Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite Save As Favorite View Article Stats

OpEdNews Op Eds

Did the Founding fathers fail their own litmus test for freedom?

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 1   Well Said 1   Valuable 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

Headlined to H3 7/15/14
Become a Fan
  (22 fans)

In this Pulitzer Prize winning book, entitled "Revolutionaries," about the American Revolutionary generation, the author, Jack Rakove, barely contains his romantic patriotic fervor enough not to allow it to get in the way of, or out in front of, the facts and motivations of our founding fathers. That he was able to walk this historical tight-rope without falling on his face, when so many other Historians have come crashing to the ground, is no small accomplishment. And arguably, is probably as much responsible for his winning the Pulitzer Prize as is his engaging and well-written narrative of the revolutionary period.

To cut straight to the chase, my agenda has always been an open one. It has been a quest to either confirm or deny (and then to expose) the Founding Fathers as either being men of high moral character and sound far-reaching judgment; or morally narrow-minded incorrigible racist hypocrites.

Always I have been willing to settle for whatever the facts might reveal, although I would be disingenuous if I were not to admit that my suspicions have always been that the latter is more likely to be true than the former. My suspicions are of course constantly being reinforced when I see how the American experiment in un-racial democracy and un-freedom has unfolded and misfired at every decisive inflection point throughout American history, including during the revolutionary generation.

It goes without saying perhaps that I have read (and reviewed) enough books on either side of this moral issue to qualify as someone who has at least taken this matter very seriously -- if not made me a self-declared arm-chair expert on the matter. Thus, this honest, balanced, well-written Pulitzer Prize winning book for me was to be one component of a two-pronged litmus test of my quest.

The other component was to be the positions the founding fathers took respectively on the only moral issue of the day, one literally begging for a moral resolution throughout the founding generation: freedom for America's black slaves.

What we discover here in this carefully written Pulitzer winning book leaves no further doubt on this matter. Even as the author undoubtedly would have preferred not opening up this can of worms, clearly in good conscience he had no choice but to do so, and then he had no choice but to allow the chips to fall where they may. All of the chips fell resoundingly on the side of our founding fathers being morally incorrigible racist hypocrites, period.

Never is this issue brought into starker or more self-evident relief than in the discussions during the most trying times of the war -- on whether to grant freedom and citizenship to slaves who were then (out of dire necessity) about to be impressed into the Continental Army to fight against the British for "white only colonial freedom."

In discussions between the famous patriot Patrick Henry and his son Jack appearing on pages 238-239, Jack argued for granting slaves their full freedom and citizenship just as their enemies the British were already doing. His father, one of the most revered of American patriots averred nay. And several days later, the best proposal the Continental Congress could come up with was one made by the very architect of the Constitution, James Madison, who suggested that instead of granting slave soldiers their freedom, that "white soldiers drawn from the lower ranks, should be made slaveholders" -- presumably so that their slaves could then, instead of fighting, be left to tend the farms while the white boys fought the British for white only freedom?

The Continental Congress rejected Madison's idea -- as well as all others that suggested either freeing slaves who fought on the Colonial side, or making them citizens afterwards. They did this in the clear moral light of day while they prayed to their own white God for victory over the British. They did this cleared-headed and at the same time that the British were granting slaves their freedom as well as British citizenship as an automatic condition of military service? (Go figure?!)

Could the moral issue of where the revolutionary generation's heart lay on the issue of freedom be made more stark, or more clear? I do not think so. This is the "smoking gun." The quest has ended; the Founding fathers failed the litmus test. Amen Five Stars


Retired Foreign Service Officer and past Manager of Political and Military Affairs at the US Department of State. For a brief time an Assistant Professor of International Relations at the University of Denver and the University of Washington at (more...)
Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Welcome to Kingdom Palin, the land of no accountability

Ten reasons why Mr. Obama will lose the Presidential race in 2012.

A Review of Bill Maher's Book "The NEW new Rules"

Review of Edward Klein's Book "The Amateur"

A Review of the Movie “Capitalism A Love Story” Is Michael Moore a Permanent (Anti-) Capitalist gadfly or Change Age

Thomas Piketty's "Capitalism"; a review

Post Article Comment

These discussions are not moderated. We rely on users to police themselves, and flag inappropriate comments and behavior. In accordance with our Guidelines and Policies, we reserve the right to remove any post at any time for any reason, and will restrict access of registered users who repeatedly violate our terms.

  • OpEdNews welcomes lively, CIVIL discourse. Personal attacks and/or hate speech are not tolerated and may result in banning.
  • Comments should relate to the content above. Irrelevant, off-topic comments are a distraction, and will be removed.
  • By submitting this comment, you agree to all OpEdNews rules, guidelines and policies.

Comment:    what's this?

You can enter 2000 characters.

(Use the Preview button to see what your comment looks like, before publishing)

Current Text Color
(Optional) Choose new text color:    Select text color
Current Background Color
Choose new background color:    Select background color

Having trouble with comments? Report a problem or give us your feedback.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
2 people are discussing this page, with 2 comments  Post Comment
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

Valuable, thanks. ... by BFalcon on Wednesday, Jul 16, 2014 at 3:37:33 AM
It remains a tragedy of the human condition, when ... by R. A. Landbeck on Wednesday, Jul 16, 2014 at 3:52:55 AM

Want to post your own comment on this Article? Post Comment