Ruthless, but not fully informed on the positive points

Many of the unsourced statements here about the racism, classism, etc., of the Founders do not fully reflect the facts as to Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin (for the most part) or Samuel Adams.  With Thomas Paine in particular, in many ways we are STILL trying to achieve his ideals which are still inspirational today. And indeed it MAKES SENSE to set unachievable (in the short term) ideals that could guide people for centuries, or, as Henry Clay put it, for "endless, perpetual posterity."

 Of course such noble ideals are NOT accomplished NOW, perhaps not ever.  yet they can still act as powerful guidestars to show us the way, and they have shown the way for Susan B. Anthony, Frederick Douglass, and Martin Luther King as they upheld the Declaration of independence as containing our "saving principles" and demanded, as Rep Barbara Jordan wrote "an America as good as its promise." 

That demand doesn't deny the shortfalls, but to accuse Founders of simple hypocrisy is to ignore the timeless ideals of democracy, freedom and equality that were let loose to challenge every generation to be continually more progressive in these ideals. 

They had the courage to think centuries ahead.  it's safe to say that None of us are.  I don't think we have the standing to reject these ideals and indeed all of us in fact embrace them, some of us just say others don't live them quite enough.

I think the test is not where we are on the scale of progress on an absolute level but the progress we are making on the path.   All of the Founders pushed the ship of democracy freedom and equality farther down the path than any other generation, and the ideals can still guide us powerfully, and always have for every successful movement in US history.

So, many parts of this article are overly dismissive of the Founders as a class (who were also, among them quite diverse in politics and class, tho not much in race or sex).   Thomas Paine believed the right of suffrage could never be taken away for any reasons except trying to deny the vote to others, yet almost everybody accepts felon disfranchisement today.  We are still trying to catch up. 

The criticism of wrongs is appropriate and just, but pinning them on the folks who gave birth to the ideals one is pushing for the more complete accomplishment of is wrongheaded,  or the wrong perspective.  They TOLD US the revolution was not for america but for all humanity, not for their time but for "endless perpetual posterity" because the ideals of democracy freedom and equality contained the seeds of freedom for all. 

They knew that.   Jefferson prayed for time to go by faster so these days would come.

by Paul Lehto (26 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 35 comments) on Monday, July 16, 2007 at 7:25:42 PM
 

Sins of our fathers

Dear Rady,  

I  love it and totally agree.  Needless to say, I disagree with what Paul Lehto says in his comments.  What people do is more important than what grandiose things they say.

 I love to quote Sojourner Truth, Dorothy Day, Rachel Carson to name a few.

 Keep up the great and very important work.

Sheila Parks

HCPB advocate/activist/organizer

by Sheila Parks (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 18 comments) on Monday, July 16, 2007 at 7:38:31 PM
 

Ultimately, people will realize voting is inalienable

The slaves of today, are those who are incarcerated and disfranchised.  If ANY right at all is inalienable, it MUST be the right to vote, which is the right that protects all other rights.  John Adams (a more conservative founder) feared, and was exactly right, that the concept of inalienable rights would soon lead to (gasp!!) women, minorities and even young people voting.

Adams had everything right about that except his attitude about it.  Thomas Jefferson and the more progressive founders knew full well the import of the philosphical revolution they unleashed on the world, where individuals for the first time in history became separate power sources because they were born with inalienable unchangeable rights.

That idea, that dream, is the only basis upon which you can stake freedom.

If you want to let historical realities of that time blind you to what was accomplished, you are shutting down the only philosophical well of the very rights you say you advocate for.  Calling this just "grandiose" words ignores the fact that all power emanates from rights, and rights-talk sure can sound "grandiose".  Your freedom and everyone else's is based on this "grandiosity."

Actions v Words.   Even the more conservative John Adams had more actions (not counting words here) than any of us will likely ever have.  Yeah, they also spoke passionately about rights in somewhat varying degrees, so that makes them "grandiose".

This "grandiose" attack is like Howard Dean's "scream" attack.  Dean was relatively the more passionate candidate and the focus was specifically to ridicule that passion.  Movements feed off of one thing only: social desire and passion.  Shut down the passion and the grandiose, you shut down the movement.

That is the second way in which blowing off one's philosophical forebears not only shuts down the only well of freedom that exists (inalienable rights) it also (in the writing above by Sheila Parks) doubles up and ridicules political passion as "grandiose" which can be a double death blow to change based on rights.

