The First Amendment belies his stance. Were the founders Christian Nationalists,the text would have read “these United States are a Christian nation and all other religions will be subordinate”. A far cry from the actual text. Should further note that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion “ is the FIRST line of the FIRST amendment.
This is the one I always quote when people say that the US is a Christian nation. Hmmm, not according to the Washington administration it isn't! And, according to Beckwith, wasn't George Washington supposed to be one of those Christian nationalists? If he were, he'd hardly sign a treaty with the Ottoman Empire, a MUSLIM empire, which explicitly states that the US is NOT a Christian nation.
Some of these Christian nationalists know that what they're saying is bullshit, but some of them are just dumb. Beckwith sounds like the second kind, because he clearly fails at basic reading comprehension. Doesn't make him any less dangerous, though.
Someone ask that goober why all the non Church of England types risked dangerous ocean voyages to get away from the English? Surely he doesn’t consider the Quakers, Puritans, Presbyterians, Methodists, RCC, etc to be true Christians… I used to have a friend from NY and we both had to endure a guy from IN daily. My friend would mutter “they grow them strange in Indiana “ all the time.
I wonder how he writes off the US Constitution, Article VI Clause 3 explicitly prohibiting any religious test or belief as a qualification for holding any public office or trust? Hmmmmmmm
Don't put so much emphasis on the order of the amendments. The original Bill of Rights, as approved by Congress and submitted to the states for ratification had twelve articles. The first article apportioned members of the House of Representatives according to population¹. The second article regulated congressional pay raises, specifying that such increases could not take effect until after the next congressional election. The third article addressed the rights regarding religion, free speech, press, assembly and redress.
Had all twelve articles been ratified back in 1791, what we now call our first amendment rights would have been our third amendment rights. The NRA would be passionately defending the fourth amendment, not the second.
So it's wrong to assume that the position of the amendments has anything to do with their priority. It is more of an accident that the first amendment did not become the third.
The second article of the Bill of Rights, which states that "No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened. " was finally ratified as the twenty-seventh amendment in 1992, 202 years, 7 months and 10 days after it was sent to the states. The first article of the Bill of Rights, which specifies that there shall be one member of the House for every 50,000 persons. That article is still pending and, if it were ratified today to become the twenty-eighth amendment, would increase the size of the House of Representatives from 435 members to 6,626.
The fact that the first amendment is the first in the list is not a reflection of its importance but the result of mere random chance. Had the articles of the Bill of Rights been ratified in a different order, it could have ended up being the sixth, tenth or twelfth amendment.
In its original form, freedom of religion and the other rights enumerated in the current first amendment were separate articles. In the draft approved by the House of Representatives on 24 August 1789, this was how it was phrased:
Third Article: Congress shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of Conscience be infringed.
Fourth Article: The Freedom of Speech, and of the Press, and the right of the People peaceably to assemble, and consult for their common good, and to apply to the Government for a redress of grievances, shall not be infringed.
The third and fourth articles were combined as the third article in the draft approved by the Senate on 9 September 1789 and in this form it was sent to the states for ratification on 25 September 1789.
Quote: "The first article of the Bill of Rights, which specifies that there shall be one member of the House for every 50,000 persons. That article is still pending and, if it were ratified today to become the twenty-eighth amendment, would increase the size of the House of Representatives from 435 members to 6,626."
This made me smile. And it made me think of the European Parliament, which has got approx 750 MEPs. They are allocated in what probably looks to outsiders a really weird way, e.g. Luxembourg has got 6 MEPs, i.e. roughly one per 100k Luxembourgers. Germany has got approx 90 MEPs, i.e. roughly one per 1m German residents. It might look daft, but it's a pragmatic way of allocating MEPs, applying the German ratio to Luexembourg would result in 1/2 an MEP and using the Luxembourg formula, then the German group would swell to approx 800. Both would be ludicrous. Hence the pragmatic fudge.
The EU has instituted QMV (qualified majority voting), where votes in the Council of Ministers are weighted to account for the size of the population of the minister's home country. There are a few additional rules e.g. to ensure that the bigger countries cannot steamroller the little ones and the little ones cannot gang up on a bigger one.
In a number of conversations with Americans I have suggested that this might be a way to address a huge imbalance in the Senate, where the state of Wyoming and the state of California have got exactly the same voting powers.
Pretty much so. As originally approved by the House of Representatives, there were seventeen articles. Some of them were dropped, some, like the third and fourth, were consolidated, resulting in the final twelve.
We might have been better off if they'd kept the House's sixteenth article:
Article Sixteen: "The powers delegated by the Constitution to the government of the United States, shall be exercised as therein appropriated, so that the Legislative shall never exercise the powers vested in the Executive or Judicial; nor the Executive the powers vested in the Legislative or Judicial; nor the Judicial the powers vested in the Legislative or Executive."
That would have explicitly separated the powers of the three branches and made the so-called "unitary executive" definitively unconstitutional. Aparently, the people who decided to eliminate this provision thought separation was so obvious that only an idiot would fail to abide by it.
“ Beckwith’s narrative requires us to accept that the men who were meticulous to the point of obsession about wording somehow failed to notice they created a secular framework for the country.”
I use this point a lot when I interact with CNs. Something like “Do you think the Founders didn’t mean what they wrote or didn’t write what they meant?”
Ask those same looneys if the bible writers didn’t have a flipping clue what they were writing? That might cause their heads to explode. Beckwith is a pig.
I’m English and I live in Ireland. It has been my understanding, for quite some time, that the prevailing religious stance of the majority of the founding fathers was deism. Hardly far right-wing, “Christian” supremacists. How come I know this, from over 7,000 kilometres away but millions of Americans do not?
Because our education system can't stand up to the religious indoctrination so many of us are subject to. We are taught at a very young age that religion>reality. It's a problem!
I live in the rural deep south, and have for a total of about 60 years.
