The following is an answer I sent to an emailer in regards to his questions regarding the Founding Fathers:
Sir,
The positions of the founders varied. They debated heavily, and agreed rarely. The deist vs. Christianity question is answered very easily. Based on their frame of reference: the Church of England, and based on the text of their quotes, one can determine that for the most part the founding fathers had a real problem with religion, but not with Faith. Men of God, rather universalists, protestants, or deists, one thing is for sure: they believed in Divine Providence.
We have to remember the American Revolution was not fought in a manner we assume when we consider the style of modern warfare. While skirmishes were being fought in one colony/state, life was business as usual in the others. The southern states did not even become involved until after the British forces threw up their hands and decided the north was lost. Also, the Americans did not win the war in a manner most think. Britain decided it was too expensive and difficult to continue to try to keep under control these unruly colonies. Besides, England was convinced the experiment in self-governance would fail, and they would be able to come right back as the people cried out for order.
When considering the right/left paradigm, remember that the Constitution is dead center. So, every one of those GOP candidates on the stage are actually to the left. . . even Ron Paul who often votes against the Constitution (though sometimes in a manner to the right of the document).
As for issues like gay marriage, Jefferson's moral position is one we will never know. However, there is no doubt in my mind that it is an issue he, and most of the other founders, would argue that the federal government has no business being involved in. The federal government was designed for the purpose of protecting, promoting, and preserving the union. All other issues belong to the States.
In reality, no government influence should be inserted into marriage, but if there is an authority granted, it is to the States individually.
Same would go to healthcare. No authority on the pages of the Constitution, be it the first 7 Articles, or any of the amendments, grants to the federal government that authority, therefore Obamacare is unconstitutional. If the federal government should be granted such authority, then it must be done via the amendment process - which means the States must approve the allowance for the federal government to gain that authority by the process of ratification.
As for capitalistic versus socialist, the colonies learned their lessons well. Each time communal systems were tried, the people went hungry, and the societies failed. The importance of trade, and the obvious influence of the writings of Adam Smith, suggests that aside from statists like Alexander Hamilton, the idea was for the government to stay out of the economic system as much as possible. . . in other words: capitalism was encouraged. Capitalism, after all, works on the premise of individual choice, and choice equals liberty.
Once again, it also goes back to the express authorities granted. Socialist-style influence by the federal government is granted nowhere in the Constitution, therefore it is reasonable to conclude that socialism was not originally intended, nor encouraged. If it was, the authorities for governmental intrusion would have been granted.
As for the personalities, they are as different as the items on a menu. Adams was more big government than Jefferson or Madison, but less so than people like Hamilton and John Marshall. Hamilton would fit right in with the liberals of today, while Madison would fit right in line with where I stand as a constitutional conservative. Adams was a moderate among Federalists, yet he was not as laissez faire as Jefferson.
Blessings,
Douglas V. Gibbs
www.politicalpistachio.com
www.douglasvgibbs.com
No comments:
Post a Comment