Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Mike Bates

Um.. not to labor on a fine point - putthe Founding Fathers were not conservatives or at least I should say did not use that word for themselves - as tehy did not wish to conserve royal govt. The term in vogue at that time was of course radical and liberal for them. Of course the 1776 meanings for what a conservative and liberal is have zero to do with the modern American meaning of the words.


2 posted on 06/28/2004 1:15:19 PM PDT by Destro (Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorism by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Destro
Of course the 1776 meanings for what a conservative and liberal is have zero to do with the modern American meaning of the words.

Agreed.

3 posted on 06/28/2004 1:16:41 PM PDT by Mike Bates (Irish Alzheimer's victim: I only remember the grudges.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Destro
In the context of his own time John Adams would been described as a "conservative" but you're absolutely correct that applying modern terminology to people of another age can cause problems. Look what the socialists have done to the once respectable title of "liberal".

On the other hand, the founders clearly believed that when a government becomes oppressive to the people (from whom just power derives having been granted to them by The Deity) it is supposed to serve, they have the right to replace that government with a new one of their choosing by force of arms. There are several elements here which today would be described as wholeheartedly Conservative.

The founders were "revolutionaries" but as Barry Goldwater said, "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice".

5 posted on 06/28/2004 1:38:47 PM PDT by katana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Destro
“Candidus” wrote this on July 20.1779 --" We have just seen a rebel newspaper which contains a very curious article relative to the late attack on Stony Point. The article is written in that turgid style, and in that little spirit of triumph, which distinguish almost all the rebel publications, on the acquisition of any trifling advantage; and is at once a just sample of the eloquence and temper of the rebels...

...Our writer goes on to extol the “humanity of the rebels” and contrasts it with the “savage barbarity of burning unguarded towns, deflowering defenceless women,” &c. As far as truth will permit, I am willing to believe, for the honour of America, that the rebels on this occasion relaxed in their usual barbarity. As it is the first instance, it should be recorded, though it would have lost nothing had it been expressed in less exaggerated terms.

The rebels have hitherto been infamous for their wanton cruelties. Their brutal treatment of Governor Franklin, and many other persons of distinction whom I could mention, -- their barbarity to loyalists in general, and at this present hour -- hanging men for acting according to the dictates of conscience -- whipping men almost to death because they will not take up arms - - publicly whipping even women, whose husbands would not join the militia -- their confiscations, fines, and imprisonments; these things which they daily and indubitably practice, very ill agree with the character of humanity so lavishly bestowed on them by this writer. Nothing but a long, very long series of conduct the reverse of this can wipe off the infamy which they hereby incurred.

The charge of “deflowering defenceless women” is one of those deliberate, malicious falsehoods which are circulated by the rebels, purely to incense the inhabitants against the British troops. As to burning “unguarded towns,” this writer should know that the King’s troops burn no houses except public magazines, and those from which they are fired at, or otherwise annoyed. This was lately the case at Fairfield and Norwalk, the towns to which, I suppose, the author alludes; and when houses are thus converted into citadels, it is justifiable to burn them by the rules of war among all civilized nations.

New Haven was in the possession of the King’s troops, yet they did not burn it. The reason was, they were not fired at from the houses during their approach to, or retreat from, the town. Some of the inhabitants, however, did what would have justified the British troops in consigning it to the flames. Sentries placed to guard particular houses have been fired at from those very same houses, and killed. An officer of distinction took a prisoner who was on horseback, and had a gun; the prisoner apparently submitted, but watching for an opportunity, he discharged his gun at the officer, and wounded him.

The wounded officer was carried into an adjoining house to have his wound dressed; the owner of the house seemed to be kind and attentive to the officer; the latter, in gratitude for his attention, ordered the soldiery, on his departure, to be particularly careful of the house, that no injuries should be offered to it. Yet, no sooner was the officer gone, and at the distance of fifty yards, than this very man discharged a loaded musket at him. These are samples of rebel humanity, which sweetly harmonize with our writer’s sentiments.

This writer, and all others of his stamp, should remember that the colonies are now in a state of revolt and rebellion against their rightful sovereign. The British legislation is unalterably determined to bring them back to their allegiance. The most generous overtures have been made to them -- a redress of grievances, an exemption from taxes, and a free trade, have been offered.

These liberal terms would indubitably make America the happiest, freest, and most flourishing country in the world. But the American Congress have madly and insolently rejected these terms. The Congress, therefore, and their partisans, are justly chargeable, before God and the world, with all the calamities which America now suffers, and with all those other and greater calamities which it will probably hereafter suffer in the course of this unnatural contest."

Originally published in the New York Gazette, August 16, 1779.

6 posted on 06/28/2004 1:46:48 PM PDT by ijcr (Age and treachery will always overcome youth and ability.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson