In this post, I want you to address whether you believe the Founding Fathers were brilliant men who had the interests of the nation and future generations in mind or racist slaveowners bent on advancing their self-interest when they crafted the U.S. Constitution. What do you think? You might want to assess the actions of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson in particular.
The Independent Thinkers
A page for thinking people who tirelessly challenge their own assumptions and let neither conventionality nor agenda nor political party obstruct the relentless pursuit of truth
- Home
- Books of Note
- Election 2008
- Films of Note
- Groundbreakers
- In the News
- Music
- Video Presentations and Clips
Google US. News- Lou Dobbs resigns from CNN - Los Angeles Times
- A Fort Hood trial likely will be slow to unfold - Philadelphia Inquirer
- On Veterans Day, members of commission are sworn in - Baltimore Sun
- Scoring system for school aid - Washington Post
- Oregon woman killed by husband filed for divorce - The Associated Press
August 30, 2007 at 3:15 am |
I belive the fou nding fa thers had the interest of the nation rather than strictly a selfish outlook on their ability to craft such a great documnet.
August 30, 2007 at 1:38 pm |
This comment lends little to this argument, however I would like to comment on the way in which the question is posed.
There have been men in history who are both brilliant AND racist. Heydrich of the Third Reich comes to mind. I don’t think uber intelligence and racist beliefs are mutually exclusive. The framing of your question seems to imply they are.
This isn’t to say that I think racists as a group will be curing cancer any day soon. I think, in general, racism is an attitude borne of ignorance.
August 30, 2007 at 2:01 pm |
Linda,
I agree with your assertion that racist and brilliant are not mutually exclusive, but you forgot about the other clause in the two comparative sentences I wrote. Racism based on self interest, brilliant in terms of advancing the interests of the nation. Self-interest versus the interests of the nation are not at all necessarily mutually exclusive. So I am referring to “brilliant” not in the intellectual sense of the term, but in the progressive sense of the term.
August 30, 2007 at 7:51 pm |
Dr. Fierro:
Thanks for the clarification, though I confess some of it was lost on me. In particular, your use of the word ‘brilliant’ in the progressive sense of the term confuses me. I could use a bit more explanation, since I don’t really know what you mean by this.
And, perhaps this wasn’t clear in my earlier posting, but I was directing my comments to the starkness of the words ‘brilliant’ or ‘racist’ in your heading, juxtaposed to each other.
Heh, this is a fun forum. I’m enjoying this.
Linda
September 19, 2007 at 2:10 am |
In their day and age it was perfectly acceptable in half of the country to own slaves. Even in the North, 2.5% of the population was made up of slaves. The Northern States understood that slavery would not last forever and that the slave trade was in fact coming to an end. In order to preserve the convention and to get certain measures passed the delegates had to allow slavery for the time being. Most of the delegates disliked the business but voted to allow it to remain for support in other matters, such as Roger Sherman of CT did. Sherman and many of the northern states agreed to vote for slavery and a prohibitation of export taxes if the Southern States would support the smaller states on matters such as shipping and trade. The Northern Delegates also made a deal to allow slavery south of the Ohio River if it was to be prohibited in the new states joining the Union in the Ohio valley. As some delegates such as James Wilson felt, slavery was the price paid for porportional representation. Since the Northerns were so strongly against slavery they included an article in the constitution that allowed the importation of slaves to be outlawed in 1800. Southern states believed their population would provide majority in congress by that time, but it never happened and so in 1808 slave importation was made illegal. The founding fathers never intended for slavery to last over the centuries. It was tolerated, though not liked, in order to allow certain things that favored them to be passed and kept the Southern States from walking out as was threatened multiple times. The founding fathers were not racist, they simply knew how to manipulatate each other in order to achieve their states goals and a nations best interest. Some men such as Blount had person interest at heart, but the majority were good people who wanted to heal a wounded nation.
