The founding fathers’ foresight is OFTEN defended here.  I have spoken many times on the subject of the founding fathers, and about how often their philosophies are misrepresented.  These distortions are particularly inexplicable, and unforgivable, given the fact that the majority of our Constitution’s framers…wrote incessantly.  They wrote letters to family and friends with astonishing frequency.  They wrote published articles.  They wrote numerous treatises.  They wrote books.  And in so many of their writings and correspondence, they voiced their opinions regarding American laws, government, economy, politics, democracy, culture, diplomacy, religion, and freedoms.  I put together a summary of these positions in an earlier post, which may be found here.

The Constitution’s efficacy is OFTEN defended here.  A common falsehood, frequently addressed on this blog, revolves around the idea that the framers “neglected to address” a particular situation, or that they “couldn’t have anticipated” a specific, modern-day scenario.  People who utter such assertions are most likely completely unfamiliar with the document…because if they were, they would know the true genius of it: It is worded in such a way as to include/address/anticipate nearly all scenarios, modern-day or otherwise.  That is to say…those critics are either unfamiliar with the Constitution, or as recently evidenced, they are uncomfortable with what it dictates.

Case in point: Both the current administration and its successors have claimed that the Constitution and our current legal system do not provide a way to deal with terrorism suspects.  They used this as a rationale for detentions in Cuba and international “black sites,” as a justification for “enhanced interrogation techniques,” and as an excuse for our failure to provide detainees with legal counsel, speedy trials by jury, and the ability file writs of Habeas Corpus.  This of course…is patently and demonstrably false.  The Constitution is quite clear:  All people, even foreigners, even non-citizens, are entitled to a presumption of innocence, to legal representation, to Habeas Corpus, to speedy and impartial trials, to freedom from illegal searches, illegal surveillance, and illegal interrogation.  The truth is, that it is NOT that we had no system to address the accused…we just couldn’t bear to use the system that we had.  We could not bear to afford these individuals the rights they were guaranteed.  We could not bear the thought of them being exonerated, of them being back out on the streets.  So…we allowed the government to act as if a “new system” needed to be created…just for criminals we really hate, the ones who really scare us.

But let’s not kid ourselves: the framers constructed the Constitution using broad, inclusive strokes…and with the means to revise the document if required.  The fact that the document contains both an amendment enacting the prohibition of alcohol, as well as an amendment repealing the prohibition of alcohol, are a testament to the fact that revisions are possible.  In fact, the Constitution was designed to be so broad, so general, that many of the founders did not support the inclusion of a specific, delineated Bill of Rights.  The primary author of these rights, James Madison, was afraid that listing specific rights would lead to the misconception that people only had the ones that were listed…when this was not the intention of any of the framers.  In fact, many of the attendees of the Constitutional Convention fiercely opposed its inclusion, for these same reasons.  But they chose to add the Bill of Rights anyway, to safeguard those rights they saw as most essential, and they agreed on two very simple principles regarding freedoms:

1)  People (not just citizens, but all people) have all the rights listed, as well as any other rights NOT listed…as long as the activity in question is not specifically prohibited by law.

2)  Government, follows the opposite principle:  it has ONLY the rights and powers listed, those specifically granted to it, and none others.

This document, following these principles, has managed to effectively stand the test of time BECAUSE of its broad scope and avoidance of specifics.  When the authors chose to be specific, it most often reflected the problems they had faced in England, and in the strife-ridden early United States (remember: this was a time when there was war on America’s soil, and the country was full of British royalists, French loyalists, spies, rabble-rousers, and terrorists both foreign and domestic).  Reflect for a moment on the amendments which comprise the original Bill of Rights.  Now, what if I told you that in England (home of origin for most of the founding fathers) the government forced religious laws and fees on the people, the people had no say in their government which was dominated by the monarchy and the nobles, people could be forced to house and feed soldiers in their homes, their homes could be searched at any time, their property could be seized by the government at any time, people who spoke out against the government or the church were imprisoned (or executed) without a trial, being of a different faith could also get you imprisoned and/or executed, and taxes were onerous and most often serving the monarchy’s/nobles’ lavish lifestyles or constant foreign wars.  I hear the word “tyranny” thrown around casually these days.  What the founding fathers experienced in England was TYRANNY.  And looking at the tyranny they experienced…suddenly each and every one of the initial amendments in the Bill of Rights makes perfect sense.

