Founding fathers poll

[Captain Obvious]

So, in your opinion, if the founding fathers who established our country, our constitution, our political and economic system were able to see where we are at at this stage of our country, would they approve?

Is this what they envisioned? Our political structure, our electoral process, our governing process? Our economy, business structure? Cultural, racial, religious? All of that.

Would they approve?

Poll is public.

[Green Arrow]

I voted "not exactly." It was the closest answer I could find to "yes and no."

[Cletus]

If they were alive today, they would be calling for a revolution.

[The Xl]

If they were alive today, they would be calling for a revolution.

Yeah, this.

[Chris]

Yea, that.

[Green Arrow]

Again...yes and no. John Adams and Alexander Hamilton would be quite pleased with where we are now.

[zelmo1234]

The government today is more of a tyranny that King George every dreamed of

Most of them would wonder why we never annexed Canada.

The lack of States rights and Finding out that Senators are elected and there is no body in government to advocate for the States, would have them ready for revolution

The religious persecutions and lack of God in society would have them deeply troubled

The Taxations levels they would find appalling

And Judges legislating from the bench would have them calling for lynching or at least impeachments.

Yes they would bee appalled at what we have become

[Peter1469]

No.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iQ7ZDUutU4

[The Xl]

Again...yes and no. John Adams and Alexander Hamilton would be quite pleased with where we are now.
Hamiltons traitorous ass would have a third leg he'd be so excited

[Green Arrow]

The government today is more of a tyranny that King George every dreamed of

Incorrect.


Most of them would wonder why we never annexed Canada.

We tried that. Ever heard of the War of 1812? Trying to annex Canada didn't work out so well for us.


Yes they would bee appalled at what we have become

Some of them would have been. Others would have only been somewhat disappointed. Still others would be just fine with it.

Our founding fathers were not just one giant monolithic hive mind.

[Green Arrow]

Hamiltons traitorous ass would have a third leg he'd be so excited

But so would Adams, and probably a few others. The prospect that Bush and Clinton were running in 2016 in particular would have Adams campaigning for both simultaneously.

[Mister D]

With comments like "all men are created equal" if they didn't expect this they should have.

[Don]

If they were alive today, they would be calling for a revolution.

They would be leading the revolution for those who wanted to get things back on track. We have people doing it now in their stead. I don't think the founders would be shocked at what they see. They were realists who understood the nature of man. They put together what they thought was as good a government as they could but they knew it was a government that could only work with a moral people willing to take personal responsibility for their own actions. They also knew that if men were angels they wouldn't need government. When Ben Franklin was asked if we got a republic or a monarch he replied "A republic, if you can keep it."

[Green Arrow]

I don't understand why people think the founders were essentially a hive mind. Their disagreements were vocal and numerous, and well-documented.

[iustitia]

I voted fuck no. I don't believe even most federalists imagined our current fate, and had the reality of today been known there is absolutely no way the Constitution would've been ratified - Bill of Rights or not.

[Dr. Who]

I voted fuck no. I don't believe even most federalists imagined our current fate, and had the reality of today been known there is absolutely no way the Constitution would've been ratified - Bill of Rights or not.
Nevertheless, the Confederation Congress was fairly unworkable, both in terms of financing and authority, more like trying to run a country through a group of committees. In order to survive in a world of powerful and autocratic nations, they needed a stronger central government and with such diversity of interests as between the commercial agricultural of the south and more industrial north, there had to be both the will to make it happen and a willingness to find common agreement. They didn't really have a choice if they didn't want to leave themselves open to imperialistic foreign aggression. Having prescience about the future may have altered some of the wordings or amendments, but at the end of the day, they would have ratified, because the potential of having to repeatedly fight for sovereignty was unthinkable.

[zelmo1234]

Incorrect.



We tried that. Ever heard of the War of 1812? Trying to annex Canada didn't work out so well for us.



Some of them would have been. Others would have only been somewhat disappointed. Still others would be just fine with it.

Our founding fathers were not just one giant monolithic hive mind.

Yes I remember those things, And please tell me just how King George was more invasive into the lives of the people than our current Government

Even the most progressive of the founding fathers would be calling for revolution, remember these are people that pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor and certainly would have been executed in the most gruesome of ways, had we lost the revolution

For them I think the biggest disgrace would be the activist courts.

[Refugee]

No offence, but you vote in a gay, pot smoking, Muslim born Marxist, who’s a former left wing activist and you're asking if the Founding Fathers would approve? I think America wants its collective heads testing. :laugh:

[Peter1469]

Yes I remember those things, And please tell me just how King George was more invasive into the lives of the people than our current Government

Even the most progressive of the founding fathers would be calling for revolution, remember these are people that pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor and certainly would have been executed in the most gruesome of ways, had we lost the revolution

For them I think the biggest disgrace would be the activist courts.

The abandonment of federalism.

[donttread]

If they were alive today, they would be calling for a revolution.

