Posted on 07/03/2011 10:43:29 AM PDT by Nachum
ABC's "This Week" began its Independence Day weekend program with a segment that echoed Time magazine's cover story questioning whether the Constitution matters anymore.
After historian Douglas Brinkley said, "We shouldn't act like [the Founding Fathers] were somehow omnipotent," ABC's John Donvan responded, "They were not gods, they were guys - guys who didn't give women the vote and let slavery stand" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
DOUGLAS BRINKLEY, HISTORIAN: It's a very slippery slope to start cherry-picking your favorite golden oldie from the Founding Fathers and slapping it on to political speeches today. Democrats and Republicans quote from the Founding Fathers, but we shouldn't act like they were somehow omnipotent.
JOHN DONVAN, ABC: The reality is that the framers - posed in paintings as though frozen on an American Olympus - they were not gods, they were guys - guys who didn't give women the vote and let slavery stand for the time being and who, by the way, were trying to create at the time a stronger central government, of course not too strong, leaving to us a Constitution that we could fix, as needed, - sorry, make that amend - which we've now done 27 times.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Wow what a moron.Does he not realize that nowhere in the world in 1776 did women have any rights and slavery last I looked was still legal in some countires.Grow up Dude and quit juding history by todays’s standards.
Good God Almighty! these liberals are idiots of the first degree.
Until 1973, homosexuality was considered a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association and was included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).
ABC= All ‘Bout Communism
In 1776, no country on earth allowed women the right to vote; in fact, almost no country allowed most men to vote. 90% of the population of Russia was still living as serfs, in fact. And they were not much better than slaves- they could be bought and sold. And as far as our Founders not abolishing slavery- they had to compromise on it, in order to get the Constitution adopted. They had to deal with the reality that it already existed. (Which illustrates the huge difference in right and left wing thought- the left lives in a fantasyland where reality can be altered completely; right wing folk tend to live within the bounds of reality.) Condemning the Founders for living within what was possible at that time is both foolish and misleading- they did the best anyone could have done under the circumstances at the time.
Response: Yes, it is true the Founders excluded women and slaves from the language of the original documents. However, it has been noted that "ALL GREAT PEOPLE ARE EXCLUSIVE"-A Great Historian 1888
The Ancient Greek, The Roman, The Prussian and The American while growing and expanding were exclusive to the point of brutality.
A reasonable argument that a society that is Tolerant, Inclusive and diverse has seen better days. Human life if it would be great is hard!
The Dalai Lama says that homosexuality is a neurosis (mental disorder for those in Rio Linda) today. So they’ve got that going for them.
You are exactly right...Abraham Lincoln himself credited the founding fathers with freeing the slaves, by acknowledging that all men are created equal in the Declaration of Independence, and prohibiting slavery in the Northwest Territory.
The 3/5 compromise was also an effort to limit slavery, regardless of what the race baiters would have you believe. The south was in favor of counting slaves as a “whole” person which would have given them a clear majority in terms of representation in the House of Representatives, and preserved that despicable institution for decades longer. The 3/5 rule kept Congressional representation more balanced and made it difficult for the pro-slavery faction to extend the practice geographically.
Finally, here’s one question that’s never asked to the so-called historians: who would you trade our founding fathers for? The terrorists behind the French Revolution? Cromwell’s roundheads? Otto von Bismarck? Or perhaps their real favorites: V.I. Lenin or Chairman Mao.
“I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery].”
—George Washington
“[M]y opinion against it [slavery] has always been known… [N]ever in my life did I own a slave.” —John Adams, Signer of the Declaration of Independence and U.S. President. The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1854), vol IX pp. 92-93. In a letter to George Churchman and Jacob Lindley on January 24, 1801.
“[W]hy keep alive the question of slavery? It is admitted by all to be a great evil.” —Charles Carroll, Signer of the Declaration of Independence. Kate Mason Rowland, Life and Correspondence of Charles Carroll of Carrollton (New York and London: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1898), Vol. II, pg. 231.
“As Congress is now to legislate for our extensive territory lately acquired, I pray to Heaven that they …[c]urse not the inhabitants of those regions, and of the United States in general, with a permission to introduce bondage [slavery].” —John Dickinson, Signer of the Constitution and Governor of Pennsylvania. Charles J. Stille, The Life and Times of John Dickinson (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1898) p. 324.
“That men should pray and fight for their own freedom and yet keep others in slavery is certainly acting a very inconsistent as well as unjust and perhaps impious part.” —John Jay, President of Continental Congress, Chief-Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, and Governor of New York. Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, editor (New York and London: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1891), Vol. III, pp. 168-169. In a letter to Dr. Richard Price on Sep. 27, 1785.