AND…despite being quite specific, these amendments have stood the test of time along with the other mandates of the Constitutional Articles.  All of them….except one.

Technology, most obviously something the founders could not have anticipated, has rendered the Second Amendment pointless…and detrimental.

I know.  I’m in a bit of shock as well.  In the interest of full disclosure, I have three guns in my home.  I am a hunter.  I was once a card-carrying member of the NRA.  Trust me…this is not a stance I take lightly.  In order to fully understand why I have come to take this position, let’s consider the three arguments commonly employed to defend the need for the Second Amendment: Hunting, Defense of Home, Defense Against Tyranny.

HUNTING:  Many Americans mistakenly believe that the need to hunt and provide food through hunting, is the primary reason that the founding fathers included the Second Amendment.  While this was a practical consideration and was certainly taken into account, the paramount consideration of the framers resides in the “Defense Against Tyranny” section below…keep reading.  However, let’s examine the claim that Americans all need to have the right to own guns, so that they can hunt to provide food for themselves and their families.  Immediately, most of us realize that there is a fundamental problem with this claim: Almost nobody in America hunts as their primary source of food.  For the overwhelming majority of us…our sustenance comes in the form of “supermarket-purchased,” “convenience-packaged,” “mass market” foodstuffs.  BUT…what if the WORST happened?  A doomsday scenario…all supermarkets closed…we have to hunt to survive! Well, I’m sorry, but those people who haven’t been hunting already?  You’re in big trouble.  Hunting…is a skill.  If you haven’t been doing it already, it’s unlikely you’ll suddenly be able to support yourself with it.  Those of you with handguns?  Similarly out of luck.  Handguns are USELESS for hunting.  Most people can’t shoot the broad side of a Buick with a handgun, if they’re standing more than a mere 25 yards away with it.  And even if you own a rifle or shotgun, and are an experienced hunter, in this “doomsday” scenario…the Wall-Marts and gun shops are going to be gone, too.  Which means…finite supply of ammunition.  In other words: I hope you know how to fish and grow crops.  If we’re honest, few people currently hunt for food, few people could if they HAD to, and those that could…couldn’t do it for very long.  The technology of mass-produced and distributed food has rendered this requirement obsolete.

HOME (AND PERSONAL) DEFENSE:  Does it ever seem like we, as Americans, are more interested in “feeling safe” rather than “being safe?”  The argument that Americans require guns for home defense seems to support this delusion.  Most obvious problem first: You’re probably not going to be robbed.  Statistics show that we are disproportionately fearful of been robbed, given its relative unlikelihood of occurring.  Secondly, unless you are one of the rare individuals who carries their gun on them at all times, then that gun in the shoebox under your bed or in the glove compartment of your car… is certainly not going to help you when you are robbed walking down the street.  Third, if they rob your home…it is most likely going to be when you are NOT THERE.  That means, wait for it, they’ve now got your stuff AND your gun.  In the event that you are home when the robbers come to visit, and you have your gun at the ready…statistics show it will probably not do you much good (in fact, there are only about 200 cases of legally-justified self-defense shootings each year).  Unless you are highly trained, the muzzle flash in the darkness, the loud report in the enclosed space, and your frantic nerves combined with surging adrenalin…will conspire to make you blind and deaf, you will likely miss your target, and even if your don’t drop the gun there’s a chance that the robber will wrestle it away from your blind, deaf, panicked self.  Go ahead and keep telling yourself that you’ll calmly squeeze off three rounds, hitting them center-mass…I’m telling you it won’t happen like you’ve seen in the movies.