They might try to call a Constitutional Convention first, but if that failed yes

[iustitia]

Nevertheless, the Confederation Congress was fairly unworkable, both in terms of financing and authority, more like trying to run a country through a group of committees. In order to survive in a world of powerful and autocratic nations, they needed a stronger central government and with such diversity of interests as between the commercial agricultural of the south and more industrial north, there had to be both the will to make it happen and a willingness to find common agreement. They didn't really have a choice if they didn't want to leave themselves open to imperialistic foreign aggression. Having prescience about the future may have altered some of the wordings or amendments, but at the end of the day, they would have ratified, because the potential of having to repeatedly fight for sovereignty was unthinkable.

Bu that was the point. The Articles of Confederation were only unworkable to people that wanted centralized power. The Articles did what they were supposed to do. Unlimited authority for central banking and imperialism were not it. We look back with our modern biases and think of the Constitution as the obvious choice, but there's a reason men like Patrick Henry adamantly opposed the notion of it. The anti-federalists were right and the federalists were completely wrong. And sure I can say that with the benefit of hindsight, but the fact is opponents of the Constitution accurately predicted with great foresight that the arguments for its ratification were total propaganda and based on the same fear-mongering used today to consolidate federal power. And not for nothing, states are countries. We've lost that view since the Civil War, but originally people were citizens of their states, not 'America'. And that again reflects that the Revolution was about liberty, not centralized authority. That's kind of what a confederation is. A loose union of sovereign states. Henry rightly pointed out that the Constitution amounted to an even larger revolution than the one just completed against the British. And lastly, I highly doubt the likelihood of the Americas being conquered by the Europeans post-revolution. The Spanish Empire was decrepit, and couldn't do a thing about Napoleon handing over Louisiana to us, our illegal purchase of it, nor our blatant theft of Spanish Florida. By the time of the Spanish-American War we effortlessly crushed them in a matter of months. As for France and England, the two were far too bogged down in Europe. The War of 1812 went barely remembered because the British were busy fighting Napoleon and had no designs for America, and likewise Napoleon outright threw away holdings in the Americas for money.

Whether it may have excited nationalists or not, the truth is that the Constitution only served to empower our own imperialist aggression; it's never defended us from foreign aggression. It's never provided us economic stability, or prosperity.

"Revolutions like this have happened in almost every country in Europe: similar examples are to be found in ancient Greece and ancient Rome: instances of the people losing their liberty by their own carelessness and the ambition of a few. We are cautioned…against faction and turbulence: I acknowledge that licentiousness is dangerous, and that it ought to be provided against: I acknowledge also the new form of Government may effectually prevent it: Yet, there is another thing it will as effectually do: it will oppress and ruin the people… I am not well versed in history, but I will submit to your recollection whether liberty has been destroyed most often by the licentiousness of the people or by the tyranny of rulers? I imagine, Sir, you will find the balance on the side of tyranny."

"You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and prosperous people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the end of your government."

Patrick Henry was right, and I will continue to keep him as my avatar as he was righteously indignant about the dangers of centralized power.

[Green Arrow]

Yes I remember those things, And please tell me just how King George was more invasive into the lives of the people than our current Government

Even the most progressive of the founding fathers would be calling for revolution, remember these are people that pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor and certainly would have been executed in the most gruesome of ways, had we lost the revolution

For them I think the biggest disgrace would be the activist courts.

Again, at least Alexander Hamilton and John Adams would be completely satisfied with the direction our country is.

[Green Arrow]

Speaking of Alexander Hamilton, I agree, we should remove him from the $10 bill.

And replace him with Aaron Burr.

[Bob]

Incorrect.



We tried that. Ever heard of the War of 1812? Trying to annex Canada didn't work out so well for us.



Some of them would have been. Others would have only been somewhat disappointed. Still others would be just fine with it.

Our founding fathers were not just one giant monolithic hive mind.

Listen

Had they intended it to be like it is right now, they would have created it the way it is right now.

I voted no

[Bob]

Again, at least Alexander Hamilton and John Adams would be completely satisfied with the direction our country is.

That is your opinion. Others have different opinions.

[Green Arrow]

That is your opinion. Others have different opinions.

It's not an opinion, it's a fact.

[The Xl]

Speaking of Alexander Hamilton, I agree, we should remove him from the $10 bill.

And replace him with Aaron Burr.

Hamilton is the perfect face for this debt based fraudulent fractional reserve currency.

