Posted on 05/28/2002 11:05:06 AM PDT by stainlessbanner
| Review: 'Founding Brothers' is a television landmark It's a common refrain today when a politician runs awry: "What would the founding fathers say?" The implication, of course, is that the founding fathers were above reproach, men who stuck to the straight and narrow, laying down a shining example for us to follow. The History Channel, in a mini-series that ought to be required viewing for all letters-to-the-editor writers, dissipates the fog that now surrounds these men and their reputations. The sad and unavoidable truth is the founding fathers lied, lusted and lurched from dilemma to dilemma, just like the folks in office today. The four-hour tell-all focuses on the men most of us associate with the founding of the republic -- Washington, Adams and Jefferson. The glue that bound these strong personalities together was the American Revolution. Once that was over, they came apart like the buttons on one of Britney Spear's blouses. Washington, alone of the founders, emerges with very few blemishes on his reputation. Another founder emerges from the series in a reshaped fashion -- Alexander Hamilton. Heretofore best know for getting killed in a duel with Aaron Burr, Hamilton was actually a major player in Washington's cabinet. He was arguably the most important man in the government after the president. He was also, sadly, constantly plotting against his brethren, The show goes to considerable length to chronicle the split between Adams and Jefferson. Their arguments - small government vs big government - still resonate today. One of the salient points, alas, of the series, is the role of newspapers in the verbal war between the followers of Adams (the Federalists) and Jefferson (the Republicans). The newspapers became partisan players, hurling charges and invectives that only served to deepen the divide. But these two presidents did set one shining example, perhaps their greatest lesson. Near the end of their lives, Adams and Jefferson renewed their correspondence and their once-close relationship. Like the government they helped found, their friendship weathered terrible storms and still survived. Click here to return to story: http://www.savannahnow.com/stories/052502/LOCfoundingfathers.shtml |
You have stated a major requirement for making "History" Channel credible.
I believe that having deliberately left out the basic life beliefs of these men an insurmountable deceit has been practised on the whole which makes it uncredible.
Give me history constructed using first person documents of the era such as those David Barton has promulgated and I can believe. In the meantime, since truth is of little matter to those who construct these concepts out of their own dreams and twenty first century conclusions they are not worth mucking up ones'historical perspective.
After watching the show I can now date the end of the 'grand experiment' as that of Feb. 25, 1791, when Washington signed the National Bank bill. After Jefferson's unfortunate horse-trade with Hamilton over the federal assumption of (northern)state debt, for which Jefferson got a new capitol away from New York (a pyrrhic victory)and the ensuing bank bill, the Hamiltonian vision of emulating the British mercantilist model of government was set in motion, and has gotten worse every generation since.
Gee, do you think this is intentional? /sarcasm
Do you know what Benjamin Franklin said after the Declaration of Independence was signed and they were about to ring the Liberty Bell?
"Dude, you're getting a Bell!"
What I find interesting is the shift, the Rat of today would have been a Republican a hundred fifty years ago.
But I do see two agendas here. One is a takeoff on the Clinton gambit - the founders were scoundrels too, so I'm not so bad.
The second is to highlight the political divisions among the founders, to try to destroy the idea that there was any "original intent" to the Constitution, to bolster the arguments of the "living document" crowd that we can interprete the Constitution to mean whatever we want. This is wrong. For example, just because some wanted equal representation for states and others wanted representation proportional by population doesn't mean the founders didn't "intend" the compromise of two Senators for each State and proportional representation in the House. They intended to say what they said.
Give the man a ceegar .... Excellent analysis.
Bingo! You and I can to the exact same conclusion. I personally think we would have been better off had Washington followed Jefferson's ideas.
"They (John and Abigail)exchanged views on politics, events in France, family finances, reported on the weather and the doings of their scattered family. They wrote on everything from the price of clover seed to the meetings of the American Philosophical Society, where Adams had been asked to be a member. Reflecting on the outcome of the election, Abigail saw it as proof not only of the wisdom of the people, but their faith in the administration. The "newspaper warfare" had only strengthened support for the government, she felt certain.
"There must be, however," Adams responded, "more employment for the press in favor of the government than there has been, or the sour, angry, peevish, fretful, lying paragraphs which assail it on every side will make an impression on many weak and ignorant people."
Almost from the moment the election was decided—and the Riepublican campaign to unseat Adams had failed—the Republican press shifted its attacks almost entirely to the President, striking the sharpest blows Washington had yet known. Now it was he who had the deplorable inclination to monarchy. The "hell hounds" were in full cry, wrote Adams, who wondered how well Washington might bear tlp under the abuse. "His skin is thinner than mine."
Wondered that myself. Only thing I could think of is that there was a previous series by the name of Founding Fathers and this one is new, so they needed to differentiate it from the earlier one. Joseph Ellis was in both.
I see a further agenda that may be lurking. The US has always had the cliche "Politics stops at the water's edge." I believe that this has been more or less true. Even beyond isues of foreign policy, our leaders have usually (1860's aside) been on the same team, going in roughly the same direction -- but arguing about how to get there.
Now, I think with Gore vs Bush, or Daschle vs Bush, or Hillary vs Bush, or McKinney vs Bush, there may be an effort to say that US politics has always been highly combative and that even as far back as the Founding Fathers there were deep disagreements about the legitamacy of some beliefs.
It is true that disagreements have always been present, but I think there is a message being sent here that "We don't all have to line up behind the President during a time of crisis." I think this message is a poor one.
I agree with respect to the assumption of (northern)state debt and the bank bill, but I think it was wise not to aid France, even though it helped the Hamilton/British-Mercantilist's side.
Overall it seemed that Washington was thin-skinned and ill-suited when it came to power politics. What a shame he didn't set the precedent of ONE term and then out. Think of how much crap we could have avoided without a second term of Lincoln, Grant, the Roosevelts, Wilson, Truman, Nixon, and Clinton? As always, Reagan, the exception that proves the rule.
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.