September 27, 2007 at 8:02 am |
When broached with this question I’d have have to agree that the two adjectives we are discussing here are not black and white. Simply saying that these men can be brilliant and racist just as easily as they can be both unintelligent and tolerant. Each of these terms should be addressed separately. In reference to brilliance, I would have to agree with Dr.Firerro. This could possibly be the only time in history that this many intelligent and learned men were all in the same room, and to further this exceptional event, all of these men were there to achieve a common goal. So not only were they present but they were collaborating with each other. The only argument that can be made to say that the founding fathers weren’t brilliant would be to say that their ownership of slaves somehow undermined the concepts they developed within the Constitution. However before we discuss whether the Founding Fathers were racist or not it should be understood that regardless of their relationships with African Americans or the institution of slavery, that in no capacity takes away from their academic accomplishments and knowledge in the realm of politics. These men were more than qualified to be charged with the immensely important undertaking of drafting a constitution. Their ability to create a document that could forever meet the needs of it’s people and the wisdom to incorporate the successes from many freedom giving documents that proceeded it is amazing, This is not something that any Joe off the street today could do. (No pun intended) Let alone back then. With an abysmal literacy rate of the American public few men possessed the mental prowess to even grasp the very concepts these men crafting. So no matter what you may think of their moral fiber, to deny that these men were brilliant is absurd. To go make the leap and call the founding fathers racists in my opinion is almost a cop out. Because their way of life may not live up to the standards of today, people tend to just slap a label on the founding fathers as racist. Unfortunately this is often met with lacking support and a boat load of condescending rhetoric. To be honest I could do without completely subjective evaluations. These men cannot be held to the standards of today. The reason I find this assessments unfair is because I believe this would not be an issue if those who were enslaved had been anything but black. What I mean is Julias Caesr is seen as one of the worlds greatest leaders in all of history. However he is not remembered as a racist despite the Romans enslavement of numerous cultures and several races. Another point that should be made is that while the Constitution didn’t at first grantee the rights and liberty’s of African Americans it’s not like the document exclusively excluded African Americans. The system of government that was implemented was designed to accommodate the needs of white male land owners. This concept excluded women and indentured servants. Yet the founding fathers are not often referred to as anti-feminist or tyrannical. This is just the way their fathers, and almost every other society in history, had done before them. So let me apologize for them in saying that they did not break from every tradition in this aspect of their endeavor. At the same time the point that should come through is that these men were working for a “…more perfect union…” So while it may have seemed like the founding fathers had refused to acknowledge African Americans both in and outside of the constitution, the prevailing notion is still that there were more progressive steps taken in the development of the constitution than regressive. Though the end results may not match up directly with today’s results this Constitution was still exceedingly innovative. Lastly I think it’s important to bring up moral relativism. Granted most of the time this is used to discuss the justification of varying moral codes of two countries, cultures, or religions. But I think this applies to this questions as well. Just as Christian Americans tend not to judge Saudi Islamics based on their belief system. we should not judge leaders of the past based on our current moral code. While there remains a great deal of division and friction on the matter a political correctness guides the American sentiment on this topic. The American belief is that each person has the right to believe what they want. I believe that this applies when we look at what people think of how the founding fathers dealt with African Americans and slavery.That we have no right to judge them based on standards that they would never have conceived or knowingly desired to achieve. I think this is more a matter of differentiating what the founding fathers accomplished that was progressive for the time and what was accomplished that was traditional for the time. Not to apply a value judgment on their actions. Not to say what was right and what was backwards. If we approach the question from this new perspective, I think most would agree that indeed these men were brilliant, and that if any racism did exist it does not inhibit that brilliance.
October 2, 2007 at 3:45 pm |
I doubt that owning slaves takes away from the brilliance a person may have expressed in other circumstances. In fact that is my position on the subject; I doubt that a person’s brilliance is available in all scenarios. A person may have been, or may be, brilliant on a particular subject but brilliance, as far as I know, doesn’t spill onto other subjects.
Another thing, the founding fathers were brilliant because the circumstances required them to be thoughtful. Isn’t trouble the only motivation for most of us to think? I mean we get into conflict or see that conflict is on the horizon and we use our minds to get ourselves out of conflict or to avoid it. Nobility, wisdom, sobriety and so on play a back seat, if they are even allowed a whisper, in most of our decisions.
February 13, 2008 at 3:22 am |
The founding fathers were both racist as well as brilliant. They devised a Constitution that allowed them to uphold power while creating a sense of unity in the colonies. However, the terms of equality that gained such unity was only seen in the case of rich white men. African American’s and women had to fight to become truly included in our society. I truly do not believe that the four fathers intended on including African American’s and women to be equals. In regards to devising a system that would better control society;brilliant. In regards to including all individuals in the system;racist.
September 15, 2008 at 1:53 pm |
I believe our founding fathers had future generations in mind when they created the constitution. I don’t think they thought what was being addressed stood only for their time, because that would mean no generations to come, or constant revision or creation of a new constitution. I can’t say that there wasn’t any racism involved, because that is an issue that was and will always be, due to the fact that some people do believe they are superior to others.
November 12, 2008 at 9:11 am |
Looks like a lot of discussion on this topic. Until I get a chance to read over some of these responses in their entirety, I would like to quickly voice my thoughts on this matter.
The Founding Fathers were undoubtedly racist. However, they were definitely not racist in the radical, ethnocentric definition that we often associate with the word. I believe the Founding Fathers harbored racial prejudices – but were not truly racist. I am of the opinion that this was not entirely due to any fault of their own. They can not be cast in a negative light in the same way that, for example, a white supremacist would be. I think several factors should be reviewed before putting the Founders of our nation in the same category as the hypocritical, self-centered, bigots who comprise the group we collectively refer to as “racists”. First off, all of the Founding Fathers, from birth, did not grow up in a society in which whites and blacks were equal. Clearly, as would be the case with any person who grew up in such an environment, the Founding Fathers obviously saw blacks in a different light than whites, and thus harbored prejudices they would not have had otherwise. This is seen even today, especially among white Americans who grew up in predominantly Caucasian neighborhoods and/or academic environments. Second, the Founding Fathers certainly recognized the importance of building a government that could be shaped to provide equality – which we can clearly infer from portions of the U.S. Constitution. And, almost certainly as the Founders intended, the provisions they left in place for change did indeed pave the way: The Constitutional Amendment process has since enabled Amendments to the Constitution to be proposed and ratified, many of which have provided equality not just for African-Americans, but for all Citizens of the United States, regardless of race. Although race was strongly taken into consideration, the Founders clearly did not intend for the government change to be limited solely to racial equality – but equality as a whole. Since the founding of our nation, Constitutional Amendments have addressed issues such as Voting Rights with respect to women and adults under the age of 21. Third, and lastly, I think that the Founding Fathers recognized the need for racial equality, but recognized that the time for progress on the issue had not yet made it to the forefront of public consideration. Nonetheless, racial equality was clearly played a large role in the Founding Fathers commitment to a Constitution that would serve future generations.