Yet despite attending high school overwhelmingly in the south, I had never heard of the "cornerstone of the Confederacy" speech until the past 20 years, and learned about it entirely on my own. I'd say that's very typical, since ignoring that very real aspect of history is what allows bigots and racists to claim that secession was "never about slavery." (History textbooks in America are generally chosen by school boards in Texas for the entire country, and I guess that says it all.)
"Our new government['s]...foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
It's worse than ignorance. It's a denial of reality to foster a misguided sense of superiority. If those who wrote the Cornerstone Speech were confronted with the kind of accomplished 21st century black men and people of color which this country has produced, they would be scared shitless.
It may be that they saw the potential for such people 170 years ago, which is why that speech got written in the first place.
They would establish "anti-DEI" policies that would give such unreasonable legal standing to white males that soon, other demographics will no longer be considered worth the risk, should just one white male file a suit.
The result being that soon, only white males will be considered for any job. Effective 100% hiring for white males. (And somehow that's "better" than considering ALL applicants. Sounds a bit self-loathing to me.)
"Head of EEOC Urges White Men to Report Discrimination"
It would be laughable if it weren't so pernicious. The second biggest plurality in the United States – white men – complaining of discrimination and bigotry? Yeah, yeah, I know: they think the blacks and the PoCs will take over.
And yet it's the funniest thing: I'm a while male, and for some darn reason, I'm not scared or disturbed. WHYIZZAT??? 😁
Yeah, we both have, yet I don't begrudge those lower on the scale for their efforts to improve their lot, and I doubt you do, either. Shoot, given a chance, I'd be glad to help anywhere I can.
Beckwith and his ilk, on the other hand, are another kettle of fish entirely.
Thomas Jefferson basically wrote his own bible, called "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth": "He removed supernatural events, miracles, and the resurrection to focus solely on Jesus's moral teachings."
Church attendance was actually very low at the time. A lot of people had come to North America to escape the religious strife that had plagued Europe for centuries.
7 Key Founders, Beckwith. 7. Paine is not among them. They are (in no particular order):
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay. Only Jay was an orthodox Christian. Hamilton treated his Christianity cavalierly and to be cast aside when convenient. The other 5 were Deists, whether you like it or not. Because that's what history recorded and what their own correspondence said.
He sure got the taste slapped out of his mouth with "The Jefferson Lies." A book so bad his own publisher...a Christian one...yanked it from publication.
Actually, real historians start off with the sources/records and then come to a theory/narrative. From what I have read of that Barton fellow, he seems to do his writing the other way round, starting off with his narrative and then find (create?) things to substantiate his lines, basically theory-based evidence making.
He’s been buying up the original documents as best he can, hoarding the, and then lying about what they say. He forgets that just because he has the original it doesn’t mean no one else has verified copies and/or hasn’t seen them.
If the founders were the far right Christian Nationalists Beckwith claims, they would have been loyalists, and we would still be part of the Commonwealth.
The idea this country was founded by a bunch of fundamentalist Christians intent on creating a theocracy is a cherished myth of the religious-right championed by pseudo historian, David Barton. They tend to ignore Article VI of the Constitution which bans religious tests for holding public office in this country. Such a clause would be a very strange thing to add to the foundational document of a country where its founders intended to give religion a role in governance. Article VI, pre-dates the Bill of Rights, which speaks directly to how the founders felt about church-state separation.
It would seem as though Beckwith is yet another Christian who wants to rewrite history. While Ben Franklin may have been a declared deist, his writings and attitudes have him hardly a hair's breath away from atheism. Thomas Jefferson's adroit questioning of the New Testament tells me that he wasn't that far away from Franklin. Let's also add the fact that Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, and Adams all had outspoken critiques of the Bible and Christianity.
And it may be that their most powerful critique may be found in the Constitution. No mention of god, no mention of Jesus, no mention of the bible, but straightforward language declaring and defining a secular state. The clearest evidence of the founding father's disdain for religion in general and Christianity in particular may be found in the Preamble, Articles 1 through 6 and the Amendments.
Beckwith would do well to read it. I'm not convinced that he has.
Maybe the whole issue is much simpler: The Founding Fathers realised that the constitution of the new state should provide the freedom for everyone to worship as they like, that they realised that there should be a separation between their personal beliefs and the principles of the new nation.
If we're looking at the constitution from that angle then it doesn't actually matter what personal beliefs these gentlemen held.
I'm not much of a student of history (retired electrical engineer), but the multiple contretemps between European nations, fomented by religious differences, is an established fact, one about which the founders were well aware. My take has always been that the founders realized a secular government, aloof and apart from religion, would be in a better position to treat all belief systems, including those with NO belief, EQUALLY. The obvious problem is that Christianity has always looked to put itself in a privileged position, practically from the time the United States established itself.
There's a whole section in the Penguin Atlas of World History on the 'wars of religion' (pages 230-255 (and yes, I have checked)) - I think you'd find it interesting.
The main issue arose that according to the religious peace of Augsburg in 1555, the principle was that the religion of the country/state/duchy should follow the religion of the ruler/king/duke, which is about as far removed from religious freedom as can be.
This lasted until the peace of Westphalia in 1648, but even then it did not institute religious tolerance. Some states were a bit more tolerant (notably Prussia (there are reasons for that)) and others were more restrictive. And of course such rules weren't static, as the withdrawal of the Edict of Nantes shows, the one which withdrew tolerance from French Huguenots.
The Founders would have been aware of at least some of that history, they certainly were aware that it was the wish to escape from religious persecution, which drove some people to emigrate to the colonies.
I agree with you, when you write "My take has always been that the founders realized a secular government, aloof and apart from religion, would be in a better position to treat all belief systems, including those with NO belief, EQUALLY. " I think they thought that this system, i.e. a secular government was the best route for a peaceful government, i.e. one without (internal) religious strife.
I think you'd really like the Penguin Atlas, it's full of maps, charts and graphs, which I think will appeal to you. The writers tried really really hard to visualise complex historical situations and connections - in my view they've succeeded.
