Your personal favorite Founding Father

[JohnGalt1225]

I disagree. Calvinist thought is a statist form of thinking. The individual has no agency, no free will, no liberty. God is gonna save you and damn what you think or want. Calvinist thought makes God a tyrant. It is not the "foundation of liberty."

Agreed completely. Calvinism is is anathema to liberty. Geneva was a theocracy under Calvin. This idea that Calvinism is the "foundation of liberty" is absurd.

 

[Humanae Libertas]

Patrick Henry -an anti-federalist. He pointed out the many flaws in the Constitution that many of us are pointing out today (ex. the Presidency, lack of States Powers (or Rights). etc.).

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Patrick Henry -an anti-federalist. He pointed out the many flaws in the Constitution that many of us are pointing out today (ex. the Presidency, lack of States Powers (or Rights). etc.).

Henry did not point out a single specific flaw in the Constitution. That's a pile of baloney.

 

[osan]

No jefferson would be of a neocon beliefs in modern day. Jefferson like the modern neocon was not satified with the borders of the United States and had visions of a grander country just like modern neocons are not satified with modern US bounderies and hav vision of a grander empire.

This is perhaps an unreasonable assessment. First of all, political contexts were different in those days. There were 13 smallish states and a whole load of foreign and possibly unfriendly territories directly attached. Were I in his place, I may have been of a similar mind and so might you or anyone else with any sense. It is easy to judge 200+ years later without really understanding the minds of the people in question.

As for favorites, Patrick Henry hands down. He was not one to compromise on the basics, making him a man after my own heart.

 

[justinjj]

I beg to differ. For if you believe the founders "suck" than I don't really understand why you are on these boards supporting Ron Paul/ liberty. Ron's entire political philosophy can be derived from the thought of different founders (no natl bank from Jefferson, no foreign entanglements from Washington, strong gun supporter like all the founders, etc etc.) The founding fathers were among the most brilliant men of all times and you owe your current freedom to them. I don't know what you dislike about them as a whole (I can understand individual disagreements however).

And for the record I would choose Demint out of that list.

Americans had much more freedom under British control, up until King George III, they pretty much left us alone. I probably would have been a Tory in the American Revolution. I would prefer a centralized government that exists overseas and only occassionally violates our rights over a centralized "representative" government here in America that violates our rights ever day. How is that taxation with representation working out for you? Besides, any kind of moral high ground was lost during the Whiskey Rebellion. I'm definitely not a Constitution worshipper like most of the people on here. As can be seen by our current bloated government, the Constitution is one of the most ineffective documents ever created.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Americans had much more freedom under British control, up until King George III, they pretty much left us alone. I probably would have been a Tory in the American Revolution. I would prefer a centralized government that exists overseas and only occassionally violates our rights over a centralized "representative" government here in America that violates our rights ever day. How is that taxation with representation working out for you? Besides, any kind of moral high ground was lost during the Whiskey Rebellion. I'm definitely not a Constitution worshipper like most of the people on here. As can be seen by our current bloated government, the Constitution is one of the most ineffective documents ever created.

+rep A man after my own heart.

 

[Cutlerzzz]

You cannot be serious. Hamilton is literally the father of big government. He wanted the president to be appointed for life, for god's sake. He wanted the states to have no rights, and he is the first proponent of the living constitution. Marshall is even worse, because as chief justice he forced federalist policies on Dem-Rep administrations. Together, they screwed our nation big time.

Marshall and Hamilton were the two greatest defenders of freedom in US history. Adam's was third (he kept us safe from the French).

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Henry did not point out a single specific flaw in the Constitution. That's a pile of baloney.

Incorrect, good sir. He pointed out a lot of them. In this speech alone he makes 10 arguments against it.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Marshall and Hamilton were the two greatest defenders of freedom in US history. Adam's was third (he kept us safe from the French).

LMAO!!!

 

[merrimac]

Philisophically, Jefferson is my favorite.

But taking everything into account, what they accomplished, their character, I'd have to say George Washington.

 

[Cutlerzzz]

LMAO!!!

If not for the Central Bank, we would still be in debt. Also, the Alien and Sedition Act was needed to keep us safe, and everything would have collapsed if the Whiskey Rebellion had not been crushed. We would be living in chaos. Probably conquered by France too.

 

[MaxPower]

Thomas Jefferson was a genius. Unfortunately power corrupted him as he became president.

Thomas Jefferson with his presidency cut out.

These kinds of responses really gall me. Jefferson's presidency was one of the very best our country has ever had.

Granted, the Louisiana Purchase was an act of dubious legality by Jefferson's own admission (in fact, he first tried to push a constitutional amendment to get the job done, but was dissuaded by his own cabinet members, who wanted him to push ahead before Napoleon soured on the deal), but I think it is grossly unfair to ignore all the good he did as president in favor of attacking him over this single act (which was itself still not half as bad as what most other presidents have done). In conjunction with the Democratic-Republican Congress, President Jefferson cut the national debt by a third, substantially reduced the number of federal employees, repealed the whiskey tax, property taxes, and all other internal taxes- such that the federal government was running on nothing but tariffs, land sales and postage stamps- repealed the Alien and Sedition Acts, freed and pardoned everyone prosecuted under said acts, and banned the trans-Atlantic slave trade.

Now, again, it did have its holes- the Louisiana Purchase and the Embargo Act chief among them- but Jefferson's presidency ranks near the very top in our country's history in terms of libertarian policy accomplishments.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Incorrect, good sir. He pointed out a lot of them. In this speech alone he makes 10 arguments against it.

None of this stuff happened under the Founders Constitution. The Federal share of the GNP was only 1.75% in 1912, smaller than it was when the Articles of Confederation were ratified in 1781.

