Quote from Tsing Tao:
when it comes to the Constitution, yes.
I hope you'll read this book, then we can continue the debate:
http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/reviews/2010/02/founding-fathers-reconsidered.html
"In the passage that perhaps best summarizes the spirit of this book, Bernstein says:
At a distance of more than two centuries, it remains difficult to disentangle the founding fathers from their principal achievements â the creation of an independent nation, with a vigorous and adaptable form of government and a body of liberties that, they hoped, would be a model for the world. Because these achievements were the product of collective deliberation, we remember the founding fathers as a group: many historians, politicians and jurists have praised them as the most creative and learned gathering of statesmen in American history; among the greatest such gatherings the world has ever seen. At the same time, especially beginning in the second half of the twentieth century, we have come to recognize the founding fathersâ limitations and failings, and we have struggled to balance gratitude with recrimination in assessing them. (p.116)
Bernstein reminds us that the constitution is the result of compromise among heroic, but human characters. Despite its success, the constitution they produced has its flaws. Given the current constitutional crisis in California and the outbreak of shock and public hand-wringing over the special deal cut in the Senate to win the support of Nebraska Sen. Nelson for the health care bill, a book such as Bernsteinâs could not be a more timely reminder that the foundersâ constitution was designed to control, not perfect politics.
In Chapter 1 (âWords, Images and Meaningsâ), Bernstein establishes his point of departure. Acknowledging a 1916 speech by Warren Harding as the first recorded reference to the âfounding fathers,â Bernstein notes that the reference is protean and includes many characters in addition to the seven key leaders noted by Richard Morris (Franklin, Washington, John Adams, Jefferson, Jay, Madison and Hamilton). Nonetheless, Bernstein uses Morrisâ roster as his guide throughout this monograph.
In Chapter 2 (âContexts: The History that Made the Founding Fathersâ), Bernstein discusses a colonial political milieu characterized by a âcautious, transforming egalitarianismâ (p.26). He emphasizes the diversity of thought and intellectual traditions that informed the [*64] American enlightenment. Laying the groundwork for a key theme of the book, Bernstein maintains that this diversity and the differences of opinion that it caused among the colonists belie any attempt to suggest that the Founding Fathers adhered to any one, discrete intellectual framework (pp.34-38).
This, I believe, is the most important aspect of THE FOUNDING FATHERS RECONSIDERED. Bernstein eloquently discusses the contributions, struggles, flaws and virtues of the seven key founders throughout the book. However, if there is a constant theme, it is that they were divided over many issues. While they were unified in the common cause of rebellion, they divided (not surprisingly) about the minutiae of constitution making and the philosophical details and interpretations that gave meaning to the new nationâs form of government. Accordingly, at various points in the book, Bernstein takes pains to dismiss notions of a clearly defined, coherent âoriginal intentâ of the Founding Fathers. "