Perhaps Beckwith, who cares nothing for the US Constitution he swore an oath to support and defend, should get out of politics and become an itinerant preacher like his savior. The pay's not so good, but he can learn living hand-to-mouth like Jesus.
His language, thoughts and words are not only disjointed but also completely illogical. Perhaps it's a bottle problem, or maybe he just needs one. He shouldn't even open his mouth because he is proving exactly how uneducated and irrational he is. What a bunch of religious malarkey.
Beckwith talks like a scared little kid who's been caught in a lie and can't figure out where to go from here. Someone ought to give him his blankie and a baba and tuck him in for a nap.
His narrative wants us to ignore the secular framework. He wants us to think that the parts of the Constitution dealing with religion only apply to Christianity. No religious test? To him that means it doesn't matter if one is a Baptist or a Methodist. Of course he likely believes that the Establishment Clause means that Congress is only prohibited from declaring one specific sect the official Church of the United States.
Exactly! As I wrote a bit higher up, they purposefully and deliberately drew a line of separation between their own personal beliefs and the principles of the constitution. This was to provide everyone with the freedom to believe in anything - or nothing.
The word 'tolerance' doesn't feature in Beckwith's narrative?
I think the 'divine right of kings' was a bit earlier? It's a line which I'd put into the period of absolutism ... I'll look it up when I come back from going shopping.
Well... he's correct insofar as the Founders would be considered far-right by today's standards. He's not correct for the reasons he thinks, but he did get that 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 right.
Many of the Founders owned slaves, but only a few of them wrote anything indicating they'd support abolishing the institution. They created a system of government in which the slaves they owned, the indigenous people whose roots predated the earliest European settlements on the continent, women, and anyone else who didn't own land, would have no vote- no voice in that government. They were overwhelmingly wealthy, well-to-do businessmen, career politicians, and high-ranking military officers, and they set things up so that all the power would be in their hands and no one else's. By today's standards, those 𝘢𝘳𝘦 far-right positions. That 𝘪𝘴 the state of affairs the modern far-right strives to recreate.
On the other hand, by the standards of 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 time, they were- particularly by the standards of the European governments whose colonists eventually became our Founding Fathers- 𝘢 𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘰𝘧 𝘳𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘭𝘦𝘧𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴. They explicitly valued religious plurality and secular governance. They established a democratic government (albeit one access-limited to the wealthy white landed gentry) in a world then dominated by absolute monarchies. And yes, a notable few of them 𝘥𝘪𝘥 express support for abolishing slavery and expanding women's rights (although far fewer actually put those views into practice in their own lives).
Of course, there's one little pesky fact that upends all of the above: 𝘸𝘦 𝘥𝘰 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘦𝘯-𝘍𝘶𝘤𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨-𝘌𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴.
The Founders and Framers resemble Nat-C claims about them not at all... but I wish we'd all spend less time getting into the weeds over what 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 did or didn't 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦, and take more of our cues from what 𝘸𝘦- here, today, in the present year and current circumstances- 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥.
Science and technology have advanced beyond the wildest imaginings of the men who wrote our founding documents. None of their writings can tell us how to craft law and policy concerning telecommunications, air travel, spaceflight, or even medicine. Most of what we know about the world, and the wider universe beyond, they did not know.
And as goes science, so goes morality. Condemnation of slavery is no longer seen as a fringe view, but an objective truth, to the point where those who wish to restore that vile institution must first erase it from history, because only once forgotten could it possibly be made palatable again. Despite a major resurgence since Chump's arrival on the scene, society is far less racist than it was when the colonies and England went splitsies. Only those on the far right still believe that women should not have the right to vote. Support for bodily autonomy, regardless of personal preference or belief, has crossed a tipping point- and in that, too, those who would revoke it must first obfuscate the facts in order to gain support even from conservative voters (as they did with abortion, and as they 𝘢𝘳𝘦 doing with trans rights). Religion is on the decline, and has been for many years now.
The attempt by people like Mr. Beckwith to enact and enforce Christian theocracy in the United States is another such effort. They know it won't fly in the modern day. It wouldn't have even been acceptable two hundred and fifty years ago, on these shores; it'll be a far tougher sell in today's world. So, they first attempt to re-write history, because only once they control the historical narrative can they hope to succeed in controlling what people believe, or how they worship (or don't).
But we could learn one thing from our opponents, here:
If the views of the Founding Fathers differ from the reality of the present, and we choose the desires of men two centuries dead over the needs of the living, then we're doing it wrong. We shouldn't 𝘭𝘪𝘦 about these men, as our opponents do, but we 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥, as our opponents do, discard those of their views and works which run counter to our needs. We should look to their writings to contextualize the past, but never as a rigid foundation which all else must be built upon. Their greatest and wisest act, in all they did, was to include an Amendment process in the Constitution. They recognized their own limitations; they knew their knowledge would be surpassed, and they gave us at least some mechanism (however inadequate in the current crisis) to build upon their work... or, when necessary, to alter it or even tear parts of it down.
Our national obsession with these men is unhealthy. Leader worship was, is, and always will be a mistake, and we should read their writings with the same critical eye that we examine religious texts with, in no small part because that's what our opponents want to treat them as. Consider the Constitution: it is held in great reverence by a great many people; any attempt to change it is treated as sacrilege (despite many such changes having been made in the past)... and 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 damned few who hold it in such reverence seem to have actually fucking 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥 it. Huh. Pretty much the same with their Bibles, innit?
To be fair, the founding fathers didn't have a great deal to go on, given that they wanted to get away from the monarchy. Even so, you ended up with one guy at the top and a bicameral parliament. But I think it owed more to the Roman Republic perhaps, than the British monarchy. There wasn't a great deal else if you wanted to set up some form of "democracy"*.
*Which in my mind you can't have for 50% or more of your citizens can't vote, and that wasn't fixed until quite late.
