It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Going back to the principals of the Founding Fathers….ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 15 2010 @ 05:50 PM
There are a lot of people out there who think the solution to all of our problems lies in taking back control of the government from TPTB and going back to the principals of the Founding Fathers. It sounds good on paper but, I sometimes wonder how that would work out in reality, especially when you consider how the “Founding Fathers” governed during their time:

George Washington is often seen as the kind and sagely 1st ruler of our beloved American Republic but, how many of us remember what this kind and benevolent ruler did when some Pennsylvanians mounted a tax protest against a Federal tax on whiskey? Good ole’ Georgie went and raised an army of 15,000 soldiers and began to march this army across the Alleghenies, fully prepared to wage war on those tax protestors, some of whom may have fought right along Washington’s side during the Revolutionary War. That's right, Washington raised an army to wage war against a group of American citizens in order to make them pay their taxes. Great guy, huh?

And, how can we forget how his successor worked to uphold the principals of freedom ? President John Adams is notorious for his signing and use of the Alien and Sedition Acts which were a slap in the face of anyone who took the 1st Amendment right to free speech seriously. We also shouldn’t forget the fact that his policies inspired Fries Rebellion another citizen’s uprising against unfair taxes imposed by the Federal government. Government marshals and militia were called in to put down this uprising and the 30 ring leaders were sentenced to death for the crime of TREASON. That's right, in those days, opposing the government's tax policies was considered treason against the government. It was only a last minute pardon from President Adams which spared the lives of those men, after the Federal government had made an example of those men and shown the peoples of this nation what the cost of tax rebellion could be.

Let’s not forget one of the favorite son’s of this new nation; Thomas Jefferson. Surely, this guiding light of the American founding principles could be counted upon to rule wisely and with restraint.
Not exactly; Old Tommy, who could talk the good talk, found it very difficult to walk the walk once he took the reins of the fledgling American republic. He is known for bringing into existence an embargo which prohibited American ships from engaging in ANY foreign trade, whatsoever!!
That’s right, he embargoed his own country, preventing the early capitalists from plying their trade and probably resulted in the bankruptcy of many small business owners, all in a failed bid to keep the US from becoming embroiled in the war between England and France. Then he goes along and makes the Louisiana Purchase knowing full well that the Constitution granted him absolutely no power to make such a deal. It is said that Jefferson struggled with this decision and came up with a solution that would have made Nanci Pelosi proud; he decided to go ahead and make the purchase and would ask for the congress to pass a Constitutional Amendment giving him the power to do so later. I think we're still waiting for that one to come along. Way to uphold the old Constitution there (even though the ink still wasn’t dry on the document during Jefferson’s day).

People who propose going back to the principals of the founding fathers may just want to brush up on their history books to find out exactly how those founding fathers handled themselves once they were in positions of power themselves. It seems that, even back in the early days of this republic, the words of the Constitution, which set down the limits of the Federal government, were ignored with impunity by the very men who had fought to bring this nation into existence. The Constitution was a dead letter from the moment of its birth it seems.

posted on Oct, 15 2010 @ 05:57 PM
I heard that the founding fathers were all terrorists and i believe what my masters tell me

Who the hell are you to tell me different!

posted on Oct, 15 2010 @ 06:03 PM
I agree with you in that it isn't as simple as just going back to the way they governed after the creation of the Constitution. In fact the founding fathers didn't want it to be continually governed the same way it was in their life time since they knew 100 years down the road America would be quite different which is why they incorporated the Elastic Clause into the Constitution. On the other hand I believe the leaders back in the day were quite a bit better than the ones we have today not because they made any less mistakes since they were still people but they had better moral values which seems to be the root to the issues we have with our politicians today.

posted on Oct, 15 2010 @ 06:06 PM
reply to post by Socratic Method

I'm sure the Brits would have classified them as terrorists if that term had been in use during their day (Instead, they had to settle for traitors).

After the Founding Fathers themselves gained power, it seems that the became what they had rebelled against. Fascism has a long history in American government.

posted on Oct, 15 2010 @ 06:11 PM
When people talk about returning to the principals of the Founding Fathers, they are talking about the republic and the constitution and the declaration of independence. They aren't talking about the human actions of perfectly mortal men.

posted on Oct, 15 2010 @ 06:12 PM
The only founder we should go back to is Thomas Paine.