 

[klamath]

This is perhaps an unreasonable assessment. First of all, political contexts were different in those days. There were 13 smallish states and a whole load of foreign and possibly unfriendly territories directly attached. Were I in his place, I may have been of a similar mind and so might you or anyone else with any sense. It is easy to judge 200+ years later without really understanding the minds of the people in question.

As for favorites, Patrick Henry hands down. He was not one to compromise on the basics, making him a man after my own heart.

No actually it is not an unreasonable ascessment. Expanding ones empire is a very solid trait of political leaders. It is the number one trait behind the drive to seek executive power. Jefferson showed no deviation from this trait. They believe they are doing something great and grand for their country, society and people. Neocons very strongly believe this regardless of how people around here try and paint them. The majority of the people to this day still believe in an interventist government.

 

[ConsideringRonPaul]

Americans had much more freedom under British control, up until King George III, they pretty much left us alone. I probably would have been a Tory in the American Revolution. I would prefer a centralized government that exists overseas and only occassionally violates our rights over a centralized "representative" government here in America that violates our rights ever day. How is that taxation with representation working out for you? Besides, any kind of moral high ground was lost during the Whiskey Rebellion. I'm definitely not a Constitution worshipper like most of the people on here. As can be seen by our current bloated government, the Constitution is one of the most ineffective documents ever created.

I don't think you understand how the Constitution was meant to be followed. What you see today is people blatantly ignoring the text of quite possibly the greatest document ever created, imo, without divine inspiraton (although I wouldn't be too surprised if God did indeed guide the process of its creation). And yes there was freedom during the period of salutary neglect when the British left us alone, and most every American didn't want to break away from that tradition. However, once the British started to encroach on our God-given rights, colonists felt it necessary to protest. When the King refused to back down, the war happened. And then after the war, the Constitution was set up (after the Articles of Confederation). If we hadn't broken away from Britain, you can bet you would have much less rights today than you do now. Even though most modern politicians violate the Constitution, I have hope in people like Ron Paul who can bring us back to our true Constitutional foundations, and not just in rhetoric.

 

[Matthew5]

It's hard to pick just one, because each brought such a unique element to our founding. After ready John Adams' biography, I personally identify with his life in many ways. So despite the Alien and Sedition Act, I chose him.

 

[ConsideringRonPaul]

There are an awfully lot of assumptions and explanations in that article. Reminds me so much of Biblical apologists who attempt to explain what was in the mind of a writer, and it is anything but what they wrote.

So what are the benefits, advantages, and ultimate goal of being correct in the position that the United States is a Christian nation?

The benefit is that you understand the correct historical context of our founding and that much of our liberty that we enjoy today is a result of the Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian foundations that the country's creators were influenced by. Don't continue to promote the deistic myth that our nation was founded by a bunch of anti-Christian zealots, for nearly the opposite is true. Also, by understanding the true nature of the Constitution and states rights, you should be able to understand that the phrase "separation of church and state" isn't in the Constitution and was written by Jefferson to Baptists to assure them that there would be no encroachment on their right to believe whatever they want. It does not mean government is somehow totally aloof from religious influence. The founders understood that you can never be truly neutral in religious manners and promoting secularism is worse than allowing, for example, the ten commandments outside a courtroom. From your posts, it seems that you aren't a religious person. That's fine though. You should be grateful your right to have free exercise or lack thereof exists. For any Christian knows religious beliefs can't be forced, it has to be accepted by the individual. That is partially why countries in europe that do have official national churches are becoming so atheistic. It's because people don't want to support what they barely believe. The US, without a national state church, has thriving religious practices.

 

[pcosmar]

Ben Franklin.
Though there are many great minds in the group, Ben strikes me as the most interesting guy to hang out with.

 

[ConsideringRonPaul]

It's hard to pick just one, because each brought such a unique element to our founding. After ready John Adams' biography, I personally identify with his life in many ways. So despite the Alien and Sedition Act, I chose him.

Did you read the David McCullough version. I read it last summer; my favorite book of all time. Although, as you pointed out, he did have his problems, he gets the historical shaft so often despite his prolific contributions. And besides, more people on here should love the guy as he has one huge similarity to Ron Paul: being anti-war in a pro-war party. When all the High Federalists were clamoring to go to war with France, Adams did the most he could to tune them down. Even though public opinion wanted to go to war and would have assured his re-election, he kept us at peace and didn't enter into a totally unnecessary war (although there was the "quasi-war" but that was only some very small naval skirmishes and trading problems).

I think I'm going to rank mine (I voted for P. Henry but I'm reconsidering; as much as I love him and his rhetoric, he did not accomplish as much as many of the others on here):
1. George Washington
2. Thomas Jefferson
3. John Adams
4. Patrick Henry
5. James Madison
6. Alexander Hamilton
7. John Jay
8. Thomas Paine
9. Samuel Adams
10. Ben Franklin (I have this uber liberal english teacher that loves this guy and its forever sullied my image of him)

 

[Matthew5]

Did you read the David McCullough version. I read it last summer; my favorite book of all time. Although, as you pointed out, he did have his problems, he gets the historical shaft so often despite his prolific contributions. And besides, more people on here should love the guy as he has one huge similarity to Ron Paul: being anti-war in a pro-war party. When all the High Federalists were clamoring to go to war with France, Adams did the most he could to tune them down. Even though public opinion wanted to go to war and would have assured his re-election, he kept us at peace and didn't enter into a totally unnecessary war (although there was the "quasi-war" but that was only some very small naval skirmishes and trading problems).

Yep, it was the McCullough version! And yes, the "Quasi-War" was also a big deal. Everyone said his foreign policy was "dangerous" and would destroy the union. Looks like that worked out well! He also seemed to be the strongest ally to Jefferson, even though they quarreled at times.