The Founders of the United States

[mollymae]

I would like to hear your opinions (both OI people and commies) of the Founding "Fathers" of the United States. What do you think of their ideas? Were they badass rebels, or just elitist old white dudes?
And also, what is your opinion on how they are portrayed today?

[Left-Reasoning]

I would like to hear your opinions (both OI people and commies) of the Founding "Fathers" of the United States. What do you think of their ideas? Were they badass rebels, or just elitist old white dudes?
And also, what is your opinion on how they are portrayed today?

Elitist Old White Dudes.

Thomas Paine was pretty radical though.

[LeftSideDown]

Elitist Old White Dudes.

Thomas Paine was pretty radical though.

Yeah, Paine kinda drifted from radical idea to radical idea. First it was the American Revolution, then he went to France because he was exiled from England, got locked up in France after a change in power, and ultimately thought up a social security system.

[Publius]

I would like to hear your opinions (both OI people and commies) of the Founding "Fathers" of the United States. What do you think of their ideas? Were they badass rebels, or just elitist old white dudes?
And also, what is your opinion on how they are portrayed today?

Well, they were both.

There's no questioning that many of the founders held repulsive views in one area or another.

On the other hand, their view of politics based on fairly recent philosophy of natural rights was a huge advancement for the cause of humanity. Really the only shame is that they didn't apply their philosophy universally.

Other than that, history itself proves the superiority of their outlook on government compared to traditional moncharchical and theological systems.

[Drace]

They were all old rich white males.

A People's History of the United State's is a good read on it.

[anticap]

Elitist Old White Dudes.

Thomas Paine was pretty radical though.

Basically.

Considering the context, Paine was pretty radical indeed (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:Thomas_Paine).

Franklin was OK I guess, if only because he held to the LTV (http://books.google.com/books?id=y7xEAAAAIAAJ&q=%22not+gold+and+silver%2C+but+labor%22) (then again, most people do tend to accept self-evident truths, until those truths become inconvenient to the ruling class and must be therefore drilled out of people's heads through generations of relentless propaganda).

As for the bigger names, Jefferson is easily the least distasteful (which doesn't bode well for the others, considering that he sexually abused at least one of his slaves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Hemings)). His "Earth belongs to the living (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Letter_to_James_Madison_-_September_6,_1789)" letter to Madison, for example, candidly admits that the deified "Founders" (or, more accurately, "Framers") were in effect instituting a necrocracy and had absolutely no right to do so. Of course, Madison wasn't about to entertain anything so silly (AFAIK he never replied), since the great "Father of the Constitution" had other concerns (http://www.revleft.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1709904&postcount=8).

In the main, we're talking about a bunch of landed white males whose primary concern was to shake off George the Mad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_III_of_the_United_Kingdom) and his taxes. Not that there was any principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion) behind it or anything; it was naked self-interest.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I would like to hear your opinions (both OI people and commies) of the Founding "Fathers" of the United States. What do you think of their ideas? Were they badass rebels, or just elitist old white dudes?
And also, what is your opinion on how they are portrayed today?They were both - like in all revolutions there was a more radical wing and a conservative wing. Bourgeois revolutions always need to appeal to popular demands in order for larger masses of the population to support the revolutionary bourgeois. So the anger from below as well as the need of the emerging colonial leadership to get people on their side is responsible for some of the populist aspects of the Revolution such as limited representation and rights to air grievances. But the land/slave owners, lawyers, and so on who made up the new ruling class were also not interested in human liberation for the sake of liberation - and this accounts for restrictions on rights, the preservation of slavery. So on the one had you have people like Payne (who wrote in common language in practical arguments - talking points against monarchy but then you also had attempts to declare slavery abolished squashed and people who wanted a new monarchy and no voting rights.

[Conquer or Die]

It's hard to say. Unlike the 1917 revolution, there was a mixture of political partisans who were able to come into the fold of some sort of democracy in many different contexts. Some were against slavery, some supported it. Some favored a strong national government, others opposed it.

An often neglected aspect of the revolution is the fact that it demonstrably weakened the monarchy and corporate superstructure of Britain, which along with Spain, the French, the Dutch, and the Portuguese comprised a true axis of evil and exploitation around the world. In many ways the American revolution set off other American revolutions and the French revolution. All of these were anti imperialist and pro civil rights strikes against evil governments.