Thomas Jefferson wrote repeatedly that he would give anything to change the institution of slavery, and indeed his first bill introduced at the age of 26 was to make it easier to free slaves.  Jefferson himself understandably feared the fate any of his slaves would face if they were freed. Though the slavery debate at the time was intense to the best of my knowledge nobody ever accused Thomas Jefferson of INSINCERITY or hypocrisy as he seems to stand accused here. 

Thomas Jefferson wrote legislation, lobbied his heart out, and many other actions.

The analogy to today would be felon disfranchisement.  one day it will be seen as anachronistic, as indeed all are protected when the imprisoned vote because each vote of a prisoner will act as a check and a balance against overly harsh laws, spotting an opponent a lead of more than 1% for imprisoning 1% of the population (friends and relatives support).  Although it may not be "nothing" I don't specifically know of any real effort to deal with the injustice of felon disfranchisement since voting is an inalienable right.  Paine said a person without the right to vote is rendered a slave.  Surely somebody in prison AND stripped of a vote is a slave whether properly convicted or not.  And Sheila, Rady are doing essentially nothing.

Every word Sheila Parks and Rady Ananda speaks can be seen by a future generation 230 years from now as the grandiose words of the sheer hypocrite who did nothing about the gross injustice of felon dehumanization via disfranchisement, stripping a right unrelated to the crime totally.

And they would say in the future, as Rady and Sheila say now, that their nominal rhetorical positions against penal overpunishment and private prisons and disproportionate RACIAL rates of imprisonment were empty compared to their ACTIONS, or rather their near total lack of serious action to right the wrongs to more than 3 million slaves, or prisoners, rotting under conditions that will often make a person long to be working the fields and sleeping in a modest but personal familiy hovel.

As in "Through the Looking Glass" it's a poor memory that only works backward.  Look forward and ask yourself how you yourself will be judged by generations 230 years from, who have succeeded in guaranteeing the right of all to vote no matter what their status of imprisonment because it is an inalienable right that can't be taken away.

Under the same standards you apply to the Founders, do you, Sheila, and do you Rady, plead Innocent, or do you plead guilty?? 

I think unless you renounce your prior commitments to inalienable rights, you must certainly consider voting inalienable, and so your abysmal record on felon disfranchisement will achieve only derision from future generations, especially considering that "words" supposedly don't count for anything, even though words are the ONLY way we can communicate rights, and all rights, and therefore all power and most justice is rendered empty and powerless.

What you don't know: John Hancock was the subject of an Iroquois blessing and naming ceremony two weeks before he signed the Declaration of Independence, he was named "Great Tree."  The Iroquois had a great civilization. Ben Franklin said most people upon experiencing native culture did not want to return to "civilization." He was a friend as well, and Jefferson as a teenager attended Cherokee ceremonies, and his best friend, later a revolutionary war general, left the next day on a peace mission to england with the warrior chief Onoissete (sp?) to try to get peace with the british vis a vis the tribes.   As a freaking TEENAGER he's working with his friends on international diplomacy to try to save the Native AMericans.  THere's much more little told history that totally belies the efforts to dismiss founders as simply racist.

I submit that dismissing "fathers" for their sins, and dissing mere "words" and especially seemingly "grandiose" words are two of the most powerful nuclear bombs you can point and blow up in your own face.  It's like the two of you are suicide bombers with these twin nukes and you're going to blow yourselves up with your own ideals, which are anchored in the same ideals of democracy, freedom and equality THEY unleashed on the world.

I just want to know WHY do that, and if done how in the world can you consider yourselves any better than the founders, given today's realities of felon disfranchisement?  In order to argue your way out of that, you'll have to deny voting is an inalienable right.  If that's the case, then Congress via HAVA is fully entitled to create every nightmare you are now working to defeat, but your arguments would then be based solely on political power and majorities, and not on RIGHTS, putting you, and all of us, in an enormously weaker position.

Truth is, I respect the work of both of you.  But if I do the same unfair thing to the two of you as you are doing to the Founders, you're toast.  At least to a future generation.

by Paul Lehto (26 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 35 comments) on Monday, July 16, 2007 at 9:25:05 PM
 

?

as you consider voting an inalienable right...

why should a convicted murderer, rapist or childmolester be allowed a voice to contribute to society, when they have violated others' inalienable rights in so heinous a fashion, and shown such disregard for that society? 

logic dictates, that when the societal contract is broken/breached in such a manner, those violators negate their right to participate in it by their actions.  society's continued allowance for their participation is a conflict of interest, and therefore illogical.

by k kelly (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 182 comments) on Tuesday, July 17, 2007 at 10:30:43 AM
 

lincoln was no prognosticator...

he witnessed firsthand, the agendas of the robber barons, as corporate shark for some of those interests in his earlier days..  and in this capacity duely noted their unrestrainable powers.  seems w/old abe, honesty was a matter of timing, he only decided to speak out after he profited from them.  how admirable.