Lunette J: Towards the end of this post I noticed your comment. I think I’m more or less expressing the same opinion as you:
March 8, 2009 at 3:33 am |
This is my first time at this site, as I happened upon it merely by random chance. I would like to briefly address the question as it is written, without imposing any undue, unintentionall or intentional subjectively biased, thwarted or political interpretation into it as to the best of my abilities. These times of our forefathers were, of course, different times not just as in viewing other races, creeds, religions, national origins or nationalities so much as we were still an adolescent nation in ways incomprehensible, much less understood by any one of us on this page. Infrastructure, law and order, medical care, property rights, financial institutions were not even a resemblance to what we know of today. For the typical citizen or soon-to-be citizen and whoever and whomever else, life was harsh with mere survival being as close to a self-actualizing objective as Maslow himself could have possibly imagined. The typical person didn’t have the time or the resources to lobby for major sweeping cultural changes and try to provide for their families and growing communities at the same time. It’s not that they were inherently evil or inherently good by any definitions either in those days or in these for the most part, it’s just that it’s all that was either known or reasonably accessible. If any of the founding fathers had dared to take such a staunch stance against slavery or any other major controversial social issue in order to block the various necessary governmental acitivities of the time as a tactic; well then, not a one of us, myself included, would be here today discussing this very issue. We are so very fortunate that such a brilliant and diverse group were able to forge these documents such that a nation could be built slowly yet steadily while creating and maintaining long-term economic stability and also some semblence of common ground for all involved then, now and in the days after today. These men as a whole were attempting creation of an eventual permanent and British-free empire that could withstand any and all future conquest attempts from not only the mother-country herself but also from any other nation or civilizations showing the slightest possibility of interest on this portion of the continent. So, there were many issues at the threshold of this great nation, and fortunately the founding fathers collectively and creatively created a system that grew from disagreement, debate and normal discontent as opposed to falling as many other before us have fallen due to the entropy of such energy and not due to the entholpy of what we have today, a living and breathing constitution bound in tradition, but written for progression. I thank God every day for all of the groundwork they laid and that we have thrived and will continue to thrive another day.
March 25, 2009 at 5:11 pm |
From the beginning of existence itself, and the exploration of ones own soul, teaches us now a great many things about life. The matters of opposing views have always plagued humans and animals for as long as we’ve all been around. Do I drive the car another 20 miles to the next gas station? Or, fill up now while I have the chance. The perception of whether or not the founding fathers of this nation were racist or brilliant, or brilliant racists depends strictly on ones own perception coupled with there upbringing and surroundings.
In my own opinion I believe the constitution was a well crafted document left open for interpretation by there predecessors for a reason. So that each president that preceded the former was allowed room to change course for the nation as necessary (like captains of a ship changing course to avoid icebergs in shifts). Some captains liking to take to dangerous courses, some the more safe. Each captain however realizing that there is but one goal.
The diminishing but still apparent forms of racism in this country will always exist unfortunately as likened to the birth of new stars in the sky each with the same goal (To provide to those closest to it) but different ways as to which they go about it because of there composition.
To quote a line from Mississippi Masala that I’ve recently watched, and I’m paraphrasing “racism is like a bad recipe passed down thru generations, the trick is to know what to eat and what to leave on the plate”.
From a scientific point of view, one could say, all of our own genetic make-up compels us to explore, even at the expense of our destruction for doing it. Yet, some of us thru this “bad recipe approach” are still taught to shun or negate the very chemical reactions in our DNA that tells us to do it. If love, harmony, and understanding are the eventual catalysts that unite humanity, then maybe we should have been paying more attention to George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson’s actions rather then there teachings.
the question that stumps me is, can we fault them if they are merely a product of there surroundings and genetic make-up scientifically speaking.
Let us propose life went the other route, ask yourself how many slaves you would own today!
How many people would you own and sacrifice to build your empire, until someone else with a stronger empire came to take it with an opposing view of how life was suppose to be lived.
So yes, I do believe they had the country’s best interest at heart, and maybe even taught us thru actions how they felt the country could get past racism, and still keep some peoples views intact. However, this is all just my perception and observations of the past and what I know of it.