Those ideals are largely enlightenment-era ideals which still resonate today.
The bosom of America is open to receive not only the opulent & respectable Stranger, but the oppressed & persecuted of all Nations & Religions; whom we shall wellcome to a participation of all our rights & previleges, if by decency & propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.
George Washington
Can sweetening our tea, &c. with sugar, be a circumstance of such absolute necessity? Can the petty pleasure thence arising to the taste, compensate for so much misery produced among our fellow creatures, and such a constant butchery of the human species by this pestilential detestable traffic in the bodies and souls of men?—Pharisaical Britain! to pride thyself in setting free a single Slave that happens to land on thy coasts, while thy Merchants in all thy ports are encouraged by thy laws to continue a commerce whereby so many hundreds of thousands are dragged into a slavery that can scarce be said to end with their lives, since it is entailed on their posterity!
Ben Franklin
It is much to be wished that slavery may be abolished. The honour of the States, as well as justice and humanity, in my opinion, loudly call upon them to emancipate these unhappy people. To contend for our own liberty, and to deny that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be excused.
John Jay
The origin of all civil government, justly established, must be a voluntary compact, between the rulers and the ruled; and must be liable to such limitations, as are necessary for the security of the absolute rights of the latter; for what original title can any man or set of men have, to govern others, except their own consent?
Alexander Hamilton
The Founding Fathers were deeply imperfect men who were, in many ways, products of their time. But as far as ideals and not specific policy positions go, they’re worth the naming.
Again, you are framing their words in your mind today and ignoring the context they were written. For instance, “all men are created equal” was intended to give all white males a shot at “equality” in reference to hereditary white aristocracy, not people of other colors. We have revised that to mean literally everyone.
You offer up quotes to prove how great they were but in the next breath say they were flawed while using those quotes as a rebuttal to my statement pointing out that these men were flawed.
Pick one.
Please read about these people, not just the polished historical deep-dives that go soft on their flaws to give the books a veneer of honest and complete truth while extolling their virtues as Great Founding Fathers. They were humans of their time and station.
Again, you are framing their words in your mind today and ignoring the context they were written. For instance, “all men are created equal” was intended to give all white males a shot at “equality” in reference to hereditary white aristocracy, not people of other colors. We have revised that to mean literally everyone.
How many quotes of the Founding Fathers would it take for you to admit that there were a non-negligible number of them who believed in the Enlightenment ideals that were expressed in our founding documents? 5? 10? 100? Perhaps there is no number sufficient, and your mind is made up regardless of evidence. If that’s the case, it would be very helpful for you to state as much now.
You offer up quotes to prove how great they were but in the next breath say they were flawed while using those quotes as a rebuttal to my statement pointing out that these men were flawed.
Men can be great and flawed. Men can champion great ideals and be flawed. I don’t know why that’s so troubling to you?
The problem here is you’re fighting a battle that doesn’t need to be fought. Nobody here is contesting the effect they had on the formation of this country, yet for some reason you want to argue that point.
My point is that they were flawed, and that we have revised some of their motives and framing to suit both grade-school level and adult levels of patriotism and worship of the people at the helm of the country’s beginnings. People don’t want to hear that, and it sounds like you’re in the same boat. I’m sorry if that’s something you’ve decided you don’t want to discuss but would rather hyper focus on their successes like some kind of founding father Facebook page. You’re making this argument about your views. It was never about you. If you’ve read everything, good for you. Move on.
Feel free to pile on some quotes if it helps you look the other way.
Edit: welp. People like their sugar-coated history. Too bad. It’s amazing how far we’ve come and adapted over time to make things better for everyone rather than “just white males get to vote”; but nobody wants to hear about why we started out that way when a bunch of white males wrote the rules?
“By saying all men were “created equal” Thomas Jefferson intended to abolish the system of hereditary aristocracy, where some individuals were born as lords and others were ordinary.”
Ok. Landed white male aristocracy.
Then there was black people not getting to vote.
Women couldn’t vote.
If you didn’t have enough property you couldn’t vote.
Native Americans weren’t citizens until the 1900s. Don’t forget the awful treatment and suffering they received at the hands of Jackson.
Let’s not bother discussing how long many of the founders owned slaves, despite their “enlightenment”, and how long it took them to free them. If they did.
That’s just off the top of my head. Sure seems like landed white males were still top of the heap as far as the founders went.
E: that’s framing for you. A bunch of (often rich) white guys wrote the rules for white males to still be in charge. Enlightened or not, that’s how the country started. We have improved on their work in many ways, but as I stated originally, we need to take the shiny veneer off and look at who they were and what they really did. None of this is untrue.
“By saying all men were “created equal” Thomas Jefferson intended to abolish the system of hereditary aristocracy, where some individuals were born as lords and others were ordinary.”
Ok. Landed white male aristocracy.
Jefferson also believed in a 100% inheritance tax, so I’m pretty sure you can remove ‘landed’ and ‘aristocracy’ from the ideals intended there.
Then there was black people not getting to vote.
Each state set its own requirements for voting, and several Founding Fathers were advocates for total legal equality.
Women couldn’t vote.
This is undeniably true. None of the Founding Fathers were feminists.
If you didn’t have enough property you couldn’t vote.
Each state set its own requirements for voting, and a number of states had no property requirements.
Native Americans weren’t citizens until the 1900s. Don’t forget the awful treatment and suffering they received at the hands of Jackson.
Genocide Jackson wasn’t a Founding Father. Citizenship was not automatic for Native Americans until the 1900s due to the strange state of semisovereignity most Native American tribes have.
Let’s not bother discussing how long many of the founders owned slaves, despite their “enlightenment”, and how long it took them to free them. If they did.