[Dr. Who]

Bu that was the point. The Articles of Confederation were only unworkable to people that wanted centralized power. The Articles did what they were supposed to do. Unlimited authority for central banking and imperialism were not it. We look back with our modern biases and think of the Constitution as the obvious choice, but there's a reason men like Patrick Henry adamantly opposed the notion of it. The anti-federalists were right and the federalists were completely wrong. And sure I can say that with the benefit of hindsight, but the fact is opponents of the Constitution accurately predicted with great foresight that the arguments for its ratification were total propaganda and based on the same fear-mongering used today to consolidate federal power. And not for nothing, states are countries. We've lost that view since the Civil War, but originally people were citizens of their states, not 'America'. And that again reflects that the Revolution was about liberty, not centralized authority. That's kind of what a confederation is. A loose union of sovereign states. Henry rightly pointed out that the Constitution amounted to an even larger revolution than the one just completed against the British. And lastly, I highly doubt the likelihood of the Americas being conquered by the Europeans post-revolution. The Spanish Empire was decrepit, and couldn't do a thing about Napoleon handing over Louisiana to us, our illegal purchase of it, nor our blatant theft of Spanish Florida. By the time of the Spanish-American War we effortlessly crushed them in a matter of months. As for France and England, the two were far too bogged down in Europe. The War of 1812 went barely remembered because the British were busy fighting Napoleon and had no designs for America, and likewise Napoleon outright threw away holdings in the Americas for money.

Whether it may have excited nationalists or not, the truth is that the Constitution only served to empower our own imperialist aggression; it's never defended us from foreign aggression. It's never provided us economic stability, or prosperity.

"Revolutions like this have happened in almost every country in Europe: similar examples are to be found in ancient Greece and ancient Rome: instances of the people losing their liberty by their own carelessness and the ambition of a few. We are cautioned…against faction and turbulence: I acknowledge that licentiousness is dangerous, and that it ought to be provided against: I acknowledge also the new form of Government may effectually prevent it: Yet, there is another thing it will as effectually do: it will oppress and ruin the people… I am not well versed in history, but I will submit to your recollection whether liberty has been destroyed most often by the licentiousness of the people or by the tyranny of rulers? I imagine, Sir, you will find the balance on the side of tyranny."

"You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and prosperous people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the end of your government."

Patrick Henry was right, and I will continue to keep him as my avatar as he was righteously indignant about the dangers of centralized power.
Apart from ensuring that the United States had enough money to provide a common defense and the ability to regulate interstate trade, it also seems to me that James Madison had more than a few concerns that minority rights were being abused by the individual states and believed that "the rights of the people would be more reliably protected in a national government than by a state government." He was not wrong in that respect.

[Bob]

It's not an opinion, it's a fact.

Now you are an expert over the dead. Such arrogance. Tsk tsk

[Peter1469]

The Articles were completly unworkable if the US. Was to matter. Constitutional federalism was America's contribution to the world.


Bu that was the point. The Articles of Confederation were only unworkable to people that wanted centralized power. The Articles did what they were supposed to do. Unlimited authority for central banking and imperialism were not it. We look back with our modern biases and think of the Constitution as the obvious choice, but there's a reason men like Patrick Henry adamantly opposed the notion of it. The anti-federalists were right and the federalists were completely wrong. And sure I can say that with the benefit of hindsight, but the fact is opponents of the Constitution accurately predicted with great foresight that the arguments for its ratification were total propaganda and based on the same fear-mongering used today to consolidate federal power. And not for nothing, states are countries. We've lost that view since the Civil War, but originally people were citizens of their states, not 'America'. And that again reflects that the Revolution was about liberty, not centralized authority. That's kind of what a confederation is. A loose union of sovereign states. Henry rightly pointed out that the Constitution amounted to an even larger revolution than the one just completed against the British. And lastly, I highly doubt the likelihood of the Americas being conquered by the Europeans post-revolution. The Spanish Empire was decrepit, and couldn't do a thing about Napoleon handing over Louisiana to us, our illegal purchase of it, nor our blatant theft of Spanish Florida. By the time of the Spanish-American War we effortlessly crushed them in a matter of months. As for France and England, the two were far too bogged down in Europe. The War of 1812 went barely remembered because the British were busy fighting Napoleon and had no designs for America, and likewise Napoleon outright threw away holdings in the Americas for money.

Whether it may have excited nationalists or not, the truth is that the Constitution only served to empower our own imperialist aggression; it's never defended us from foreign aggression. It's never provided us economic stability, or prosperity.

"Revolutions like this have happened in almost every country in Europe: similar examples are to be found in ancient Greece and ancient Rome: instances of the people losing their liberty by their own carelessness and the ambition of a few. We are cautioned…against faction and turbulence: I acknowledge that licentiousness is dangerous, and that it ought to be provided against: I acknowledge also the new form of Government may effectually prevent it: Yet, there is another thing it will as effectually do: it will oppress and ruin the people… I am not well versed in history, but I will submit to your recollection whether liberty has been destroyed most often by the licentiousness of the people or by the tyranny of rulers? I imagine, Sir, you will find the balance on the side of tyranny."

"You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and prosperous people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the end of your government."

Patrick Henry was right, and I will continue to keep him as my avatar as he was righteously indignant about the dangers of centralized power.

[Green Arrow]

Now you are an expert over the dead. Such arrogance. Tsk tsk

And you adhere to the mindlessly stupid idea that the founders were a hive mind.

[Bob]

And you adhere to the mindlessly stupid idea that the founders were a hive mind.

Nope, Caught you being wrong again.