True enough- and, as early attempts go, our Republic wasn't such a bad one. It was a step forward from the likes of Athenian democracy, or the Roman Republic... but then most of the former monarchies in Europe shifted towards democracy as well, except with lessons learned from how we set ours up, and we didn't incorporate those lessons back into our own system. We expanded the franchise, got rid of chattel slavery (we do, it must be noted, 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 permit it as a criminal punishment), and made a handful of necessary additions like Presidential term limits... but at some point in the 1800s, we gave up our position as a world leader in democratic governance, and we've never made much effort to catch up.
Only a fool would make the argument that the US today is a more just and equal society than... well, literally any of the former colonial powers our country derived from. In part, I think, that is because we've allowed our founding to be dressed up in a quasi-religious mythos- if you so much as suggest to some people that our Founders didn't get it perfectly right the first go around, they react like you've committed treason. That's basically what "Originalism" is- the notion that the Founders were perfect, the Constitution need never be Amended, and no one has ever come up with a better way of doing things in two and a half centuries.
I don't know how we get our democracy uncoupled from all that baggage. Maybe it'll take another revolution. But looking backward with rose-colored glasses is why we're in the sorry state we're in. The Founders knew how to break us away from a monarchy- they understood that system well, and how to break it- but they 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥𝘯'𝘵 have prepared us for the rise of fascism; it's a completely different animal.
Very true and to the point! It need to adapt, any country that doesn’t realize it must adapt and change to suit the present. Is a country that will fail its citizens. Countries that do adapt and change will gain stability and the citizens will benefit from a more democratic, equality, and justice than those who don’t (even if those who don’t adapt; don’t fail, but don’t progress either).
Christians seem to have an infinite capacity for adjusting their beliefs to suit whatever is in fashion at the moment. Someone does something good they must be a Christian, someone does something bad they are not a true Christian. I'm not American but I've read enough American history to realise that several of the founding fathers were deists at most. Personally I think too much is made of the founding fathers anyway. (Ducks behind desk.)
Many people never move beyond the glossy biographies of the Founding Fathers they memorized in elementary school. What we teach children at that age isn’t history, it’s called hagiography. It’s a tidy, moralizing narrative designed to present these men as flawless heroes, not complicated human beings shaped by their time, their ambitions, and their contradictions.
But the real story is far messier. Jefferson, Franklin, Samuel Adams, John Hancock and plenty of others, had their wild streaks and, in some cases, outright criminal enterprises. Adams and Hancock were smugglers long before they were patriots; of course they were enthusiastic leaders of the Boston Tea Party. When you look past the sanitized versions, the Revolution becomes a story of imperfect people making bold, risky, and sometimes questionable choices.
History is complicated. It’s supposed to be. And if we trusted teachers to present that complexity instead of a political fairy tale, people might be better equipped to understand the present, make wiser decisions, and recognize danger before a would‑be authoritarian steps onto the stage and plunges the country into chaos.
The First Amendment belies his stance. Were the founders Christian Nationalists,the text would have read “these United States are a Christian nation and all other religions will be subordinate”. A far cry from the actual text. Should further note that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion “ is the FIRST line of the FIRST amendment.
Treaty of Tripoli also belies his stance, bless his little heart. 🙂
This is the one I always quote when people say that the US is a Christian nation. Hmmm, not according to the Washington administration it isn't! And, according to Beckwith, wasn't George Washington supposed to be one of those Christian nationalists? If he were, he'd hardly sign a treaty with the Ottoman Empire, a MUSLIM empire, which explicitly states that the US is NOT a Christian nation.
Some of these Christian nationalists know that what they're saying is bullshit, but some of them are just dumb. Beckwith sounds like the second kind, because he clearly fails at basic reading comprehension. Doesn't make him any less dangerous, though.
agree
Someone ask that goober why all the non Church of England types risked dangerous ocean voyages to get away from the English? Surely he doesn’t consider the Quakers, Puritans, Presbyterians, Methodists, RCC, etc to be true Christians… I used to have a friend from NY and we both had to endure a guy from IN daily. My friend would mutter “they grow them strange in Indiana “ all the time.
Even these differ sects fought among themselves - the very reason most of them fled from the Divine Right of Kings that bloodied so much of Europe.
I wonder how he writes off the US Constitution, Article VI Clause 3 explicitly prohibiting any religious test or belief as a qualification for holding any public office or trust? Hmmmmmmm
Don't put so much emphasis on the order of the amendments. The original Bill of Rights, as approved by Congress and submitted to the states for ratification had twelve articles. The first article apportioned members of the House of Representatives according to population¹. The second article regulated congressional pay raises, specifying that such increases could not take effect until after the next congressional election. The third article addressed the rights regarding religion, free speech, press, assembly and redress.
Had all twelve articles been ratified back in 1791, what we now call our first amendment rights would have been our third amendment rights. The NRA would be passionately defending the fourth amendment, not the second.
So it's wrong to assume that the position of the amendments has anything to do with their priority. It is more of an accident that the first amendment did not become the third.
The second article of the Bill of Rights, which states that "No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened. " was finally ratified as the twenty-seventh amendment in 1992, 202 years, 7 months and 10 days after it was sent to the states. The first article of the Bill of Rights, which specifies that there shall be one member of the House for every 50,000 persons. That article is still pending and, if it were ratified today to become the twenty-eighth amendment, would increase the size of the House of Representatives from 435 members to 6,626.
The fact that the first amendment is the first in the list is not a reflection of its importance but the result of mere random chance. Had the articles of the Bill of Rights been ratified in a different order, it could have ended up being the sixth, tenth or twelfth amendment.
In its original form, freedom of religion and the other rights enumerated in the current first amendment were separate articles. In the draft approved by the House of Representatives on 24 August 1789, this was how it was phrased:
Third Article: Congress shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of Conscience be infringed.
Fourth Article: The Freedom of Speech, and of the Press, and the right of the People peaceably to assemble, and consult for their common good, and to apply to the Government for a redress of grievances, shall not be infringed.