Yes, let’s not forget the terrible slaver John Jay, who founded the foremost abolitionist movement in the US at the time, or Franklin, who advocated for total integration of white and black populations, or Hamilton, who was instrumental in New York adopting a hard abolitionist stance.
Cherry pick much? You picked exceptions while ignoring the rest. At no point did I use absolutes like “all” founders were idiots or something. Yet you cherry pick and suggest that invalidates my points. Good grief.
Whatever. I’m done. I stand by my point: understand the founders in their time, understand their flaws, understand that we have polished their images while ignoring flaws and context to make them heroic. They were humans. That’s all.
Cherry pick much? You picked exceptions while ignoring the rest. At no point did I use absolutes like “all” founders were idiots or something. Yet you cherry pick and suggest that invalidates my points. Good grief.
I’m sorry for contesting your points with the facts of the matter and pointing out that the literal majority of the Founding Fathers don’t fit your claim.
Whatever. I’m done. I stand by my point: understand the founders in their time, understand their flaws, understand that we have polished their images while ignoring flaws and context to make them heroic. They were humans. That’s all.
Yes, they were flawed and human. Flawed and human advocates for Enlightenment-era ideals which are very far from the “White Male Landowning Aristocracy” idea that you accused their ideals of being founded on.
Those ideals are largely enlightenment-era ideals which still resonate today.
The Founding Fathers were deeply imperfect men who were, in many ways, products of their time. But as far as ideals and not specific policy positions go, they’re worth the naming.
Again, you are framing their words in your mind today and ignoring the context they were written. For instance, “all men are created equal” was intended to give all white males a shot at “equality” in reference to hereditary white aristocracy, not people of other colors. We have revised that to mean literally everyone.
You offer up quotes to prove how great they were but in the next breath say they were flawed while using those quotes as a rebuttal to my statement pointing out that these men were flawed.
Pick one.
Please read about these people, not just the polished historical deep-dives that go soft on their flaws to give the books a veneer of honest and complete truth while extolling their virtues as Great Founding Fathers. They were humans of their time and station.
How many quotes of the Founding Fathers would it take for you to admit that there were a non-negligible number of them who believed in the Enlightenment ideals that were expressed in our founding documents? 5? 10? 100? Perhaps there is no number sufficient, and your mind is made up regardless of evidence. If that’s the case, it would be very helpful for you to state as much now.
Men can be great and flawed. Men can champion great ideals and be flawed. I don’t know why that’s so troubling to you?
Jesus, fuck. You think I haven’t?
The problem here is you’re fighting a battle that doesn’t need to be fought. Nobody here is contesting the effect they had on the formation of this country, yet for some reason you want to argue that point.
My point is that they were flawed, and that we have revised some of their motives and framing to suit both grade-school level and adult levels of patriotism and worship of the people at the helm of the country’s beginnings. People don’t want to hear that, and it sounds like you’re in the same boat. I’m sorry if that’s something you’ve decided you don’t want to discuss but would rather hyper focus on their successes like some kind of founding father Facebook page. You’re making this argument about your views. It was never about you. If you’ve read everything, good for you. Move on.
Feel free to pile on some quotes if it helps you look the other way.
Edit: welp. People like their sugar-coated history. Too bad. It’s amazing how far we’ve come and adapted over time to make things better for everyone rather than “just white males get to vote”; but nobody wants to hear about why we started out that way when a bunch of white males wrote the rules?
No, the point I’m arguing is against you here:
Sorry that actual primary source evidence doesn’t mean anything to you?
“By saying all men were “created equal” Thomas Jefferson intended to abolish the system of hereditary aristocracy, where some individuals were born as lords and others were ordinary.”
Ok. Landed white male aristocracy.
Then there was black people not getting to vote.
Women couldn’t vote.
If you didn’t have enough property you couldn’t vote.
Native Americans weren’t citizens until the 1900s. Don’t forget the awful treatment and suffering they received at the hands of Jackson.
Let’s not bother discussing how long many of the founders owned slaves, despite their “enlightenment”, and how long it took them to free them. If they did.
That’s just off the top of my head. Sure seems like landed white males were still top of the heap as far as the founders went.
E: that’s framing for you. A bunch of (often rich) white guys wrote the rules for white males to still be in charge. Enlightened or not, that’s how the country started. We have improved on their work in many ways, but as I stated originally, we need to take the shiny veneer off and look at who they were and what they really did. None of this is untrue.
Jefferson also believed in a 100% inheritance tax, so I’m pretty sure you can remove ‘landed’ and ‘aristocracy’ from the ideals intended there.
Each state set its own requirements for voting, and several Founding Fathers were advocates for total legal equality.
This is undeniably true. None of the Founding Fathers were feminists.
Each state set its own requirements for voting, and a number of states had no property requirements.
Genocide Jackson wasn’t a Founding Father. Citizenship was not automatic for Native Americans until the 1900s due to the strange state of semisovereignity most Native American tribes have.
Yes, let’s not forget the terrible slaver John Jay, who founded the foremost abolitionist movement in the US at the time, or Franklin, who advocated for total integration of white and black populations, or Hamilton, who was instrumental in New York adopting a hard abolitionist stance.
Cherry pick much? You picked exceptions while ignoring the rest. At no point did I use absolutes like “all” founders were idiots or something. Yet you cherry pick and suggest that invalidates my points. Good grief.
Whatever. I’m done. I stand by my point: understand the founders in their time, understand their flaws, understand that we have polished their images while ignoring flaws and context to make them heroic. They were humans. That’s all.
I’m sorry for contesting your points with the facts of the matter and pointing out that the literal majority of the Founding Fathers don’t fit your claim.
Yes, they were flawed and human. Flawed and human advocates for Enlightenment-era ideals which are very far from the “White Male Landowning Aristocracy” idea that you accused their ideals of being founded on.