KnotaFrayed
Mayor
Who were they and what did they want?
Conservatives in 1776......
- Thread starter KnotaFrayed
- Start date
NightSwimmer
Senator
1. Tories
2. Obey the King.
2. Obey the King.
KnotaFrayed
Mayor
NightSwimmer
Senator
Patriots don't.
Can't speak for everyone here.
Can't speak for everyone here.
wobblies
Mayor
Others have already pointed out that sell-styled Conservatives opposed the revolution. Conservatives would have opposed regular people having guns or the franchise. They also had poor views on the capacity of people to rule themselves without a strong leader.
On the other hand, many people that supported the revolution opposed majority rule. Madison and Hamilton worked on a new constitution in order to limit majority rule. John Adams had old fashioned ideas about the role of women.
On the other hand, many people that supported the revolution opposed majority rule. Madison and Hamilton worked on a new constitution in order to limit majority rule. John Adams had old fashioned ideas about the role of women.
NightSwimmer
Senator
In 1776, there were many ideas prevalent that would be considered "old fashioned" in the 21st Century. In their time, these men were considered enlightened -- if not downright cutting-edge progressive.
As to majority rule, most Americans still see the wisdom in striking a balance between investing power in an authoritarian elite and mob rule of the plebiscite. Public opinion is far too fickle to form the only basis for a stable system of governance. The tyranny of an absolute monarchy is dangerous to the health of a functional society, yet the other extreme brings chaos and anarchy. Striking the correct balance between these two extremes should be our goal, IMHO.
worldlymrb
Daddy
1776 conservatives wanted to live free or die, not a handout from King George.
worldlymrb
Daddy
Founders were not trying to find a BALANCE of govt power, they were trying to LIMIT govt power, through checks/balances/bill of rights
NightSwimmer
Senator
You're consistent... Consistently wrong.
as seen on tv
Senator
opinions are divided. there are a number of competing historical themes . . .
1 - "conservatives" were loyal to the king, and okay with "taxation without representation" and onerous British restrictions on starting new businesses. (similar to todays democrats)
2 - "conservatives" were afraid of big government, and after independence envisioned 13 separate colonies without a strong national government to interfere with local preferences, raise a standing army to engage in needless war, or tax the former colonists
3 - "conservatives" were all about the right to private property - land, factories, and even slaves. the "takings clause" and other protections against unreasonable search and seizure, billeting of troops, etc. support this view.
1 - "conservatives" were loyal to the king, and okay with "taxation without representation" and onerous British restrictions on starting new businesses. (similar to todays democrats)
2 - "conservatives" were afraid of big government, and after independence envisioned 13 separate colonies without a strong national government to interfere with local preferences, raise a standing army to engage in needless war, or tax the former colonists
3 - "conservatives" were all about the right to private property - land, factories, and even slaves. the "takings clause" and other protections against unreasonable search and seizure, billeting of troops, etc. support this view.
NightSwimmer
Senator
"Opinions" don't mean jack-shit in comparison to actual history.
You see, that's the problem with modern Republicans. They actually believe that they can create their own reality via propaganda. Shout something loud enough and long enough and it magically becomes "truth".
worldlymrb
Daddy
It is a historical fact that printing money does not create prosperity, but rather destroys it.
So, who's creating their own reality/propaganda?
GordonGecko
President
The "conservative" position on an issue, by its very definition, is the one with the LEAST change or even maintaining the status quo. To change is to be instituting a movement in the situation. If such movement is to the detriment of those involved it would be termed "regressive"....if it is to the benefit of those involved it would be termed "progressive" (applies to numerous areas..."progress of science"..."progress of individual rights"..."progress in eliminating a disease").
To NOT seek change ...i.e. to maintain the Colonies as colonies part of the British realm...would be the "conservative" position to take. Just as "conservatives" today seek to stop social or governmental changes and either maintain the status quo....or even "go back" to the way things were in the past....which as I note....would be called "regressive".
To NOT seek change ...i.e. to maintain the Colonies as colonies part of the British realm...would be the "conservative" position to take. Just as "conservatives" today seek to stop social or governmental changes and either maintain the status quo....or even "go back" to the way things were in the past....which as I note....would be called "regressive".
