Judged By Ideological Standards of Their Time, Were The Founding Fathers Liberals or Conservatives?

September, 17, 2002 | self

[SJackson]

If I'm not mistaken, a greater proportion of Republicans in Congress supported the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s than did Democrats in Congress. They never would have passed without Republican support. Not to mention the civil rights acts of the Reconstruction Era -- all passed by Republicans. The historical record of the Democrat Party on the issue of racial equality in this country has been abysmal, even to this day.

All true.

[mrsmith]

"Most people in the colonies were either neutral, or remained loyal to King George III. "

More people were either neutral or revolutionaries- since there were more revolutionaries than Loyalists.

Funny how people misuse that word "or".

[RLK]

The argument or question posed here is a play upon inconsistent definition of words. There are at least two definitions of conservative which are being interchanged here to create a pseudoconundrum.

[SteamshipTime]

What party believes in a strong central federal government so powerful that it could enslave you?!

George Bush's.

[GOP_1900AD]

British political self flaggellation at its best (worst?). Now, once we get our own house back in order, maybe we can go and get the Mother Country to ease back from the current brink. I find it a supreme irony that here, at the cusp of the 21st century, the core of what would be labelled "Magna Cartian Thought" finds its best current expression within the Right here within the US. Meanwhile, without even a shot fired, the UK have undergone the most destructive (to true British principles) revolution ever, in over 1000 years of history. (Read "the Abolition of Britain" by Peter Hitchens, for more on this...) Thankfully, here in the USA, we now stand, viewing all of the Continential European (and other) culturally destructive influences that we've allowed to make us, over the long run, crass and nihilistic as compared with traditional British culture, ready to cast them back into the sea in favor of what I would describe as essentially Magna Cartian, traditionally British values, that stand against the primal urges and debauchery of the Contininent as if they were gnarled ancient hedgerows. We are the Remnent, and the sooner we embrace this fact, the better shall be the entire English speaking world for it. Ultimately, we will be the ones uniquely poised to reinvigorate the most balanced and truly beautiful culture to ever exist on God's Earth.

[SteamshipTime]

Definitely liberal. Pinko liberal, in fact.

Not a single one of the founding fathers saw fit to criminalize marijuana or opium. In fact, Crawford Long, the inventor of aenesthesia, got the idea after treating a reveler for injuries sustained while under the influence of nitrous oxide.

They refused to enforce a legal drinking or smoking age, and beer was commonly consumed with breakfast.

They killed the King's soldiers for an effective tax on income of 10%! Anarchists!

They only allowed free males who owned land and were over the age of 21 to vote! Elitist snobs!

[x]

Good responses. The "Left" and "Right" grew up in the French Revolution and had reference to the French Revolution and the Enlightenment that proceeded it. If you were discussing politics before that you would probably base your views on religion and tradition, (or much more rarely on practical necessity or experience). You would not set yourself against God, the Bible or your country's history and traditions. What mattered was how you read the Bible and the traditions of English law and history.

I suppose the central ideas of the American Revolution were that colonists had all the rights of Englishmen, and that a century and a half of relative independence for the colonies had established a tradition that the crown had to recognize.

Whether these were radical or conservative ideas depends on how you look at them. From a continental European perspective, such ideas of traditional liberty and equality with the mother country were radical, but not necessarily from an English perspective. One could make a case that they were conservative ideas, but looking at the rabblerousers and bully boys of the Sons of Liberty, a conservatively-minded colonist might well view such ideas as quite radical and dangerous. The rebellious American Whigs were for what they took to be Anglo-American traditions against arbitrary and tyrannical rule, but their opponents saw the spectre of mob rule and anarchy behind the colonial rights movement.

The question of liberalism, Whiggery, and republicanism is one that's been very much disussed over the last few decades. Barry Shain's book attracted a lot of favorable notice in conservative journals recently.

You're quite right about the difference between classical liberalism and contemporary American liberalism. In Europe, though, they use "social democratic" to describe what we call "liberal." Liberal and conservative aren't really opposites in the European sense: the opposite of conservative is radical, the opposite of liberal is servile or tyrannical, authoritarian or totalitarian. There, it's possible and common to be a liberal conservative or conservative liberal. And while classical liberals and conservatives have a lot in common now, at times in the past, classical liberalism would have looked very radical to the conservative-minded.

[avenir]

Well said.

[dark_lord]

Noting how the answers are all over the map, here again is an interesting graphic:

Using the two axis of: "Attitude toward the State," and "Attitude toward planned social progress".

His perspective is here: Pournelle's Political Axes. The "social problems can be solved (or not)" axis is the vertical one. The "state is good/necessary evil/just evil" axis is the horizontal one.