“Christianity, by introducing into Europe the truest principles of humanity, universal benevolence, and brotherly love, had happily abolished civil slavery. Let us who profess the same religion practice its precepts… by agreeing to this duty.” —Richard Henry Lee, President of Continental Congress and Signer of the Declaration of Independence. Memoir of the Life of Richard Henry Lee and His Correspondence With the Most Distinguised Men in America and Europe (Philadelphia: H.C. Carey and I. Lea, 1825), Vol. I, pp. 17-19. The first speech of Richard Henry Lee in the House of Burgesses.
“[I]t ought to be considered that national crimes can only be and frequently are punished in this world by national punishments; and that the continuance of the slave trade, and thus giving it a national sanction and encouragement, ought to be considered as justly exposing us to the displeasure and vengeance of Him who is equally Lord of all and who views with equal eye the poor African slave and his American master.” —Luther Martin, Constitutional Convention Delegate. James Madison, The Records of the Federal Convention, Max Farrand, editor (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1911), Vol. III, pg. 211.
“Domestic slavery is repugnant to the principles of Christianity… It is rebellion against the authority of a common Father. It is a practical denial of the extent and efficacy of the death of a common Savior. It is an usurpation of the prerogative of the great Sovereign of the universe who has solemnly claimed an exclusive property in the souls of men.” —Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration of Independence. Minutes of the Proceedings of a Convention of Delegates From the Abolition Societies Established in Different Parts of the United States, Assembled at Philadelphia, on the First Day of January, One Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety-Four… (Philadelphia: Zachariah Poulson, 1794), p. 24. “To the Citizens of the United States.”
“Slavery, or an absolute and unlimited power in the master over life and fortune of the slave, is unauthorized by the common law… The reasons which we sometimes see assigned for the origin and the continuance of slavery appear, when examined to the bottom, to be built upon a false foundation. In the enjoyment of their persons and of their property, the common law protects all.” —James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court Justice. James Wilson, The Works of James Wilson, Robert Green McCloskey, editor (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967), Vol. II, pg. 605. “It is certainly unlawful to make inroads upon others… and take away their liberty by no better right than superior force.” —John Witherspoon, Signer of the Declaration of Independence. The Works of John Witherspoon (Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1815), p. 81, “Lectures on Moral Philosophy.”
As long as we’re dissing the Founders and their ideas (and the US Constitution by association), let’s go all in, throw that “freedom of the press” idea on the trash pile and go pay ABC a visit. Ya think they’d be onboard with that?
Democrats rarely if ever quote the Founding Fathers. Most of them are loathe to try it and when they do they misquote, take out of context and don't understand what they are quoting.
Nah, we have no such illusions. The media are the gods. They know everything and never lie.
Liberals always like to confuse things.
They are ignorant.
America was not the same country during British colonial rule, in 1776, under the Articles of Confederation, or under the US Constitution.
States also had more sovereignty and diversity back then.
Some states had free blacks and women who could vote.
There was never a universal prohibition against women or black suffrage in the US Constitution. So why are these morons blaming the Founders for something that they didn’t codify into law?
Ironically, many voting restrictions against women came long after the Founders were dead.
In some cases, blacks had more freedom than women.
When you look at the women’s suffragist movement, which was long after the Founders were dead, women were complaining that they should have rights because blacks had more rights than them.
Further, abolition and suffrage in the US were contestable political issues that existed since the Founding.
Put simply, the Founding Fathers gave us the freedom to contest these issues, which was revolutionary in itself.
This is something these moronic liberals will never get.
There has never existed in the history of man this notion of a political correct autocracy where a liberal elite dictated that everybody was equal and free.
Which, as others point out, contained the seeds of the end of slavery and the creation of universal suffrage.
I have an idea. Let us scrap the constitution. We can go for a dictatorship and then no one will have the right to vote and we can all become surfs and second class citizens instead of today where none of us are except white males who work for a living.
http://www.vindicatingthefounders.com/library/adams-to-sullivan.html
But will not these reasons apply to others? Is it not equally true, that men in general in every society, who are wholly destitute of property, are also too little acquainted with public affairs to form a right judgment, and too dependent upon other men to have a will of their own? If this is a fact, if you give to every man, who has no property, a vote, will you not make a fine encouraging provision for corruption by your fundamental law? Such is the frailty of the human heart, that very few men, who have no property, have any judgment of their own.
Wait just a minute! I know for a FACT Douglas Brinkley died of narcissistic stupidity several years ago. Unless Satan granted him a new soul to help destroy America! Gee, can’t these commies just stay dead!
Which is nice.
Some of these liberals are fixated on the constitution as originally drafted. They don’t talk about the 19th amendment, which gave women the right to vote in the remaining states which still had not allowed that by then. They don’t talk about the series of amendments after the Civil War, which banned slavery and gave the former slaves citizenship. To them, it’s as if these amendments don’t matter, because they were not part of the original constitution.
I must admit I have a hard time following the liberal logic on that one. If we have amended the original constitution to expand people’s rights and do away with the specific issues they complain about, why do they keep bringing it up?????
More proof that liberals are scum and that we need a divorce from them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.