The third and fourth articles were combined as the third article in the draft approved by the Senate on 9 September 1789 and in this form it was sent to the states for ratification on 25 September 1789.
Quote: "The first article of the Bill of Rights, which specifies that there shall be one member of the House for every 50,000 persons. That article is still pending and, if it were ratified today to become the twenty-eighth amendment, would increase the size of the House of Representatives from 435 members to 6,626."
This made me smile. And it made me think of the European Parliament, which has got approx 750 MEPs. They are allocated in what probably looks to outsiders a really weird way, e.g. Luxembourg has got 6 MEPs, i.e. roughly one per 100k Luxembourgers. Germany has got approx 90 MEPs, i.e. roughly one per 1m German residents. It might look daft, but it's a pragmatic way of allocating MEPs, applying the German ratio to Luexembourg would result in 1/2 an MEP and using the Luxembourg formula, then the German group would swell to approx 800. Both would be ludicrous. Hence the pragmatic fudge.
The EU has instituted QMV (qualified majority voting), where votes in the Council of Ministers are weighted to account for the size of the population of the minister's home country. There are a few additional rules e.g. to ensure that the bigger countries cannot steamroller the little ones and the little ones cannot gang up on a bigger one.
In a number of conversations with Americans I have suggested that this might be a way to address a huge imbalance in the Senate, where the state of Wyoming and the state of California have got exactly the same voting powers.
So, the amendments in the Bill of Rights should really have been an 𝐮𝐧𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝 list instead of an 𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝 list.....got it. 🙂
Pretty much so. As originally approved by the House of Representatives, there were seventeen articles. Some of them were dropped, some, like the third and fourth, were consolidated, resulting in the final twelve.
We might have been better off if they'd kept the House's sixteenth article:
Article Sixteen: "The powers delegated by the Constitution to the government of the United States, shall be exercised as therein appropriated, so that the Legislative shall never exercise the powers vested in the Executive or Judicial; nor the Executive the powers vested in the Legislative or Judicial; nor the Judicial the powers vested in the Legislative or Executive."
That would have explicitly separated the powers of the three branches and made the so-called "unitary executive" definitively unconstitutional. Aparently, the people who decided to eliminate this provision thought separation was so obvious that only an idiot would fail to abide by it.
And they were right about idiots.
Ignore that "¹".
“ Beckwith’s narrative requires us to accept that the men who were meticulous to the point of obsession about wording somehow failed to notice they created a secular framework for the country.”
I use this point a lot when I interact with CNs. Something like “Do you think the Founders didn’t mean what they wrote or didn’t write what they meant?”
Or didn't write what they wrote.
They all had direct knowledge of the religious persecution the English perpetrated on the various sects at the time.
Ask those same looneys if the bible writers didn’t have a flipping clue what they were writing? That might cause their heads to explode. Beckwith is a pig.
I’m English and I live in Ireland. It has been my understanding, for quite some time, that the prevailing religious stance of the majority of the founding fathers was deism. Hardly far right-wing, “Christian” supremacists. How come I know this, from over 7,000 kilometres away but millions of Americans do not?
Because our education system can't stand up to the religious indoctrination so many of us are subject to. We are taught at a very young age that religion>reality. It's a problem!
Jon,
This may help answer your question a bit...
I live in the rural deep south, and have for a total of about 60 years.
Yet despite attending high school overwhelmingly in the south, I had never heard of the "cornerstone of the Confederacy" speech until the past 20 years, and learned about it entirely on my own. I'd say that's very typical, since ignoring that very real aspect of history is what allows bigots and racists to claim that secession was "never about slavery." (History textbooks in America are generally chosen by school boards in Texas for the entire country, and I guess that says it all.)
"Our new government['s]...foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech
I'd call that level of ignorance a feature, not a bug.
Thank you for sharing, Jon.
It's worse than ignorance. It's a denial of reality to foster a misguided sense of superiority. If those who wrote the Cornerstone Speech were confronted with the kind of accomplished 21st century black men and people of color which this country has produced, they would be scared shitless.
It may be that they saw the potential for such people 170 years ago, which is why that speech got written in the first place.
Either they'd be scared shitless, or...
They would establish "anti-DEI" policies that would give such unreasonable legal standing to white males that soon, other demographics will no longer be considered worth the risk, should just one white male file a suit.
The result being that soon, only white males will be considered for any job. Effective 100% hiring for white males. (And somehow that's "better" than considering ALL applicants. Sounds a bit self-loathing to me.)
"Head of EEOC Urges White Men to Report Discrimination"
https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2025/12/24/852120.htm
It would be laughable if it weren't so pernicious. The second biggest plurality in the United States – white men – complaining of discrimination and bigotry? Yeah, yeah, I know: they think the blacks and the PoCs will take over.
And yet it's the funniest thing: I'm a while male, and for some darn reason, I'm not scared or disturbed. WHYIZZAT??? 😁
I’m a white male and pretty darn cognizant that I have benefitted unfairly during my lifetime because of it.
Yeah, we both have, yet I don't begrudge those lower on the scale for their efforts to improve their lot, and I doubt you do, either. Shoot, given a chance, I'd be glad to help anywhere I can.
Beckwith and his ilk, on the other hand, are another kettle of fish entirely.
I can only agree:
"Every “white payroll dollar” in America’s history to this day comes substantially from the pockets of slaves and their descendants."
https://medium.com/@foofaraw/reparations-inheritance-done-ethically-56f42083470e
Good grief! Now Miller and his government are trying to go back to that because 70 million people voted for Trumpski.
Thomas Jefferson basically wrote his own bible, called "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth": "He removed supernatural events, miracles, and the resurrection to focus solely on Jesus's moral teachings."
Didn't he also write "The Life of Brian"?
4 Englishmen, a Welshman and an American. Jefferson's gotta be in there somewhere.
Sounds like the beginning of a joke...
