding fathers wanted anything BUT a state ruled by the wealthy elite. Furthermore, by wealthy elite white christian males. Sure, you can say the racist thing and the sexist thing and the religious thing was just a sign of the times, but the wealthy elite thing still stands. They'd be a lot more likely to side with someone who serves the interest of the rich, like GW, than a pro-common man person.

GW is not King George. GW would make them richer, they all became richer by getting rid of King George. Read up on all the money George Washington, Jefferson and co. made from land deals after the revolutionary war. Jesus Christ.

"A people's history of the USA" by Howard Zinn should be required reading before people begging to worship the founding fathers.

[Mythsaje]

71. Except, honestly enough...

none of these things were chiseled in stone within the Constitution. It was carefully constructed to allow it to easily be extended to everyone, including women and people of color. And nowhere in it does it grant privileges and rights to only the land-owning class.

They were the product of their times, but they didn't trap us all WITHIN their times.

[Seabiscuit]

73. My point exactly in another post...

The personal lives of the Founding Fathers certainly did not match up well with the ideals they created in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. But in those documents they rose up above their personal lives and created something for the common man that indeed has resulted in greater freedom, equality and opportunity for all in addition to safeguards against tyranny.

Apparently some people here think that if they were alive today they would bring only the worst of their legacy, and leave the best behind. I for one am not so pessimistic.

[Outer_Limit]

78. You make great points

I agree with you. Even if the religious, racist, and sexist aspects were taken out, they are more likely to side with the interests of the rich. I've been disappointed at the cavalier overlooking of the issues you have pointed in this thread.

"A people's history of the USA" is a great book isn't it?

[treestar]

79. No, they were the opposite of elitist, given the time they lived in

The constitution of the US made the major forward step that all men were equal before the law. Before that, the British and other Europeans still had literally different views of crime committed by the nobility, say and the common people. The constitution did away with this concept.

For instance, a commoner guilty of murder might be hung and quartered, while the nobility guilty of the same crime were beheaded (a more merciful death). The nobles had more "justice" if accused of a crime. They had feudal powers and privilteges impossible for the common people ever to reach.

By doing away with the concept, the FF set up the possibility that it would be extended to people and that castes like slavery would not be acceptable, per that idea. Which looking at the big picture, worked.

Women had different treatment under the law also. But the seed of the idea that all women were created equal was there, starting in that era. That was when the first major feminist publication was made, even giving expression to that idea.

Because the FF could not do it all in one generation does not mean they didn't plant the seed. They lived in a society too, which had its traditions and its past, but it is unsporting to blame them for not being able to, metaphorically, do laser surgery, when they had at least discovered circulation and laser surgery could develop out of that knowledge in future centuries.

[Outer_Limit]

80. I believe you are giving too much credit where it isn't due

It was in their power to make substantial changes. Which in some respects they did. However, if as you say, "the constitution of the US made the major forward step that all men were equal before the law", they should have been strong enough to hold up to that ideal. If the founding fathers were so fixated on liberty, why didn't they do it for everyone? In retrospect, I suspect it is because they were mainly interested in fighting for what was best for themselves, and did not apply those same ideals to women, the poor, or non whites.

Even in present times, the effects of the anti-democratic measures in this country's founding can be seen today. This is evident with the current gap between rich and poor, the people that hold power, the amount of women holding high positions in government and private sector, and the current state of race relations.

Is it great that they designed the constitution so that it could be amended? The answer is yes. However, I do not see it as planting seeds so that current wrongs can be later corrected. It could just as easily be used to take things away. As can be seen by the attempts to deny marriage rights to gays. Gains in rights by disaffected communities in this country has typically been met with fierce resistance by the government and those wishing to keep the prevalent power structure in place.

[treestar]

81. How could they have done all that at once? It's really not fair

to expect them to. And as you say, they allowed it for all white men, at least, and that started the ball rolling.

Many of them were against slavery. They just knew they couldn't even have their separate republic without going along with it for now, to be attacked later. The South would not have gone along with independence.

It's like criticizing someone for mowing only half the lawn. At least they mowed the first half. That wasn't nothing.

[Outer_Limit]

82. I understand your point

And I wouldn't realistically expect them to get everything done in one generation. However, from my point of view they would have gained more credibility if they had released all of their slaves and led their lives without using them or directly profiting from them. They could lead by example in the way they way they went about their daily routines.

My analogy would be, if you are against gas guzzlers, why drive a hummer?

[Jeffersons Ghost]

70. what an easy poll, for "Jeffersons Ghost" n/t

[Seabiscuit]

72. LOL!

:rofl:

[zann725]

76. I believe such dedicated "spirits" DO hover near the area (WH) where they

dedicated and performed their duties as Prez. I often picture in my mind the spirits of FDR, JFK, Thomas Jefferson, etc...walking the halls of the WH at night...wringing their hands and minds at how this Admin has distorted the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and disgraced our nation abroad.

That tree that recently fell in the driveway near the WH was I think the first of many "signs"...if such things are indeed possible.

[niccolos_smile]

83. Other: the FF's were not a monolithic group by any means

This is a constant myth that is perpetuated by practically everyone who seeks to enlist the Founders to their cause (with the noted exception of Alexander Hamilton - not many people on the right or the left seem to have any use for him; pity), but the fact of the matter is some of the Founders would be at home in the Bush administration, some would want to toss him out on his butt, and others would seek some middle course.

They weren't all Christians, they weren't all deists, they weren't all Federalists or Anti-Federalists; they were a talented, albeit eclectic, group.