by Sean Everett
Why the Founding Fathers Fetishists Need a History Lesson
The
continued existence of the Tea Party movement, the constant drivel
coming from American christian wingnuts, and the latest absurdity
surrounding the
Cliven Bundy
situation have prompted me to provide conservatives with a little
history lesson. Three of the main contentions of today’s wingnuts,
that the
founding fathers wanted a strictly limited
government, that the founding fathers were in favor of spreading christianity to all Americans, and that the United States is a christian
nation founded on christian values are all flawed in different ways. In
the end, it is the task of the historical record to speak for itself.
Myth #1: The Founding Fathers Wanted a Strictly Limited Government
The old tea party standby, the idea that the founding fathers were
violently opposed to central state authority, is, historically-speaking,
nonsense. Although there were many conflicting opinions at the time,
the enactment of the Articles of Confederation provided a real-world
answer to the question of whether or not a Federal authority is
necessary. When farmers in Massachusetts rose up in opposition to the
actions of the state government it became clear that decentralization
was not the right way to go.
In 1786, a wave of farm foreclosures had only worsened the economic
status of those in western Massachusetts. Difficult measures enacted by
the state legislature to pay for back war debt had left many strapped
for hard currency. Many farmers began to take up arms against the state.
The Massachusetts Supreme Court finally declared the movement to be “seditious”.
Daniel Shays,
a Revolutionary War veteran, raised a militia of some 700 men and
marched on the Supreme Court, taking over the state house. They also
took over the prisons, releasing debtors whom they hoped would join the
uprising.
An army was raised by the state to make war on the rebels. Resistance
continued for several months. When the rebels moved to take the
Springfield Armory,
General Benjamin Lincoln met them
with a force of some 3,000 men (mostly privately-hired militia), firing
grapeshot from cannons and wounding over twenty of the rebels. The
remaining resistance faded quickly and two of the rebels were
subsequently hanged for treason.
In the minds of many lawmakers, this rebellion showed the significant
weaknesses of a government under the Articles of Confederation, which
gave more power to the states. In doing so, the Federal Government was
not able to efficiently cope with significant challenges to its
authority.
Oh, and another thing: Mr. All-American founding father Samuel Adams
himself requested that the prosecutors of the rebellion be given the
death sentence for their resistance to the state. The truth of the
matter was that once the revolution was over, many of those who had
become figureheads of resistance quickly became entrenched in the new
system and did not seek to overturn the order once again.
The
Whiskey Rebellion
gives yet another example of the founding fathers’ dedication to the
preservation of their new state, in spite of the resistance of its own
citizens. It had been a common practice of the time for farmers in
Pennsylvania to use their leftover grain in the production of whiskey,
which they would then often sell.
In an effort to raise funds for the new cash-strapped American
government, Alexander Hamilton had proposed and enacted a tax on the
proceeds of said whiskey sales. This was seen as part of a much larger
set of reforms wherein the Federal government would assume the
Revolutionary War debts of those states who could not afford to pay
them.
In the interests of maintaining a stable central authority, Hamilton
saw these taxes as necessary. Many farmers resented the measures,
however, and in 1791 they rose up in revolt. Many of the rebels were
veterans of the Revolutionary War and saw these taxes as being against
the values of the revolution.
George Washington, the man whom many tea party-goers use as the
masthead for their anti-government ramblings, gathered a federal army
and marched into western Pennsylvania. The rebels, seeing that their
destruction was assured, disbanded and returned to their farms.
Once again, this rebellion succinctly shows that in no way were the
founding father “idols” of today afraid to swiftly and viciously put
down a rebellion. The flaw in the wingnut thinking of today resides
in the idea that these men were always committed to anti-government
values, when in reality, these values served different purposes at
different times.
Myth #2: The Founding Fathers Were in Favor of Spreading christianity
Many modern American wingnuts contend that the founding fathers
had exactly the same evangelical tendencies as the preachers of today
do. There is a serious fallacy in this thinking. Many if not all of the
founding fathers were concerned primarily with creating a stable
society, not promoting the interests of any one religion, especially not christianity.
Benjamin Franklin, while not overtly hostile towards christianity, saw its function within society to be incredibly varied.
In many cases he saw those who allowed their faith to stand in the way
of progress and reason to be a part of the problem. In Poor Richard’s
Almanac he would often publish snarky quips. He writes in one issue, “
Lighthouses are more helpful than churches.”
Thomas Jefferson, an outspoken advocate for the
liberty of the people (Setting aside the whole slavery thing) writes in a
letter to Horatio Spofford (1814),
“In every country and in every
age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance
with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his
own. It is error alone that needs the support of government. Truth can
stand by itself.”
The complete separation of religion from the law here is key.
Religious systems existing outside of the legal code have no means to
compete with one another on the political stage. In separating these
entities, the people are spared from participating in evangelism.
The founding fathers were also not necessarily “theists” themselves.
Many of them were in fact “deists” which is, in many ways, akin to
Agnosticism in that they do not point to a direct link between god and
man; they affirm the existence of a God (this is where they differ from
Agnosticism), in so far as he has created the universe and set it in
motion, but do not go so far as to say that he is able to act on the
world as it is now. This view characterized many of the intellectuals of
the day as it is, at least logically, an easy way to skirt difficult
questions (Evil, sin, etc.).
Myth #3: The United States is a christian Nation
The final tea party fallacy is one of the most infuriating. Wingnuts argue that the United States was founded on the principles
of the christian religion and that the state policies of today should
be directed on those grounds. This is also probably the most absurd
historical argument in the wingnut arsenal.
The founding fathers were wholly against the implementation of religion in the state structure. In a letter to
Dr. Thomas Cooper (February 10, 1814) Thomas Jefferson writes that,
“christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.” In the Treaty of Tripoli John Adams also writes,
“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the christian religion…”
Writing in a letter to
F.A. Van der Kamp (December
27, 1816) Adams expresses his concern at the inherent violent historical
influences on christianity and its possible danger to a free
population. He states,
“As I understand the christian religion, it
was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of
fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both jewish and christian
revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever
existed?”
James Madison saw the christian influence on society in much the same
way that Thomas Jefferson did. He writes of ecclesiastical influence in
A Memorial and Remonstrance (1785),
“What
influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society?
In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on
the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen
upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instances have they
been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to
subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy
convenient auxiliaries.”
Thomas Paine writes of religious persecution sanctified through the state system in
The Rights of Man (1791)
, “Persecution
is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the
strongly marked feature of all religions established by law. Take away
the law-establishment, and every religion re-assumes its original
benignity.”
Many of the founding fathers understood what institutionalized
religion had done to Europe throughout the centuries. Many thousands had
been slain in the countless religious wars and conflicts that had
erupted over more or less arbitrary cultural grounds. This was not the
vision they sought for the United States.
These three myths form the backbone of much of the political spew
coming from many of the not-so-educated wingnuts and tea-partiers.
My hope is that these facts become common knowledge so that the next
time some gun-toting self-proclaimed militiaman
“defender-of-the-republic” type decides to rifle off nonsensical ideas
on the history of their nation, those who are better informed will be
able to put them in their place.
A murder of Congresscritters and Senators have told Internet ad-brokers
that they expect them to behave as though SOPA passed into law (instead
of suffering hideous, total defeat); they want the companies to
establish a secret, unaccountable blacklist of "pirate" sites. The group
comprises Congressmen Bob Goodlatte and Adam Schiff, and Senators
Sheldon Whitehouse and Orrin Hatch. This isn't just a terrible idea,
it's also an obviously illegal antitrust violation, as Mitch Stoltz from
the Electronic Frontier Foundation 