Which, by the way, the people leading the nation he born with his quill let him rot in a French prison for a few years and was ultimately ostracized from American society because he thought Christianity was silly.
edit on 15-10-2010 by SpectreDC because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 15 2010 @ 06:13 PM
reply to post by FortAnthem

well the way i see it its not so much replacing one potentate for another its going back to a time where less was more...........................less government more individual freedoms............

anyone tell ole georgie what kind of gun he could own?
anyone tell ole georgie that he would spent his entire life paying for illegals school,clothes,healthcare
anyone tell ole george that he had to buy healthcare and if he didnt you would get taxed.
anyone tell ole georgie that he had too much money and the government was going to steal it and give to someone else...................

its not so much as we want a return to potentate rule we seek a time when there wasnt a federal reserve,there wasnt so much government telling us what to do how to think and what to say..........and while to a certain extent there was some of the same things back then as now............the levels for what we know today were less then.......................basically we want a return to the constitution...........thats all we want.......we want to be left alone...............and we want our own destinies in our own hands.........................least thats the way i see it......
history is one thing.................reality is another thing...................we seek balance........

my thoughts..........i have often called myself a conservative but i have come to realize that theres really not a damn thing i want to try to preserve other than the constitution..........
edit on 15-10-2010 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 15 2010 @ 06:15 PM
reply to post by FortAnthem

I am confused why you equate certain 'principles' of governance with the flawed execution of those principles? They are not one in the same.

I will say this, however, I challenge anyone to read just a few paragraphs of any of the Federalist Papers and identify someone on the national stage today who even comes close to this kind of political discourse.

edit on 15-10-2010 by loam because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 15 2010 @ 06:15 PM
reply to post by neo96

Hell, can you believe people would tell him that pot was illegal?

He would flip #. He really liked his pot.

posted on Oct, 15 2010 @ 06:18 PM
Actually the Founding Fathers were not a fun group of people. In fact they were against many of the liberties we enjoy today.

They appear to have had some peculiar notions regarding what kind of personal habits and self discipline people in a free society would need to have in order to function independently without a monarchy.

Now I am honestly not sure if this is because they really felt this way, or if they were trying to display to their European peers that they were capable of running a nation, and or that they were capable of getting the nation to profitibility to pay back the European landowners and creditors if they were granted a charter for a new nation.

Either way when you read many of their writings their work ethic bordered on tyranny, and they frowned on sexual promiscuity, divorce, fancy forms of dress, even for women, dancing, children playing, and not being engaged in some form of productive work during every waking moment of the day, they did not favor drinking, hence the Whiskey tax you spoke of, people of races mixing, people of social classes mixing, any form of gambling or homosexuality.

Things like not dressing in any fancy way, and children not playing with toys are more suggestive to me of people under intense financial pressure.

The debt that they took on in acquiring and birthing the nation was in fact staggering.

The good news is we still haven't paid it off!

Yeah lets go play.

posted on Oct, 15 2010 @ 06:24 PM
Yeah you're right... maybe we should continue the way things are going right now...
Seems to be going real well.

The US doesn't really need to go back to anything... just going back to THE RULE OF LAW FOR EVERYONE.

That would be a big improvement.

And yeah, like many people, some of the founders went against what they preached... but others were really true to their words and beliefs... that's what the US needs... people who believe in the constitution and the rule of law and stick with it.

And what people really mean when they say ``going back to the principals of the founding fathers, they mean more liberty... more rule of law... less government interference/spying/wars...

posted on Oct, 15 2010 @ 06:29 PM
reply to post by neo96

The problem with returning to the Constitution is that the Constitution never had the power to enforce its rules upon the people in power in the government. The examples I pointed out prove that. The Constitution may have provided some sound principals for limited government but then, it left it up to the government to enforce those principals upon itself!!!

It is the foxes guarding the hen-house. It will never work, and after reviewing the actions of the early government, it becomes quite obvious that it never has, not even in the beginning.

posted on Oct, 15 2010 @ 06:38 PM
reply to post by FortAnthem

we are going to disagree here.............the way i see it the constitution is the supreme law of the land and the power it holds is given to it by the people who want to abide by it and its enemies are those people who seek to diminish its power ie government and politicians............but meh what do i know......

posted on Oct, 15 2010 @ 06:49 PM
reply to post by neo96

the way i see it the constitution is the supreme law of the land and the power it holds is given to it by the people who want to abide by it and its enemies are those people who seek to diminish its power ie government and politicians

That's the way its supposed to work, at least that is what we are lead to believe but, even during the debate between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, the ultimate designs of this plan for government were quite obvious to those with eyes to see:

The general legislature [Congress] will be empowered to lay any tax they chuse [sic], to annex any penalties they please to the breach of their revenue laws; and to appoint as many officers as they may think proper to collect the taxes…. And the courts of law, which they will be authorized to institute, will have cognizance of every case arising under the revenue laws, the conduct of all the officers employed in collecting them; and the officers of these courts will execute their judgments. There is no way, therefore, of avoiding the destruction of the state governments… unless the people rise up, and, with a strong hand, resist and prevent the execution of constitutional laws. The fear of this, will, it is presumed, restrain the general government, for some time, within proper bounds; but it will not be many years before they will have a revenue, and force, at their command, which will place them above any apprehensions on that score.

The Anti-Federalists knew that this so called "limited" government could not be restrained by the will of the people for long before it became the towering behemoth it has become today.

Even back then, they could imagine a day when the Federal government would

enter the house of every gentleman, watch over his cellar, wait upon his cook in the kitchen, follow the servants into the parlour, preside over the table, and note down all he eats or drinks; it will attend him to his bed chamber, and watch him while he sleeps; it will take cognizance of the professional man in his office or study; it will watch the merchant in his counting house or his store; it will follow the mechanic to his shop and in his work, and will haunt him in his family and in his bed; it will be the constant companion of the farmer in all his industrious labor…; it will penetrate into the most obscure cottage; and finally, it will light upon the head of every person in the United States. To all these different classes of people and in all the circumstances in which it will attend them, the language in which it will address them will be, GIVE! GIVE!

Anti-Federalist document #8

The Anti-Federalists seem to be prophets but, they were merely regular men who could read the new proposed Constitution with a critical eye and connect the dots to see where this form of government would ultimately lead.

edit on 10/15/10 by FortAnthem because:

posted on Oct, 15 2010 @ 06:54 PM
reply to post by FortAnthem

this is what i fight for the way its suppose to be and to get it as close as it possibly can be............i know and you know and everyone knows that walking the walk is always entirely different than talking the talk...........but thats what we must strive for................all of us........the power resides in each and every one of us.........i will not argue history..........................but we all must strive to the world we all want.

posted on Oct, 15 2010 @ 07:01 PM

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by FortAnthem

this is what i fight for the way its suppose to be and to get it as close as it possibly can be............i know and you know and everyone knows that walking the walk is always entirely different than talking the talk...........but that's what we must strive for................all of us........the power resides in each and every one of us.........i will not argue history..........................but we all must strive to the world we all want.

That I agree with 100%.

If we truly want to get back to Constitutional principals, we need to recognise the inherent dangers within the Constitution as the Anti-Federalists did and find a better way of restraining out of control government. Leaving the restraining of the government up to the government itself was always a silly idea.

Breaking the government up into 3 branches helped to prevent collusion for a time but, it was inevitable that eventually, all three branches would begin to work together for their own enrichment and agendas.

The right to vote is but a small power of restraint wielded by the common man, it reduces him to one voice shouting in the wilderness against TPTB. Only by organizing in great numbers and standing up to the government can any restraint on the government be possible. As shown in the history of the early founders, the government is quick to squash any real dissent before it can turn into a mass movement.

posted on Oct, 15 2010 @ 07:16 PM
LMAO going back to the founding fathers way of living would be possibly the worse thing ever! HELLO!?!?! SLAVERY!?!?! possibly one of the worse crimes humanity has committed against instelf! not to mention the religous oppression that took place in the colonial times.. lol this would be a step backwards instead of forwards and is most definently NOT what we need to be doing

posted on Oct, 15 2010 @ 09:41 PM
reply to post by FortAnthem

Look, all we need to do is go back to 13 original colonies, reduce our population to 2.5 million, and make sure that 85% of the white population was of English, Irish, Welsh, or Scottish descent.

Re-instate chattel slavery, repeal child labor laws (unfair to business), reduce our overall quality of life, and make sure most of us our dead by 60.

sounds like a plan patriot!

posted on Oct, 15 2010 @ 09:56 PM
The Founding Fathers stole the power from Britain and gave it to the people.
That power was then stolen from the people and given to Corporate America.
Essentially what we have here is another monarchy in disguise.
A sort of collective monarchy if that makes any sense.
Need I say more?
edit on 15-10-2010 by xiphias because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 15 2010 @ 10:26 PM
reply to post by FortAnthem

And yet the founding fathers are still better than the globalist nanny marxist governments that want to control every aspect of people's lives.

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in