I had intended today to write a post continuing my train of thought, but I got a response from a reader that, I think, deserves some attention.
Our Founding Fathers were for the most part, native born. They didn’t immigrate here from anywhere.
I am aware that the framers of the Constitution were native-born, although I think it is safe to say that those who declared independence were immigrants. I was generalizing the story for the sake of space. I didn’t really want to have a many page post. I glossed over some of the details to get to my main point.
Most of the abuses which brought about the American Revolution were the result of policies of Parliment and the British ministers. The King signed off on them, but to say it was all his fault is an exageration.
Actually, if you read the Declaration of Independence, they do indeed blame the king. After those most famous words about the truths that are “self-evident,” they proceed to state that “The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations,” after which they say that he is guilty of the things that I mention in my post. It is an exaggeration, but no more an exaggeration than when we say that the President has led us to war and other such things. You’re right that it is an exaggeration, but it is their exaggeration, and not mine.
It is usually the standard practice if one “quotes” someone to at least list the source of the quote. I frankly never have heard of anything attributed to Lincoln which implied he considered blacks inferior to whites.
Here is a link to an article about this very issue. There are others, but this includes some of the material that I paraphrased for the sake of space. The quote I was referring to came from Richard Dawkins’ book The God Delusion. When I have the book with me, I’ll post the exact quote and the page numbers in Dawkins’ book as well as the source where he found the quote.
Let’s see, the Confederacy didn’t come into existence until AFTER Lincoln was elected president.
All I was doing was using accepted terminology to help put things in perspective for my readers, similar to when people refer to Abraham and his descendants as Israelis.
Why didn’t the Founders set up a monarchy. It was a popular notion at the time to make George Washington king. It would have accomplished exactly what you claim they were trying to do. Establish the power of the elite.
I think they wanted it to be something different from what they came from. They didn’t want to impose their will on the people, but rather give them some manner of say in the matter. Of course, not all would have a say, but if they gave even the semblance of the people having a say, the people would feel they were freer than in England. Also, these men weren’t tyrants. They knew that, to be cliche, absolute power corrupts absolutely, so they divided the power to keep the temptation to tyranny at bay. And it has, for the most part, worked very well.
I was in no way belittling what the Founding Fathers established, only saying that what they established was a way for them, and those “like” them, to remain in power. It wasn’t necessarily out of greed or any impure motive. They were merely being politically intelligent.
And, I would say, that they indeed succeeded. Look at who is elected President today. If I went out and ran for president, even if I had the perfect, most Constitutionally sound campaign, I would fail if I didn’t have the financial backing of multiple millions of dollars. I would have to have become at least a Senator, and even then, I would have to have so much experience and by that time, I would be rich and a part of the political elite, whether I wanted to be or not. So, it is indeed true, that only the rich are “entitled,” if I may use that word, to run this country, and that is exactly how the framers of the Constitution intended it.