| nuckles87 said: You can't really define the founding fathers in such a simplistic, unified fashion. There was division among their ranks just as their is now between the idea of "big government" and "small government" in the form of the federalists and the anti-federalists. The federalists wanted a strong central government that could tax, raise armies, and possessed an authority that was above that of the states. Anti-federalists were oppose to a strong central government, believing that we should instead be a lose confederation of states. They feared central government because they thought it might give rise to a monarchy. For a time, the anti-federalists had their way. Through the Articles of Confederation, state power was MUCH stronger, to the point that we had individual currencies and armies. The problem is that it didn't work. We had an opportunity to have a weak central government, but many of the founding fathers disagreed, giving us the constitution and a strong federal government. Really, what the founding fathers wanted WASN'T a weak central government (though there were certainly many who did), but one ruled by white landowners. The constitution was very carefully crafted to limit the powers of the "unwashed masses" and to protect the country from the tyranny of the majority, which they worried would make the wealthy ruling elite largely irrelevant in government. Hence the electoral college and the original intentions of the Senate (a governing body that was not directly elected, but rather chosen by state goverments, nothing not changed until the early 20th century): they were a means to protect the elite wealthy upper class from the masses. Of course, this last thing is something that's been slowly chipped away at for two centuries now. But I think it's important that we stop idolizing the Founding Fathers as some uniform body that loved small government (or even a true represenative democracy for that matter). They were just as divided as we are today. They were mostly slaveholders, and even the most progressive among them, if not supporters of slavery, were at least racist by today's standards. They are not neccessarily something to behold as the gold standard these days, something I think they acknowedged given the fact that they created the Constitution to be a living, breathing document that could evolve and change with the days. For the record, what I've written here is mostly information off the top of my head and I did very minimal research for this. I don't have time to engage in extended debate that will requre such research. I will also acknowledge that I've simplified many things that cannot be properly fleshed out in a forum post. I'm sure an argument can be made that, despite the differences between federalists and anti-federalists, both would still be considered small government by today's standards. This is something I think I'd agree with. But keep in mind that the world of 1787 was a very different world from today, a world where the government could afford to be less interferring with people's lives. Those were the days before we had steam boats that, if mismanaged, could give thousands of people (which they did, including after the first toothless government regulations were passed regarding them in the 1830s. The following decade saw passage of the first government regulations with TEETH, which played a role in finally bringing dangerous steam boat transportation under control). The days before globalization, before a single person could be capable of waging mass murder with a single weapon, before the existence of mass media, of major multinational corporations and all sorts of other things. Hell, before INDUSTRIALIZATION. But one thing I hope people take away from this, if they even read it, is that you can't define the founding fathers as a singular entity. So please, don't. |
I very much agree that the founders were diverse. Libertarians like to call the federalists - "nationalists." They wanted English mercantilism, but in the U.S: a strong standing army, and a centralized state that controlled commerce and formed a national identity. They were very much corporatist in their economics as well.
We tend to associate with the anti-federalists.
I'd just like to point a few things out:
- Just because the federalists won the argument that a constitution and federal government were necessary, does not mean the AoC would've done any worse or better than the U.S under the constitution.
- While many of the founders owned slaves, they were also against slavery. Thomas Jefferson, for example, who owned slaves, pushed for anti-slavery legislation throughout his whole life. In 1784, he pushed to have slavery pre-empitevely outlawed in all western territories. It would've prohibited slavery in all of the states by 1800. In 1787, an ordinance did pass that prohibited slavery in the Northwest territory. Jefferson did, though, want to resettle slaves in Africa after they were freed and educated. He believed that these freed African-Americans could colonize and bring Africa closer to the western world. The consequence of this thought,of course, was the country of Liberia, which was established in 1820 by freed American slaves.
- While the constitution was constructed to protect people from mob rule, I doubt it was because they felt it threatened the founders' affluency. If that were the case the founders would've been better off created a powerful government that could centralize resources and money to themselves, another aristocracy. It had much more to do with the history of democracy founded in Greece and Rome, and how mob rule was usually the end result, one in which the government could do anything it wanted to individual people, just on the whim that the mob agreed to it. This is ingrained in liberal thought - there are some things the government or mob should not be allowed to do.