I heard he was prone towards ripping pages out. 😂
He removed all references to miracles performed by Jesus (allegedly) and references to being the son of God, if I remember right.
Church attendance was actually very low at the time. A lot of people had come to North America to escape the religious strife that had plagued Europe for centuries.
The taverns and the brothels on the other hand ...
Too much of the population lacks critical thinking skills. Instead they accept without question whatever they are told from the pulpit. For shame.
"There were really only one Founding Father..."
Your grammar are terrible, Beckwith.
7 Key Founders, Beckwith. 7. Paine is not among them. They are (in no particular order):
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay. Only Jay was an orthodox Christian. Hamilton treated his Christianity cavalierly and to be cast aside when convenient. The other 5 were Deists, whether you like it or not. Because that's what history recorded and what their own correspondence said.
EDIT. Meant James Madison, not James Monroe.
That's how these things work in David Barton's history. Just make shit up, like Paine being a founding father.
This is the result of their education at MSU.
People get a better education in the MCU.
Beckwith's problem is that he thinks Barton was the only historian who recorded anything about the Founders.
In Barton's case, "recorded" equals "made up."
All of it is made up by someone. Barton wants to be famous. He shouldn't have tried so hard.
He sure got the taste slapped out of his mouth with "The Jefferson Lies." A book so bad his own publisher...a Christian one...yanked it from publication.
I resent the very existance of the manuscript of that book on personal grounds. Thomas Jefferson is my great-great-great-great-great-great uncle.
Actually, real historians start off with the sources/records and then come to a theory/narrative. From what I have read of that Barton fellow, he seems to do his writing the other way round, starting off with his narrative and then find (create?) things to substantiate his lines, basically theory-based evidence making.
It is the whole reichwing christainist treatment of science applied to History. Start with a conclusion and then write backwards.
His source material is whatever comes out of his ass.
He’s been buying up the original documents as best he can, hoarding the, and then lying about what they say. He forgets that just because he has the original it doesn’t mean no one else has verified copies and/or hasn’t seen them.
Just like creationists who do exactly what Barton does.
The Jefferson Bible anyone?
Jefferson Airplane was better. 😉
AKA Jefferson Starship, AKA Starship.
They built this city......
Nothing's gonna stop 'em now...
Fuck you! We do what we want!
Jefferson completely cut out the entire Old Testament and gutted the New Testament (especially the gospels) of all the hoodoo voodoo,
If the founders were the far right Christian Nationalists Beckwith claims, they would have been loyalists, and we would still be part of the Commonwealth.
The idea this country was founded by a bunch of fundamentalist Christians intent on creating a theocracy is a cherished myth of the religious-right championed by pseudo historian, David Barton. They tend to ignore Article VI of the Constitution which bans religious tests for holding public office in this country. Such a clause would be a very strange thing to add to the foundational document of a country where its founders intended to give religion a role in governance. Article VI, pre-dates the Bill of Rights, which speaks directly to how the founders felt about church-state separation.
Like all christian nationalist scum, this moron is a liar.
It would seem as though Beckwith is yet another Christian who wants to rewrite history. While Ben Franklin may have been a declared deist, his writings and attitudes have him hardly a hair's breath away from atheism. Thomas Jefferson's adroit questioning of the New Testament tells me that he wasn't that far away from Franklin. Let's also add the fact that Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, and Adams all had outspoken critiques of the Bible and Christianity.
And it may be that their most powerful critique may be found in the Constitution. No mention of god, no mention of Jesus, no mention of the bible, but straightforward language declaring and defining a secular state. The clearest evidence of the founding father's disdain for religion in general and Christianity in particular may be found in the Preamble, Articles 1 through 6 and the Amendments.
Beckwith would do well to read it. I'm not convinced that he has.
Maybe the whole issue is much simpler: The Founding Fathers realised that the constitution of the new state should provide the freedom for everyone to worship as they like, that they realised that there should be a separation between their personal beliefs and the principles of the new nation.
If we're looking at the constitution from that angle then it doesn't actually matter what personal beliefs these gentlemen held.
I'm not much of a student of history (retired electrical engineer), but the multiple contretemps between European nations, fomented by religious differences, is an established fact, one about which the founders were well aware. My take has always been that the founders realized a secular government, aloof and apart from religion, would be in a better position to treat all belief systems, including those with NO belief, EQUALLY. The obvious problem is that Christianity has always looked to put itself in a privileged position, practically from the time the United States established itself.
And it continues to do so to this day.
There's a whole section in the Penguin Atlas of World History on the 'wars of religion' (pages 230-255 (and yes, I have checked)) - I think you'd find it interesting.
The main issue arose that according to the religious peace of Augsburg in 1555, the principle was that the religion of the country/state/duchy should follow the religion of the ruler/king/duke, which is about as far removed from religious freedom as can be.
This lasted until the peace of Westphalia in 1648, but even then it did not institute religious tolerance. Some states were a bit more tolerant (notably Prussia (there are reasons for that)) and others were more restrictive. And of course such rules weren't static, as the withdrawal of the Edict of Nantes shows, the one which withdrew tolerance from French Huguenots.
The Founders would have been aware of at least some of that history, they certainly were aware that it was the wish to escape from religious persecution, which drove some people to emigrate to the colonies.
I agree with you, when you write "My take has always been that the founders realized a secular government, aloof and apart from religion, would be in a better position to treat all belief systems, including those with NO belief, EQUALLY. " I think they thought that this system, i.e. a secular government was the best route for a peaceful government, i.e. one without (internal) religious strife.
