Wednesday, August 22, 2007

Due Credit to Other Founding Fathers

Most of the Founding Fathers, if not all, were in agreement on the Law of Nature,(state of nature) being from the same source, the Bible. In agreement are Born Again Christian "key founders" like: Father of the Bill of Rights George Mason, Author of the House Language of the First Amendment Fisher Ames, Chairman of the House Drafting Committee for the First Amendment Elias Boudinot, Bill of Rights and Constitution Ratifier, Senator Rufus King, Father of the Revolution Samuel Adams, and the First Supreme Court Justice John Jay of New York. How could secular progressives not list Samuel Adams as a key founder? He was most responsible for starting rebellion against England, organizing the Boston Tea Party, Ratifying the Constitution, A Signer of the Declaration of Independence, and helped frame the Articles of Confederation.

It is obvious they have an agenda to suppress the Christian foundation of the United States. Could it be the rest of the framers have different views than Jefferson, Franklin, and Madison on certain issues? From the design of our government(Representative Government, mentioned in Ex 18:21), to separation of church and state, why would the minority view be more authoritative than the majority view? Who they are should be irrelevant since James Madison believed the most important framers were the ones who ratified instruments. Jefferson, it seems, would agree with Madison, that the "key founders" label is incorrect. Being President, or holding an office is irrelevant to who the "key founders" are according to James Madison.

James Monroe believed George Washington was the key to the Constitution, and Madison was initially against a Bill of Rights, until he realized he was on the losing side of the issue. I disagree James Madison is the Father of the Constitution. Even he admitted such:

“Dear Sir,–Your letter of the 18th Ult. was duly received. You give me a credit to which I have no claim, in calling me ” the writer of the Constitution of the U. S.” This was not, like the fabled Goddess of Wisdom, the offspring of a single brain. It ought to be regarded as the work of many heads & many hands."-TO WILLIAM COGSWELL. … MAD. MSS.Montpellier, March 10, 1834.

It is more logical to call Madison one of the distinguished founders, who played a large role in forming the Constitution, rather than claiming he is the Father, or author of the Constitution. How could Madison be the Father of the Constitution, when his idea of it was not most beneficial, and without acceptance from men like: George Mason, Elbridge Gerry, Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, and Edmund Randolph? There is no legitimate spokesman for the Constitution.

7 comments:

Jonathan said...

There is a good reason why you might want to strike Patrick Henry's name from the bottom of the list. I'll give you a hint: It had something to do with smelling a rat.

Our Founding Truth said...

Jonathan said...
There is a good reason why you might want to strike Patrick Henry's name from the bottom of the list. I'll give you a hint: It had something to do with smelling a rat.>>

Referring to James Madison's proposal:

Was not Patrick Henry for a Bill of Rights?

June 16, 1788: Patrick Henry demands and gets a Bill of Rights
Virginia Ratification Convention ^ | June 16, 1788 | Patrick Henry

Mr. HENRY. Mr. Chairman, the necessity of a bill of rights appears to me to be greater in this government than ever it was in any government before.
... Let us consider the sentiments which have been entertained by the people of America on this subject. At the revolution, it must be admitted that it was their sense to set down those great rights which ought, in all countries, to be held inviolable and sacred. Virginia did so, we all remember. She made a compact to reserve, expressly, certain rights.

Your own example furnishes an argument against it. If you give up these powers, without a bill of rights, you will exhibit the most absurd thing to mankind that ever the world saw — government that has abandoned all its powers — the powers of direct taxation, the sword, and the purse. You have disposed of them to Congress, without a bill of rights — without check, limitation, or control. And still you have checks and guards; still you keep barriers — pointed where? Pointed against your weakened, prostrated, enervated state government! You have a bill of rights to defend you against the state government, which is bereaved of all power, and yet you have none against Congress, though in full and exclusive possession of all power! You arm yourselves against the weak and defenceless, and expose yourselves naked to the armed and powerful. Is not this a conduct of unexampled absurdity? What barriers have you to oppose to this most strong, energetic government? To that government you have nothing to oppose. All your defence is given up. This is a real, actual defect. It must strike the mind of every gentleman.
When our government was first instituted in Virginia, we declared the common law of England to be in force.

Hercules Mulligan said...

Great post, OFT! You hit the nail right on the head! Great quote by Patrick Henry, btw. :)

Hercules Mulligan said...

One more thought on PH's quote (I'll try to be quick)

He was absolutely right in saying that the US Constitution should have a bill of rights. But just keep in mind that the Constitution did not bereave the states of ALL power, but easily COULD have, without the power of the 9th Amendment. Unfortunately, the federal govt. has virtually scrapped the Constitution, and for this reason, we experience the same problems that Anti-federalists like Henry warned us about.

Jonathan said...

You guys are still missing the elephant in the room about Patrick Henry & the Constitution. Why don't you google what I told you about him smelling a rat?

Our Founding Truth said...

Collapse comments


Jonathan said...
There is a good reason why you might want to strike Patrick Henry's name from the bottom of the list. I'll give you a hint: It had something to do with smelling a rat.

August 22, 2007 1:44 PM>>

Your point is well taken. Henry was initially against a new Constitution. Once he realized there was no turning back, he lobbied for a Bill of Rights.

Hercules Mulligan said...

OFT:

I have finally fulfilled my promise in writing extensively on Hamilton's religion. There is much to cover, so I have divided my posts into parts. Part One is available on my blog.