‘We may congratulate ourselves that this cruel war is nearing its end. It has cost a vast amount of treasure and blood…. It has indeed been a trying hour for the Republic; but I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless.’”

Anyone interested in further research on the "Gangs of America" would find Gustavas Myers' History of the Great American Fortunes, (free in entirety online) of interest.  Includes details of G. Washington's land surveying background, Lincoln's "insider trading" profits from his ties to the railroad barons, and the monied interests that brought us, the Supreme Court.

History of the Great American Fortunes

by k kelly (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 182 comments) on Tuesday, July 17, 2007 at 12:42:42 PM
 

to rady...

"Isn’t it better – and more honest – to quote those who grasp and have incorporated the concepts of democracy? Isn’t it better to quote those who “walk the talk” and who still walk today? Instead of looking backward, shouldn’t we be looking at the world today for our greatest thinkers?"

Rady, why negate valuable lessons?  we don't have to look far, to see the damage we've done ourselves with that attitude.

Recent travesties of democracy & justice by "our present" King George rate barely yawn from all but few of the plebasheep. when in the founders' day, less ursurpations against "we the peepz" sparked a revolution ignited by those same "limited ideals" you seem to want to bury with their shortcomings, out of shame and guilt?

even if the enlightenment of the founders was limited by "the age", that in no way diminishes their progress toward a loftier ideal; that we, by virtue and limitation of "our age" find theirs lacking... so someday, ours may be found lacking by our posterity.

hell, i find it lacking now! not only lacking, but retrograde in its negligence.

we've allowed habeus corpus to be rescinded a second time w/in 200+ years??? that's 600+ years of common law, gone....again.

how did we find our way back from that abyss? we looked back to the founders' and the "limited enlightenment of their age" as nothing until that point in time had shone w/such brilliance.

our scope of vision for the future, should encompass and build on the lessons and wisdom of the past.
the lessons of history, if not heeded are often repeated.

you wouldn't attempt to build a monumental structure w/o a blueprint.

by k kelly (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 182 comments) on Tuesday, July 17, 2007 at 12:57:20 PM
 

but they DIDN'T advance democracy

this is my point - they took it no further than the ancient Greeks who allowed only certain elites to vote.

And, again (see my post below), I hail the Declaration of Independence. We need to take those ancient ideals further.

by Rady Ananda (89 articles, 234 quicklinks, 18 diaries, 649 comments) on Tuesday, July 17, 2007 at 3:35:01 PM
 

sorry.... agreed

kid chaos while writing my reply....

those ancient ideals do need reinforcement and expansion from the lessons we've learned since.  :)

by k kelly (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 182 comments) on Tuesday, July 17, 2007 at 8:07:39 PM
 

in reply to both Paul's comments

As to “racism” while it was sourced in my article, I remind you the Declaration of Independence refers to indigenous people as “merciless Indian Savages” 

As to “classism” I refer you to “When the United States was founded, only white, male, property-owners were allowed to vote. The Founding Fathers felt that only property-owners would take this right of citizenship seriously since they owned a literal stake in the young nation.

And another little tidbit regarding classism, of interest to election integrity advocates:

“Among the first things the Jamestown voyagers did when they set up English America's first permanent settlement was conduct an election. Nearly as soon as they landed—April 26, 1607, by their calendar—the commanders of the 105 colonists unsealed a box containing a secret list of seven men picked in England to be the colony's council and from among whom the councilors were to pick a president. Captain John Smith, reporting from Jamestown, wrote that about eighteen days later, "arriving at the place where wee are now seated, the Counsell was sworne, the President elected, which for that yeare was Maister Edw. Maria Wingfield."

"Because Smith was at first denied his seat on suspicion of concealing a mutiny, six men—less than 6 percent of the population—participated in the choice of President Wingfield.” 

As to “sexism” which only merited “etc.” from you (how perfectly this exemplifies the marginalization of this form of oppression), as discussed in detail in my article, women were not enfranchised for nearly 150 years.  Prior to that, women were “chattel,” a form of property.   

The idea of democracy did not originate with the founders of our nation, contrary to what you assert. The earliest example, of which I am aware, stems from ancient Greece when a few elites were enfranchised.  In 2000 years, our founders did not advance the idea one iota further, also contrary to what you assert. (see my classism sources, above) 

An honest characterization of my article would not conclude that I ignore the positive points of our sexist, racist, genocidal founders; in fact “I hail the Declaration of In