Found a copy:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/147109596191?_skw=penguin+atlas+world+history&itmmeta=01KGCYY7Y7MHP234ZEQR4J238P&hash=item22406a4c1f:g:emYAAeSw9Z5pcqh2&itmprp=enc%3AAQALAAAA8O7PUuNWmJ%2B%2BUShgI9tQz%2Foc--YIVSg42Kw%2FJyV0Gg8FJngEoa2Yrj0z9rs9O8uHtAWgs%2FoSmfaJzTAWBs1pSnQI%2FQ4JBbWj8vLzXyx%2FuRgSoNe9NJBQBmI0K3KZg5J4R9KJvNfADTnA4EvNBzk%2F7Yl%2FL8Jsf7LbkGtY0tWM6anL2vHtncQkAS3NuFCQpNOol3AWnSEZoGYP2gMPybPruO2A259hb67onwLNuKkYogzEBtejRWfM5bM3JNmfEY0DgKnj3VpjqotV4B6V6tJ4tMcF9odWHAhKhlxSGfJoz0zkgKbhseqScr6aRAXmawwMIQ%3D%3D%7Ctkp%3ABFBMoP_4noNn
I think you'd really like the Penguin Atlas, it's full of maps, charts and graphs, which I think will appeal to you. The writers tried really really hard to visualise complex historical situations and connections - in my view they've succeeded.
Perhaps Beckwith, who cares nothing for the US Constitution he swore an oath to support and defend, should get out of politics and become an itinerant preacher like his savior. The pay's not so good, but he can learn living hand-to-mouth like Jesus.
From article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoly:
"𝐴𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑈𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝐴𝑚𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑎 𝑖𝑠 𝑛𝑜𝑡, 𝑖𝑛 𝑎𝑛𝑦 𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑒, 𝑓𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝑜𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐶ℎ𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑛 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑜𝑛; ..."
this was just a little lie to make it more acceptable for the other party to sign this treaty
"... 𝑎𝑠 𝑖𝑡 ℎ𝑎𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑖𝑡𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑓 𝑛𝑜 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑒𝑛𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑎𝑔𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑙𝑎𝑤𝑠, 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑜𝑛, 𝑜𝑟 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦, 𝑜𝑓 𝑀𝑢𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑙𝑚𝑒𝑛; ..."
except for calling their religion satanic and labeling all muslims as terrorists
"... 𝑎𝑛𝑑, 𝑎𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑎𝑖𝑑 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑠 𝑛𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟 𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑜 𝑎𝑛𝑦 𝑤𝑎𝑟, 𝑜𝑟 𝑎𝑐𝑡 𝑜𝑓 ℎ𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑎𝑔𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡 𝑎𝑛𝑦 𝑀𝑎ℎ𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑛 𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛, ..."
except for Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Palestine, Libia, ....
"... 𝑖𝑡 𝑖𝑠 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑒𝑠, 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑛𝑜 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑥𝑡 𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑜𝑝𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠, 𝑠ℎ𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑒 𝑎𝑛 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑢𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑦 𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑏𝑒𝑡𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑡𝑤𝑜 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑠."
meaning: "we will find other pretexts"
His language, thoughts and words are not only disjointed but also completely illogical. Perhaps it's a bottle problem, or maybe he just needs one. He shouldn't even open his mouth because he is proving exactly how uneducated and irrational he is. What a bunch of religious malarkey.
Beckwith talks like a scared little kid who's been caught in a lie and can't figure out where to go from here. Someone ought to give him his blankie and a baba and tuck him in for a nap.
My thoughts exactly.
𝐵𝑒𝑐𝑘𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ’𝑠 𝑛𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑠 𝑢𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑚𝑒𝑛 𝑤ℎ𝑜 𝑤𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑜𝑏𝑠𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒ℎ𝑜𝑤 𝑓𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑛𝑜𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑎 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑟 𝑓𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑘 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑦.
His narrative wants us to ignore the secular framework. He wants us to think that the parts of the Constitution dealing with religion only apply to Christianity. No religious test? To him that means it doesn't matter if one is a Baptist or a Methodist. Of course he likely believes that the Establishment Clause means that Congress is only prohibited from declaring one specific sect the official Church of the United States.
What you wrote is exactly what I see over and over at Christian Post.
Why am I not surprised?
Exactly! As I wrote a bit higher up, they purposefully and deliberately drew a line of separation between their own personal beliefs and the principles of the constitution. This was to provide everyone with the freedom to believe in anything - or nothing.
The word 'tolerance' doesn't feature in Beckwith's narrative?
We fought a revolution to GET AWAY from the Christian British Empire and a monarch who believed he had a divine right to rule us from 3000 miles away.
Beckwith either wants to rewrite history or ignore it altogether. George Santayana had something to say about people like that, and it wasn't pretty.
I think the 'divine right of kings' was a bit earlier? It's a line which I'd put into the period of absolutism ... I'll look it up when I come back from going shopping.
Well... he's correct insofar as the Founders would be considered far-right by today's standards. He's not correct for the reasons he thinks, but he did get that 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 right.
Many of the Founders owned slaves, but only a few of them wrote anything indicating they'd support abolishing the institution. They created a system of government in which the slaves they owned, the indigenous people whose roots predated the earliest European settlements on the continent, women, and anyone else who didn't own land, would have no vote- no voice in that government. They were overwhelmingly wealthy, well-to-do businessmen, career politicians, and high-ranking military officers, and they set things up so that all the power would be in their hands and no one else's. By today's standards, those 𝘢𝘳𝘦 far-right positions. That 𝘪𝘴 the state of affairs the modern far-right strives to recreate.
On the other hand, by the standards of 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 time, they were- particularly by the standards of the European governments whose colonists eventually became our Founding Fathers- 𝘢 𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘰𝘧 𝘳𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘭𝘦𝘧𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴. They explicitly valued religious plurality and secular governance. They established a democratic government (albeit one access-limited to the wealthy white landed gentry) in a world then dominated by absolute monarchies. And yes, a notable few of them 𝘥𝘪𝘥 express support for abolishing slavery and expanding women's rights (although far fewer actually put those views into practice in their own lives).
Of course, there's one little pesky fact that upends all of the above: 𝘸𝘦 𝘥𝘰 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘦𝘯-𝘍𝘶𝘤𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨-𝘌𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴.
The Founders and Framers resemble Nat-C claims about them not at all... but I wish we'd all spend less time getting into the weeds over what 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 did or didn't 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦, and take more of our cues from what 𝘸𝘦- here, today, in the present year and current circumstances- 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥.
