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

To: mkjessup
What I’m driving at is that many of the founding fathers did not practice what would be considered “god-fearing” morality.

Benjamin Franklin fathered a child out of wedlock. His common law “marriage” to Deborah Read was not really legal. Her husband had abandoned her and fled to Barbados, but he was still alive when she took up residence with Franklin. Apparently, there was no divorce. Franklin apparently carried on amours, when stationed in London (and still married), before the Revolution, as well as when Ambassador to France.

Gouverneur Morris, who wrote the final draft of the Constitution and is the probable author of the Preamble (”We, the People...”) cut a wide swathe through the women of the U.S., as well as France — there was one woman who was simultaneously a mistress of both Morris and Talleyrand.

Alexander Hamilton, when describing his ideal of a wife, wrote, “She must believe in God and hate a saint.” Whether or not his wife was such a woman, he found time to have an affair with her sister. Another affair with Maria Reynolds wrecked his political career — and he paid her husband off in attempt to keep it secret, while continuing the affair — but it didn’t keep him off the $10 bill.

As a young man, James Madison nearly got thrown out of The College of New Jersey (now Princeton) for writing Ribald verse. As Secretary of state, he hired prostitutes for an delegation from Tunis, who was demanding “concubines.” He paid the prostitutes out of state department funds and listed it in the books as “Expenses for foreign intercourse.”

Certainly there were founding fathers, who were more up to moral snuff. George Washington, most likely (though his growing hemp might be frowned on today) and John Adams come to mind.

But to cast the founding fathers as universally — or, even, in the main — as exemplars of strict morality is historically incorrect. They were men of a wide variety of habits, practices, and religious beliefs. Many were, shall we say, men of the world.

What they had in common was a genius understanding that no man has perfect understanding of God. And that, therefore, He who created the universe created Humans with rights, so that one man would not be bound by the state to commit another man’s error.

These men, various in morals and practice, managed to write the greatest collection of political writings and construct the greatest political system that mankind has seen — perhaps the greatest that mankind has ever seen. But they did not do it, because they were of one moral accord. They did it because they recognized than no man is perfect in understanding.

So it was that Gouverneur Morris wrote the Constitution. So it is that James Madison is the Father of the Bill of Rights.

It is admirable to live a religiously moral and conservative life. It is necessary that such a morality be preached — if for no other reason than that the widest range of ideas and ideals may be presented for consider.

But to demand that a conservative religious morality be basis of American law is not conservative in a political sense. And it is definitely not conservative in an American sense.

315 posted on 04/20/2007 10:53:53 PM PDT by Celtjew Libertarian (WWGD -- What would Groucho do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 290 | View Replies ]


To: Celtjew Libertarian

Foreign intercourse indeed. (ok, I’m going to hell for that)


318 posted on 04/20/2007 11:03:56 PM PDT by darkangel82 (Socialism is NOT an American value.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies ]

To: Celtjew Libertarian
But to demand that a conservative religious morality be basis of American law is not conservative in a political sense. And it is definitely not conservative in an American sense.

Who is demanding that?

By the way, quite the laundry list of misdeeds and moral failings of the likes of Franklin, Morris, Hamilton, Madison, Adams and Washington. For a moment I thought I was reading the latest press release from Howard Dean over at the DNC, you know: always accusing, always the critic.

Fortunately for our Republic, Almighty God chose to use those individuals in furtherance of His Will, and the establishment of the American Republic was clearly part of that Will. Our willingness or refusal to do that which is spelled out in Chronicles 7:14 ["If My people, which are called by My Name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."] will determine if this Republic will survive or not.
341 posted on 04/21/2007 6:10:58 AM PDT by mkjessup (Jan 20, 2009 - "We Don't Know. Where Rudy Went. Just Glad He's Not. The President. Burma Shave.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies ]

To: Celtjew Libertarian

So now you’re going to attack our founding fathers is some misguided attempt to bolster your abortionist candidate? That’s lower than whale snot. Something I would expect from a leftist lib troll.


369 posted on 04/21/2007 2:21:43 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies ]

To: Celtjew Libertarian

Hear, here!!


381 posted on 04/21/2007 3:55:54 PM PDT by liberty4alland4ever (I pledge to support the GOP nominee for President in 2008, whomever that is)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies ]

To: Celtjew Libertarian
"Franklin apparently carried on amours, when stationed in London (and still married), before the Revolution, as well as when Ambassador to France."

No, Franklin did not. And there is no proof whatsoever he did. It's all conjecture. However, he was a consummate flirt, a lost art form because so many modern day men don't leave it at that.

439 posted on 04/21/2007 10:40:37 PM PDT by TAdams8591 (Guiliani is a Democrat in Repblican drag!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies ]

To: Celtjew Libertarian
...to cast the founding fathers as universally — or, even, in the main — as exemplars of strict morality is historically incorrect....

I'm late to this thread, but I must point out that the pecadilloes of the founding fathers are not reasons to accept that pecadilloes should be enshrined in law and protected from "discrimination", as is today's definition of liberalism. Under the predominantly Chrisitan social ethos of the time, certain behaviors were recognized as evils that would adversely affect society. Unrepentant persons who practiced social evils were widely understood to be sinners in need of redemption, not victims of the prevailing ethos. That is a very different proposition from today's celebration of deviance and demonization of morality.

512 posted on 05/28/2007 2:34:45 PM PDT by Albion Wilde (...where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. -2 Cor 3:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | 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