... with liberty and justice for all.

[alexr_rwx]

You don't realize how much mythology you've swallowed about the Deep Wisdom and Abiding Respect For Humanity that the Founding Fathers possessed until you read some history and think about it a little harder. I'm reading Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States these days, which presents the less-rosy side of our nation's past. The way he tells it, it's less about Freedom and Liberty and more about oppression by dividing-and-conquering -- including intentionally encouraging racism (!) -- and a whole lot of money.


Those in charge in the 18th century were real people with real interests. Unsurprisingly, they came from the upper crust of society, large landholders, slave owners, bankers and merchants. While I'm not totally sold on describing everything in terms of class struggle, Zinn frames the revolution as a primarily economic activity... I think it's an important angle to consider.

Essentially, the story Zinn tells goes that large landholders and merchants decided they could do better without the imperial mercantilist system and the taxes it imposed, so they made a go for it, stirring up popular support by talking about liberty and the equality -- of all the white folks. The royal government had been keeping colonists from moving west past the Appalachian mountains: the promise of lifting this restriction was traded for support in the war. A period of unrest followed after the war, in which those who'd fought in it jostled for position in society, trying to get their debts forgiven or at least collect the pay promised them by the revolutionary army. There were occasional overtures made towards a more anarchist, leveling social movement, but these were put down. It was in this context that the constitution was framed, largely trying to protect the life, liberty and property of those who enjoyed liberty and property.

Discussing the situation in the late 1700s, post-Revolution, while the new Constitution is being debated:

The Constitution ... illustrates the complexity of the American system: that it serves the interests of a wealthy elite, but also does enough for small property owners, for middle-income mechanics and farmers, to build a broad base of support. The slightly prosperous people who make up this base of support are buffers against the blacks, the Indians, the very poor whites. They enable the elite to keep control with a minimum of coercion, a maximum of law -- all made palatable by the fanfare of patriotism and unity.

Comments

[praetorian42.livejournal.com]

I think that the argument could definitely have been made against the Articles of Confederation (for instance, "paupers" were not even allowed to travel freely between the states). However, all of that inherent and explicit inequality is pretty much removed from the Constitution. Voting isn't restricted to landowners, and there's no discrepancy of rights between a poor person and a wealthy landowner.

I'm thinking he's grounded in some solid facts (The new Philadelphia convention was convened in order to provide better commerce than the original Articles could provide), but that he draws some kind of silly conclusions.

[reality-calls.livejournal.com]

Sounds like a postmodernist-style breakdown of Constitutional principles to me, which I don't happen to think is a very good idea.  The trouble I always had with the postmodernists is that they always seem to insist that there is no forest-- just a bunch of trees.  Having destroyed the notion of the forest(i.e. the original ideals of the Founding Fathers), they then re-interpret events according to their own political ideals, which are ultimately just as suspect to their deconstructionist arguments as the ones they just destroyed.

I, for one, happen to think the ideals shown in the Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights are worthy causes, regardless of the circumstances of their creation.  Their creators may have been wealthy misogynist slaveowners, but the ideals they espoused would later be used to eliminate the institution of slavery and grant women the right to vote, among other things.  The fact that they were created for political reasons shouldn't detract from the value of the ideals themselves.(And even that fact is likely not as true as the author would like to believe-- at some level most of the founding fathers MUST have believed in these values to come up with a document like the Constitution, even if they didn't apply them as widely as they should have)

When people discuss the Founding Fathers, they're not interested in what the actual people were like so much as what their ideals were, since the Founding Fathers are remembered for these ideals.  By attacking the character of the Founding Fathers, Zinn is effectively attacking the worth of their ideals at a time when the country is increasingly inclined to throw said ideals out the window, much to the benefit of the wealthy elite class that the author seems to detest so much.


      "Live from the People's Republic"

[reality-calls.livejournal.com]

Sorry, I just get sick and tired of seeing social progressives shooting themselves in the foot like this.

      "Live from the People's Republic"