Science and technology have advanced beyond the wildest imaginings of the men who wrote our founding documents. None of their writings can tell us how to craft law and policy concerning telecommunications, air travel, spaceflight, or even medicine. Most of what we know about the world, and the wider universe beyond, they did not know.
And as goes science, so goes morality. Condemnation of slavery is no longer seen as a fringe view, but an objective truth, to the point where those who wish to restore that vile institution must first erase it from history, because only once forgotten could it possibly be made palatable again. Despite a major resurgence since Chump's arrival on the scene, society is far less racist than it was when the colonies and England went splitsies. Only those on the far right still believe that women should not have the right to vote. Support for bodily autonomy, regardless of personal preference or belief, has crossed a tipping point- and in that, too, those who would revoke it must first obfuscate the facts in order to gain support even from conservative voters (as they did with abortion, and as they 𝘢𝘳𝘦 doing with trans rights). Religion is on the decline, and has been for many years now.
The attempt by people like Mr. Beckwith to enact and enforce Christian theocracy in the United States is another such effort. They know it won't fly in the modern day. It wouldn't have even been acceptable two hundred and fifty years ago, on these shores; it'll be a far tougher sell in today's world. So, they first attempt to re-write history, because only once they control the historical narrative can they hope to succeed in controlling what people believe, or how they worship (or don't).
But we could learn one thing from our opponents, here:
If the views of the Founding Fathers differ from the reality of the present, and we choose the desires of men two centuries dead over the needs of the living, then we're doing it wrong. We shouldn't 𝘭𝘪𝘦 about these men, as our opponents do, but we 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥, as our opponents do, discard those of their views and works which run counter to our needs. We should look to their writings to contextualize the past, but never as a rigid foundation which all else must be built upon. Their greatest and wisest act, in all they did, was to include an Amendment process in the Constitution. They recognized their own limitations; they knew their knowledge would be surpassed, and they gave us at least some mechanism (however inadequate in the current crisis) to build upon their work... or, when necessary, to alter it or even tear parts of it down.
Our national obsession with these men is unhealthy. Leader worship was, is, and always will be a mistake, and we should read their writings with the same critical eye that we examine religious texts with, in no small part because that's what our opponents want to treat them as. Consider the Constitution: it is held in great reverence by a great many people; any attempt to change it is treated as sacrilege (despite many such changes having been made in the past)... and 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 damned few who hold it in such reverence seem to have actually fucking 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥 it. Huh. Pretty much the same with their Bibles, innit?
To be fair, the founding fathers didn't have a great deal to go on, given that they wanted to get away from the monarchy. Even so, you ended up with one guy at the top and a bicameral parliament. But I think it owed more to the Roman Republic perhaps, than the British monarchy. There wasn't a great deal else if you wanted to set up some form of "democracy"*.
*Which in my mind you can't have for 50% or more of your citizens can't vote, and that wasn't fixed until quite late.
True enough- and, as early attempts go, our Republic wasn't such a bad one. It was a step forward from the likes of Athenian democracy, or the Roman Republic... but then most of the former monarchies in Europe shifted towards democracy as well, except with lessons learned from how we set ours up, and we didn't incorporate those lessons back into our own system. We expanded the franchise, got rid of chattel slavery (we do, it must be noted, 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 permit it as a criminal punishment), and made a handful of necessary additions like Presidential term limits... but at some point in the 1800s, we gave up our position as a world leader in democratic governance, and we've never made much effort to catch up.
Only a fool would make the argument that the US today is a more just and equal society than... well, literally any of the former colonial powers our country derived from. In part, I think, that is because we've allowed our founding to be dressed up in a quasi-religious mythos- if you so much as suggest to some people that our Founders didn't get it perfectly right the first go around, they react like you've committed treason. That's basically what "Originalism" is- the notion that the Founders were perfect, the Constitution need never be Amended, and no one has ever come up with a better way of doing things in two and a half centuries.
I don't know how we get our democracy uncoupled from all that baggage. Maybe it'll take another revolution. But looking backward with rose-colored glasses is why we're in the sorry state we're in. The Founders knew how to break us away from a monarchy- they understood that system well, and how to break it- but they 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥𝘯'𝘵 have prepared us for the rise of fascism; it's a completely different animal.
Very true and to the point! It need to adapt, any country that doesn’t realize it must adapt and change to suit the present. Is a country that will fail its citizens. Countries that do adapt and change will gain stability and the citizens will benefit from a more democratic, equality, and justice than those who don’t (even if those who don’t adapt; don’t fail, but don’t progress either).
Well, said Joan!👍
Christians seem to have an infinite capacity for adjusting their beliefs to suit whatever is in fashion at the moment. Someone does something good they must be a Christian, someone does something bad they are not a true Christian. I'm not American but I've read enough American history to realise that several of the founding fathers were deists at most. Personally I think too much is made of the founding fathers anyway. (Ducks behind desk.)
I looked behind my desk. There ain’t no ducks there!
Many people never move beyond the glossy biographies of the Founding Fathers they memorized in elementary school. What we teach children at that age isn’t history, it’s called hagiography. It’s a tidy, moralizing narrative designed to present these men as flawless heroes, not complicated human beings shaped by their time, their ambitions, and their contradictions.
But the real story is far messier. Jefferson, Franklin, Samuel Adams, John Hancock and plenty of others, had their wild streaks and, in some cases, outright criminal enterprises. Adams and Hancock were smugglers long before they were patriots; of course they were enthusiastic leaders of the Boston Tea Party. When you look past the sanitized versions, the Revolution becomes a story of imperfect people making bold, risky, and sometimes questionable choices.
History is complicated. It’s supposed to be. And if we trusted teachers to present that complexity instead of a political fairy tale, people might be better equipped to understand the present, make wiser decisions, and recognize danger before a would‑be authoritarian steps onto the stage and plunges the country into chaos.