BRIEF PERSONAL ANECDOTE:  For a time, I lived in Memphis, Tennessee, in a house I shared with my girlfriend.  I had two handguns.  In midtown Memphis, it is difficult to find a “good neighborhood,” and it was not unusual to hear gunshots at night.  My girlfriend claimed that, should an intruder enter the house, she would use one of my guns to protect herself.  I begged her to instead use one of the three, large containers of pepper spray that I had placed in the kitchen, bedroom, and by the front door.  I feared that her use of the weapons would endanger her more likely than protect her, and as I worked the graveyard shift, I also had some concern that she might accidentally shoot me as I returned home from work.  She insisted that she knew how to use the weapons…so I took her to the outdoor gun range.  Having donned safety glasses and ear protection, she picked up the gun.  Her entire body started shaking like a leaf…she had not anticipated this physiological reaction.  She squeezed off a round, and promptly dropped the weapon, while simultaneously missing the target.  I had her try two more times with the same results.  I then pointed out to her that this was the middle of the day, outside, and with ear protection, while she is under no imminent  threat…and asked her to consider that in the middle of the night, in the dark, in the enclosed hallway, and with an intruder in the home…did she expect to perform any better? She vowed, wisely,  never to touch the handguns again.

Oh, and while your waiting in your home with your guns, for the robbery which, more than likely, will not occur…there’s another set of statistics that you should know about.  In homes with guns…you, your spouse, your children…are MANY times more likely to be killed by homicide, suicide, or by accident.  For ever ONE time that a gun is used successfully in self-defense…guns at home are used SEVEN TIMES to murder a family member (estimated 41% of which would not have occurred had a gun not been in the home).  For every ONE time that a gun is used successfully in self-defense…guns at home are used ELEVEN TIMES by a family member to commit suicide (estimated 94% of which would not have occurred if a gun had not been in the home).  For every ONE time that a gun is used successfully in self-defense…guns at home are the cause of FOUR accidental shootings of a family member (NONE of which would not have occurred if a gun had not been in the home).  If you’re a gambling person…you’ll observe quickly that those are pretty terrible odds, especially given the fact that the stakes are your life and the lives of your loved ones.

DEFENSE AGAINST TYRANNY:  Perhaps the strongest reason that the founding fathers wanted our right to bear arms protected, harkens back to their own experiences with authoritarian government.  In their time, a citizenry armed with muskets and organized into local militias could effectively make a stand against the new United States government…if it were to try to take away their freedoms, their votes, their protections.  The problem is…we no longer live in the time of the musket.  Now, only one in six Americans even own a gun…and for that matter, 10% of the population owns 77% of the guns in the country.  The guns they own?  Pistols, rifles, shotguns…none automatic.  The government…well, they have tanks, planes, rockets, missiles, drones, automatic weapons, and all other manner of sophisticated weapons, gear, and computerized systems.  No use belaboring this point, as it should be obvious to everyone: if the government of our country should turn tyrannical…armed rebellion is NOT going to be an option.  Indeed, military technology has succeeded in completely invalidating this rationale for the Second Amendment’s existence.

Certainly, there have been other areas of technological change that the founders could not have anticipated, take the internet for example.  But the creation of the internet, and its use, falls well under the general protections and restrictions regarding speech and commerce.  The difference here, with regard to food technology and military technology, is that the technological advances invalidate the justifications for a particular freedom, and create an unbalanced cost/benefit ratio.  I’m certain that the framers knew that a likely cost of allowing all people to own guns, would be increased rates of gun-related crime, and gun-related deaths.  But they likely found the benefits (hunting, home defense, defense against tyranny) to more than compensate for these costs.  But today, these benefits removed…only the costs remain, and they are high.  At the point that I am writing this, 28, 970 people in America have been shot this year…170 of them, today alone.

No, the founding fathers did not anticipate this…or did they?  Thomas Jefferson was clear: he never intended the Constitution to be “static,” but rather a “living document” that would change as America changed: “I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” Obviously, many founders agreed, and for this reason they included Article V which explicitly states the steps to be taken to amend the Constitution.  They intentionally did not make this an easy process, so the document would not be changed based solely on popular whims, or passing political ideologies…but they did make it possible.