I don't entirely buy his approach but it is useful to look at it from more than just an Left<=>Middle<=>Right perspective.

[dsutah]

I read something like this not too long ago. It was on a web page about G. Washington. When GW was setting up his cabinet as president, he brought in some of his own friends who were known conservatives like him. Of course, he felt Mr. Adams was a kindred spirit, so he took him for vp.

But he realized that not everyone was a conservative like him, and he wanted to bring a mix of people on board, he took a liberal. And that liberal was T. Jefferson. Jefferson hadn't got back from Paris just yet, but when he got back, he accepted the nomination. So at that point, Washington had his cabinet.

[dsutah]

I can see what you're saying. Political ideas have shifted like sand in a storm. I have an American History textbook (not really old, just back from about early 70's.). It wasn't yet revisionist. It explained the Federalist period to some depth. In a way, the old-style Republican of the post Revolution era, is the same as the Labor party people in Britain are now. I didn't realize that Jefferson's election as President was once considered a form of non-violent revolution in itself. The Federalist fought him to some extent for awhile, then more or less resigned themselves to it. Some of them even joined up with them.

In the period after Jefferson's term, the old two-party system was merged together; there was technically no opposing party. In the period after, they had factions and committees competing with each other, putting up their own nominees for president, within the same party! It apparently went on this way, I believe, until the time of Jackson, when he started the Democrat party.

[dsutah]

Not all Brits were hostile to the colonists. I read a book once, about some English romantic writers and their works. There was a section about the writer/poet Robert Burns. He was a firm supporter of the revolutionary effort. Of course, he probably didn't tell anyone except for those he knew well, (for obvious reasons!). It was said that he hung out in the pubs and taverns with the locals. And he so admired GW, that he drank a toast for the health of George Washington,(not exact quote).

Also, I believe that the Prime Minister was sympathetic, and many of those in Parliament were sympathetic to the Colonists. On the old web-site for "The Patriot", they described the characters in the movie. On the part about Gen. Cornwallis, it was said that at one time, he was sympathetic. He even defended the colonists to a point. But because he was the good soldier, and was also loyal to the King, he felt he had to defend his interests first.(not exact quote)

[dsutah]

I believe that some, if not many, may have been influenced a bit by the writings of Greek and Roman writers and statesmen. Cicero, for example, was one.

[dsutah]

Exactly! Which is probably why the Confederates were often referred to as 'Rebels'. They were in a sense, rebelling in a similar way as the colonists were in the Revolutionary times. Also, the British referred to the breakaway colonists as 'rebels' 80 years before!

[Liberal Classic]

To say nothing of the eccentric Mr. Franklin. :)

[CatoRenasci]

You are certainly correct that (primarily) Roman and Greek authors influenced the Founders. Most of them, all who were even reasonably educated, would have had Latin in school, some would have had Greek, and so were exposed to classical authors and ideas. More often, however, it would be those ideas through the prism of the 17th and 18th century writers looking to the Roman republic (pre-Octavius/Caesar Augustus). Such influences were less direct, IMHO, than the notions about politics and human nature gleaned from recent English history (the Glorious Revolution and the English Civil War), Locke and his contemporaries, and the Enlightenment (writ large to encompass all of the various significant European national enlightenments: French, German and Scottish).

[metesky]

The Tories didn't all go quietly. There were Tory regiments and companies active in all theaters of the Revolution and representing all the British colonies including the Canadian provinces.

For more from the Loyalist perspective see The On-Line Institute for Advanced Loyalist Studies.

[dsutah]

I'm also wondering if any of them, particularly those of any Scottish or Irish anscestries, look back to people like William Wallace, and others of those English/Scot conflicts.

I've never read anything as of yet which might suggest that. But watching "Braveheart", and reading about Wallace and Robert the Bruce, and individuals they were associated with, I can imagine that there have been stories about them in their schooling; especially if they were known revolutionary figures in their history. Now this could be mere speculation on my part, but it is ingriguing!

Quite a handfull of the founding fathers themselves were of Scot or Irish stock or both. I read some months ago about a lot of Scotch/Irish people who left Ireland and Scotland to come to America to escape religious persecution. I believe the were for the most part Presbyterian. Once here, they guarded their religious rights and their freedom zealously. These were the fierce fighters with the long rifles or muskets that were among G. Washington's most prized fighters.

Another figure of Medieval times who could be classified as a revolutionary of a sort was William Tell. He was a Swiss hero who as the story goes, was forced to shoot an apple off his kid's head. He was successful, but he threatened the tyrant leader (governor?)that he would deal with him some day. They say he was one in a generation of young freedom fighters, which included W.Wallace.