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 |
To demote them, to detract from their greatness, to impeach their moral authority.
On target. I didn't watch it, but I just listened to a friend's summation of it as "revisionism." I soon as I heard the title -- "Founding Brothers" -- I assumed slavery would be a major focus. "Absolute hassayampa" is a good description.
Well, since his second term lasted less than 6 weeks, from March 4 to April 14, I don't think he had time to generate a great deal of crap. Most southerners considered his death in the moment of triumph a disaster for the South. At the least, it seems likely he could not possibly have screwed up Reconstruction as bad as Johnson did.
I suspect your objection is more to Lincoln's actions during his first term.
In which case, the history channel and Ellis could have simply called them the Founders. But that wouldn't cut them down to a smaller stature, would it?
Ian Kershaw, Hitler, 1936-1945: Nemisis
True, and in hypothetical-land, which I visit on occasion, perhaps another man would have continued Lincoln's policies or made peace. But to me it would have been more likely that Abe would have broken with precedent and sought that second term, thus revealing his personal character, which is the subject of much debate on other threads.
But again, with questionable exceptions, 2nd terms have been disasters often and disappointments at best, imo. Perhaps when the framers were considering term limits they thought that if time proved them necessary, the constitution would be easily amended to provide for them. Look what we had to go through to get enough "proof".
The "republic" had several chances to rollback the principle, but once the initial questions were decided, it had an inertia that history has proven was unstoppable.
I laughed and kept on down the hall, pretending I didn't hear my wife asking what I was laughing about. Let's just say I was forewarned about this particular new piece of malarkey.
I did pick up on one comment attributed to Jefferson - he wanted the capital close to Virginia where the people could keep an eye on the politicians.
"Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past"
Our true past is being altered and changed by the elites in power today. Using this transformation they will breed a future generation totally oblivious to the true history of our country. The elites will systematically erase the very history we need to preserve our freedom.
There is a reason for this and it dates back to Carl Marx. When Marx's revolution to change his country into the socialist/communist country he wanted failed, some of his close followers who had helped him figured out the true way to convert a nation to what they wanted. It was not through violence and so violence against it would not work. It was cultural. Change a nations culture and it's people will reform themselves to the standards of the elites and not even know it.
It's like the old saying put a frog in boiling water and he will jump out. That was the violent revolution that failed. Put a frog in luke warm water and slowly turn the temp up and the frog will willingly boil itself alive, that is the culture revolution.
The same communists who tried to turn Russia and the rest of the world against capitalism realized they could not succeed with violence. But they could do it with culture. The liberals of today, they are the right hand of Carl Marx. The Universities in America they are the brain of Carl Marx. The liberal citizens they are the weapons of Carl Marx. And the rest of us, we are sitting in a pot of warm water, the temperature keeps going up.
Sara Brady, Chairman, Handgun Control, to Sen. Howard Metzanbaum, The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3
"Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."
Norman Thomas, for many years the U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism", they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened".
Nebraska State Senator, Peter Hoagland on radio in 1983
"Fundamental,Bible-believing people do not have the right to indoctrinate their children in their religious beliefs because we,the state,are preparing them for the year 2000, when America will be part of a one-world global society and their children will not fit in."
Attorney General Janet Reno, in a statement made on June 26, 1994 while on national TV:
"A cultist is anyone who has a strong belief in the Bible and the second coming of Christ; who frequently attends Bible studies; who has a high level of giving to Christian causes; who home schools their children; who have accumulated survival foods and have a strong belief in the second amendment; and distrusts big government. Anyone who fits any of these characteristics is cause for concern, but someone who fits two or more of these traits is a threat, and any family exposed to this is at risk, which would require government intervention."
Vladimir Ilich Lenin 1921
"Corrupt the young, get them away from religion. Get them interested in sex. Make them superficial, destroy their ruggedness.Get control of all means of publicity and thereby: Get the peoples' mind off their government by focusing their attention on athletics, sexy books and plays, and other trivialities. Divide the people into hostile groups by constantly harping on controversial matters of no importance. Destroy the peoples faith in their natural leaders by holding up the latter to ridicule, contempt and obloquy. Always preach true democracy but seize power as fast and as ruthlessly as possible. Encourage government extravagance, destroy its credit, produce fear with rising prices, inflation and general discontent. Foment unnecessary strikes in vital industries, encourage civil disorders and foster a soft and lenient attitude on the part of government towards such disorders. By specious argument cause the breakdown of the old moral virtues: honesty, sobriety, continence, faith in the pledged word, ruggedness. Cause the registration of all firearms on some pretext, with the view of confiscating them and leaving the population defenseless."
John Quincy Adams: "The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: That it connected in one insoluble bond the principles of Christianity with the principles of civil government."
James Madison, 1788: "We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future ... upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to sustain ourselves, according to the Ten Commandments of God."
George Washington, October 3, 1789 proclaiming a National Day of Prayer: "Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits and humbly to implore His protection, aid and favors..."
"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference -- they deserve a place of honor with all that is good." - George Washington
God help us...I think we're to late...
The fact is that Jefferson could be very underhanded at times and he did engage in considerable mischief behind Washington's back. Read Fletchners Indespensable Man for some details on how Jefferson seriously let Washington down. Jefferson went through "periods' in his life and during the Washington and Adams administrations, Jefferson was in his "internationalist revolutionary' phase. He though the US should have joined with the French Revolution and gone to war with Britain and the rest of Europe to overthrow monarchies. Washington and Adams wisely refused to even consider that suicide pact.
Jefferson surely made his contributions but he has in many ways been overrated in them.
Overall, what Founding Brothers shows is that we had some very remarkable, brave and tallented people at the time, but they were also politicians. Differences are inevitable.
What a great thread ... since it would take too many posts to reply to individuals, i'm gonna ping you all and just make a few general comments.
NO!
Wasn't Lincoln a Saint? All the (modern0 history books tell us so! Never mind the suspension of habeas corpus, that he shut down any press that criticized his actions, arrested the Maryland Legislature so they couldn't vote on secession, implemented the first income tax in the U.S., implemented the first draft when he couldn't get any more volunteers to fight for his cause, allowed an unConstitutional secession of one section of a State while maintaining that States could not seced, 'freed' the slaves in the South while steadfastedly maintaining slavery in the Union and Union occupied territory, ad nauseum...
Not that Jefferson Davis was a saint either, but history, like current events, doesn't neatly fall into clearly demarcated black and white (pardon the pun) and all too often 'historians' write for their bias instead of for the Truth.
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.