I grew up hunting.  I have always owned guns.  Perhaps I, like so many others, have always put “feeling safe” ahead of actually “being safe“…like the child refusing to give up his or her security blanket, despite having obtained the knowledge that it provides no real protection at all.  But…over time a country changes.  And…over time, a life changes.  This year, I married.  In June, I will become a father for the first time.  I will quit smoking, place safety covers on the outlets, and install safety locks on the cabinets.  When my daughter is older I will warn her of the dangers of peer pressure, strangers, sex, drugs and alcohol, and drunk driving.  How truly tragic, if I were to do all these things to protect her, only to lose her to one of my own guns.  My house will be shared with the two people I love most…and because it is more important to me that they actually “be safe,” I have to undergo my own “amendment process” and declare that guns will no longer be in my house.  Hopefully, the rest of the country will follow suit, realizing that the facts of the matter, the very real dangers to those we love, are more important than our long-standing delusions.

What is so fascinating about these claims…is that they often reveal that the speaker (like the majority of Americans, according to every survey I’ve ever seen) does not know early-American history, nor do they know about the founding fathers and their positions and intentions, nor do they know about the contents of the Constitution.  It reminds me of the way most Americans are about the Bible: most claim to have read it…most claim to know what is in it…but most fail any survey or test on it.  The American citizenry has long been too trusting when OTHERS, particularly political demagogues and religious figureheads,  tell them who the founders of this country were, what the laws of this country are, and what the Christian scripture actually states.

So…in the interest of public education, I thought I’d do a VERY BRIEF primer on the founding fathers and the early days of our beloved Constitution…

OUR FOUNDERS:

-First off, it is important to note that there were 55 delegates to the Constitutional delegation, 39 of which signed the Constitution.  To be COMPLETELY factually correct…these men could ALL be termed the “founding fathers.”  But let’s face it, there are a handful of figures (generally seven of them) that are universally considered the true “framers“…and I will focus my attention on them.

-A second note: Don’t get confused…”Republicanism” has nothing to do with today’s Republicans, and Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans…sometimes were called “Republicans,” but are actually the forerunners of today’s Democrats.  Also…back then…the early “Republicans” and “Democrats” had different ideals than today.  For example, the “Democrats” of old, were big advocates for smaller government authority (in favor of states’ rights).  Many today would say that the “states’ rights” position resembles Republican ideology more closely, while the Democrats still support smaller government authority (in favor of individual rights).

-Benjamin Franklin:

• DESCENT: British
• OCCUPATION: An inventor, a philosopher, a politician, a puritan, an editor, and a diplomat…just to name a few.
• ACCOMPLISHMENTS:  Among his inventions and creations were the lightning rod, bifocals, the first public library, and the first fire department.  One of his key political achievements was in obtaining a treaty with France that made our independence possible. He would eventually serve as Postmaster General and as President of the Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania (essentially today’s equivalent of “governor”).
• KEY ISSUES: The abolition of slavery.  Franklin was profoundly disgusted that, in order to get the Constitution ratified, concessions to the southern states on the subject of slavery had been made.  Also a proponent of science.
• RELIGION:  A Puritan, he believed strongly in hard work and self-determination…and in an “individualistic” spirituality, not governed by any church.
• POLITICS:  Early Republicanism (not to be confused with today’s Republican party).  Republicanism espoused that harmony can only be achieved by firm guarantees of personal liberties that cannot be “voted away,” and in representation of the people by people of “virtue and who care about the public good.”  Republicanism rejects the authority of “big government,” rejects the authority of “big church,” and rejects the authority of “big business“…all of these are seen as “corrupting influences.”  Instead, they support mid-sized government that does not interfere in private property or individual’s freedoms, yet provides programs for the public good, and places MANY checks and balances on government, organized religion, commerce, and democracy…as unfettered democracy was viewed as “mob rule.“
• MISC:  Contrary to many Americans’ misconceptions…he was never President.

-George Washington:

• DESCENT: British descent, but was born in Virginia to a family that had lived there for generations.
• OCCUPATION:  A wealthy tobacco planter.
• ACCOMPLISHMENTS:  A skilled leader, administrator, delegator, and arbiter, and was respected by almost all of his colleagues, regardless of their political leanings.  He would serve as the Major General of the Continental Army during the War of Independence, and eventually…as our first President.
• KEY ISSUES:  National legal, financial, and military independence.  Religious tolerance.  Abolition – although Washington had owned slaves, by the conclusion of the American Resolution he came to firmly oppose slavery.
• RELIGION:  Raised in the Church of England, Washington would soon become disillusioned by the influence of the church on England’s government.  He would later, although remaining a Christian, stop attending services altogether.  He was also a Freemason, although this is a distinct, non-mutually exclusive, association, as Freemasons accept all faiths and honor all religious scriptures, whether it be the Bible, the Talmud, the Koran, et cetera.  He was a proponent of religious tolerance and freedom even prior to the creation of the Bill of Rights, and repeatedly in writings stated that America was not designed to be a Christian nation, but rather would serve as a place where all religions could freely be practiced and could freely participate in the nation’s governance…all that is important is that they are good citizens.
• POLITICS:  Ironically, while he personally hoped that political parties would never form, the positions of his two top advisors, Jefferson and Hamilton, would serve as the basis of our first parties: the Federalists (forerunners of today’s Republican Party) and the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans (forerunners of today’s Democratic Party).  History reflects that Washington, in settling disputes between the two men, most often leaned towards supporting Hamilton, due to his belief in a strong, nationalistic federal government, and fiscal stability through the creation of the National Bank and the centralization of the national debt.
• MISC:  When confronted with the decision whether to repair relations with Britain or to support the French (and assist them in their own democratic revolution), he deemed that the country was too young and the government too new to become involved in the strife between the two countries, and sided with mending ties to the British Empire.  As France had just significantly helped us to obtain our independence…they were none too pleased.

-John Adams:

• DESCENT:  Born in Massachusetts, to a family of Welsh descendence.
• OCCUPATION:  Lawyer and farmer.
• ACCOMPLISHMENTS:  Delegate to the Constitutional Conventions, Vice-President under Washington, second President of the United States.
• KEY ISSUES:  Foreign neutrality.  Bicameralism (two legislative bodies).  In a period noted for wide public dissent over foreign policy issues…Adams cracked down on opponents with four controversial measures (The Naturalization Act, The Alien Act, The Alien Enemies Act, and the Sedition Act) which made it illegal to criticize the government (except Vice-President Thomas Jefferson…criticizing him was conspicuously left legal), made it harder to become a citizen, and allowed the president to deport any non-citizen that he wanted to.  These measures were enacted because Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans (essentially today’s Democratic Party) opposed Adams’ policies, and many of their supporters were immigrants.
• RELIGION:   A Congregationalist who later turned Unitarian.  He accepted the “inherent goodness” of creation and he loved God as universal “architect“, but did not believe that God or Christ intervened in an individual person’s affairs.  Adam’s rejected church doctrine, and believed that churches should serve not as espousers of dogma or doctrine, but that they should continually evolve with the times and reflect the very best in “common sense” and reasonableness.  He once said of his love of God: “My Adoration of the Author of the Universe is too profound and too sincere. The Love of God and his Creation; delight, Joy, Tryumph, Exaltation in my own existence, tho’ but an Atom, a molecule Organique, in the Universe, are my religion.“
• POLITICS:  A strict Federalist, believing in a strong, sometimes nearly authoritarian, government as well as favoring factories, banking, and trade over agriculture.  He would later engage in an internal Federalist conflict with Alexander Hamilton over control of the party.
• MISC:  Benjamin Franklin once remarked, and this seems to be the consensus, that Adams was a man “always honest, often brilliant, and sometimes mad.“

-Thomas Jefferson:

• DESCENT: Born in Virginia, into a prominent family of both British and Welsh lineage.
• OCCUPATION:   A lawyer, farmer, architect, archaeologist, inventor, and founder of the University of Virginia.
• ACCOMPLISHMENTS:  Principal author of the Declaration of Independence.  Governor of Virginia.  Founder of the Democratic-Republican Party.  First U.S. Secretary of State.  Vice-President under Adams…and eventually third President of the United States.  Negotiated the Louisiana Purchase.  Master diplomat, philosopher, and statesman.  Ended the slave trade in America (but did not abolish slavery).
• KEY ISSUES: Separation of Church and State.  Republicanism (again, not the political party)…the idea that liberties and freedoms are key, and that individuals, in return, must see to their civic duties.  States’ rights preferred to centralized, national governance.  Commerce and personal financial interest seen as dangerous, corrupting factors.  Vehemently  fought, unsuccessfully, to convince President Washington and others that America must support France’s own struggle for liberty and democracy.  Also fought with Alexander Hamilton over war debts, as Jefferson was against the formation of the National Bank and said each state should pay it’s own debt (especially because Virginia didn’t have very much).
• RELIGION:   Credited with the term “separation of church and state,” Jefferson himself was interested in religion, but not a practitioner of any orthodox faith and at different times, identified himself as “Episcopalian,” “Unitarian,” “a deist,” or simple as in “a sect by myself.“  He worked with James Madison to ensure there would be no state financial assistance to churches, believed churches should have no sway in government, and that being a member of an “orthodox faith” should not be a requirement to serve in government office.  He even wrote his own “Jefferson Bible,” in which he edited out all references to miracles, so that all that would be left were Jesus’ teachings, as he thought Jesus was an excellent “moral teacher.“
• POLITICS:  Founder of the Democratic-Republicans, Jefferson believed in the sovereignty of states’ rights, and the importance of placing the farmers (and the development of an agrarian economy) ahead of the bankers, businessmen, and industrialists.  While the members of the party held differing views on many individual topics, the general leaning was towards protecting citizens’ liberties against the corruption of a big, nationalized government, big business, a federal bank, federal courts, and a federal military.  On that note, Jefferson an the Democratic-Republicans opposed both the formation of a federal military AND the federal taxes to pay for it.
• MISC:  Had the view that “consent of the governed” was the most important aspect of government…in fact, he believed that no debts and no laws should be passed from one generation to the next: “no society can make a perpetual constitution or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation.“

-John Jay:

• DESCENT:  Born in New York, to a family of French Huguenots.
• OCCUPATION:  Lawyer, politician, and diplomat.
• ACCOMPLISHMENTS:  Governor of New York, President of the Continental Congress, first Chief Justice, ambassador to Spain, leader of the Federalist Party.
• KEY ISSUES:  Abolitionist…eventually managed to outlaw all slavery in New York, after several failed attempts.  Strong defender of property rights, the rule of law, and the prevention of “foreign influence” through neutrality and financial independence.
• RELIGION:  Anglican, later Episcopalian.  Once tried to argue in favor of a measure to prevent Catholics from serving in public office, and is quoted in a letter as saying “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.“
• POLITICS:  A strict Federalist (see description under Adams), Jay believed in a strong, centralized, national government and in supporting industry and banking.  His rulings on what has come to be known as the “Jay Court” reflect his Federalist positions, as he often ruled from the position that federal law (and courts) supersede state laws and courts.  Also, he clearly defined the “separation of powers” concept in refusing to address issues that were of a nature that they should be dealt with legislatively.  Jay also established the concept that the jury may rule on both matters and fact and matters of law, where in the past, juries were instructed to leave all matters of law to the judge.
• MISC:  Was co-author, with Hamilton and Madison, of The Federalist Papers, which sought to persuade the American people to support ratification of the Constitution.

-James Madison:

• DESCENT:  Born to a family of prominent farmers and merchants of British heritage, in Virginia.
• OCCUPATION:  Lawyer, politician, largest landowner in Orange County, Virginia, philosopher.
• ACCOMPLISHMENTS:  Principal author of the Constitution (wrote over a third of it), fourth President of the United States, leader in the House of Representatives, “Father” of the Bill of Rights (having written the Virginia Bill of Rights, on which it is largely based).
• KEY ISSUES:  In general, the limiting of the power of the national government.  No standing army.  No national bank.  That is…until problems surfaced while he was President during the War of 1812.   Because the government wasn’t strong enough (many militias refused to even fight outside their own states)…suddenly he became more of a Federalist again.
• RELIGION:   Raised Episcopalian, Madison rarely commented on the subject of religion and is considered by most scholars to have truly been a “deist” (there is a God, he doesn’t get involved, no organized church) like many of the Constitutional framers, or perhaps even “irreligious.”
• POLITICS:  Dramatically changed positions many times.  At first, one of Hamilton’s Federalists…out of opposition to the National Bank and a treaty with Britain, he later helped Jefferson form the Democratic-Republicans and rejected Adams’ Alien and Sedition Acts…and then later supported the Federalist positions in favor of opening a Second National Bank, creating a national military, and setting a high tariff to protect our new factories.  He essentially DESIGNED the “separation of powers,” and supported the notion of a strong federal government overruling states when necessary.
• MISC:  At first…he rejected the idea of a codified “Bill of Rights,” even thought he later created them.  He claimed that they would be pointless, because they were trying protect people against powers that the federal government had not been given.  And he felt that they were dangerous, because listing some rights might cause some people to think any rights not listed were excluded.  And he also felt they would be worthless, since at the state level such declarations of rights had always proven ineffective.  NOTE: In short…he believed that the government only has powers EXPRESSLY GIVEN TO IT…if it doesn’t say somewhere that they have a certain power…THEY DON’T.  Meanwhile, it is the opposite with individual rights…you have all the ones communicated in writing/law…AND others not yet codified.

-Alexander Hamilton:

• DESCENT:  Born in the British West Indies to a mother of French Huguenot descent and a Scottish father.
• OCCUPATION:  Lawyer, economist.
• ACCOMPLISHMENTS:  Served as General Washington’s aide and Chief of Staff, served in the Continental Congress, founded the Bank of New York, served in the New York legislature, Treasury Secretary, co-author of the Federalist Papers, established the national bank and the U.S. Mint, as well as import tariffs.
• KEY ISSUES: Centralization of national debts.  Strong central, national authority.  Tariffs as a protection for American industries.  A national army.  Government intervention in favor of big business.
• RELIGION:   Originally Presbyterian, Hamilton later abandoned orthodox religion…but would still “use” it for political/diplomatic advantage.  At one point, he even argued that Christianity and Democracy were “incompatible.”  However…later personal problems would cause him to reconsider, and he would propose a “Christian Constitutional Society” that would select “suitable” candidates for office, as well as the formation of “Christian Welfare Societies” to aid the poor.
• POLITICS:  Federalist (see John Adams and and John Jay above).  In many ways, Hamilton’s belief in a national bank and a standing federal army came to DEFINE the Federalist Party.
• MISC:  After Hamilton aided Thomas Jefferson in defeating Aaron Burr for President, and after Hamilton aided Morgan Lewis in defeating Aaron Burr for governor of New York, and after COUNTLESS other battles between the two men…Burr would eventually kill Hamilton in a duel over a newspaper article which referred to unkind words Hamilton had said of Burr.

It was a time of external threat, and internal turmoil.  A war with France…then a war with Britain, the foremost superpower in the world.  Half the American people were still loyal to the British crown.  Eventually, Britain and France…each asking our support against the other country, and threatening war with us if we would not give it.  French and British residents of America, rioting and committing other acts of rebellion and domestic terrorism to attempt to frighten our fledgling government into supporting their country of origin.

And there were these seven men.  People will tell you that the “founding fathers intended this” or that the “founding fathers believed that.“  It should be obvious, reading the summaries above, that the founding fathers believed and intended many different things…yet all of them together were able to craft the Constitution of the United States, containing freedoms that they agreed must be safeguarded.  All of them together, saw America through those harsh and desperate times when our country was most new, most fragile.  Some people today would have you believe that only Republicans are patriots…or that only Christians are patriots.  That assertion as as ridiculous as it would be to say any of these seven men were not patriots because of their faith, party…or their lack of faith or party.

No…these “fathers” were all patriots, for while they may have disagreed on the size and role of the national government, and while they may have disagreed on religion, and while they may have disagreed on foreign policy…THEY ALL BELIEVED in protecting the ideals of liberty, equality, and justice for all.