But certian roles have been reversed, as what the liberals were calling for in 1776 was a government that was 1) Smaller; 2) Less intrusive; and 3) Obeyed its own written laws.
Today liberals call for a government which is larger and more intrusive, and seem to think the Constitution is merely advisory, a "living document" that can be reinterpreted to meet the whimsy of any politically expedient action.
Today liberals call for a government which is larger and more intrusive, and seem to think the Constitution is merely advisory, a "living document" that can be reinterpreted to meet the whimsy of any politically expedient action.
GordonGecko
President
Today conservatives think that the Founders foresaw machine guns and bazookas and wrote the 2nd Amendment fully in mind of the ordinary citizen owning them.
The founders allowed citizens to have the most cutting edge infantry weapon of the era. Why would they deny that today? Immaterial to the point of conservatives/liberals and their views at the time, really (and if this continues I wish to point out here and now that it was not me who raised the issue of gun control).
NightSwimmer
Senator
Nope. You merely trotted in with nonsensical Tea Party© talking points.
No -- I "trotted in" with historical reality. You merely don't like the reality because you think the founding fathers wanted to create a collectivist, communitarian, wealth redistribution scheme instead of a representative republic.
KnotaFrayed
Mayor
Yes, as we all "know" the Constitution of the United States of America is full of direct wording and references to "small government"
I wonder if anyone can read what is called one's "signature" at the bottom of my postings and recognize the person who said it as well as comprehend what it says?
The President of the United States, does not elect him/her self.
Members of Congress, do not elect themselves to office.
Supreme Court justices are nominated by the President, approved or rejected by members of Congress.
Do people actually read their own Constitution and the documents, philosphy, discussions and debate that went into the final draft or do they just listen to sound bites without studying further or seeing what else the same people they quote said. In many instances, even with James Madison there were what appear to be self-contradictions.
Many hold Jefferson up as the father of freedom and equality, even as he maintained slaves and somehow forgot to include them and women as having the same "equality" as free white men.
Let's face it, we humans are not infallible and that includes me, but I do believe we do have some parts to us that do seem to have track records of being more virtuous and beneficial to humanity than troublesome. Being closer to balance seems to work than being further from it, if for no other reason than for all our similarities, we are all different and the balance point or center point of gravity could perhaps be defined as what are referred to as universal values. I think most people might agree that no limitation on intentional killing or murder is perhaps not a healthy advocation for human survival in the longer term, although some might argue for it based in it's occurrence in some species of living creatures. There are other human activities and their associated philosophies which throughout history have revealed a pattern of higher benefit to humanity than cost and problems for humanity. Some of these have been recognized and given identities as moral or virtuous values that are widely accepted to the point of being thought of as universal.
The interesting thing to me is that nearly a century after this nation's founding, this nation became severely divided over the right of states versus the uniting federation those states agreed to ratify and be a part of and one of the predominant, if not the most predominant factors in that serious divide was the "right" of people of certain states to decide whether the ownership of other human beings as property was something they, not the higher level government they agreed to be a part of, should be able to decide. I'm not sure how a "right" to own human beings as property and therefore limit their choice to follow their own destiny or be in charge of themselves fits in with "liberty and justice for all" or symbolic of the freest nation in the world, expecially when the Empire we fought for our independence from was ahead of this nation on the issue of slavery.
One might also wonder whether places that still flew the Confederate States flag in their places of government up until recent times, had Jim Crow laws up until the latter half of the last century, still has some claiming the slogan "the south shall rise again" and all that symbolizes have changed much from when the politics mostly went under the label Democrat and now somehow mostly go under the label Republican.
In consideration of "Dixiecrats" and the "Southern Strategy" there comes more understanding that some things can change, but in many ways, remain the same.
There seems something strange in the concept of being for "smaller goverment" so you can be "free" to chose to enslave people (that's take their freedom away). There either is not a great deal of thought going on in that concept, especially in a reciprocal or multi-directional and consideration way or there is some imagining going on that somehow no one will notice the incongruity, contradictory or even hypocritical reality of such.
I wonder if anyone can read what is called one's "signature" at the bottom of my postings and recognize the person who said it as well as comprehend what it says?
The President of the United States, does not elect him/her self.
Members of Congress, do not elect themselves to office.
Supreme Court justices are nominated by the President, approved or rejected by members of Congress.
Do people actually read their own Constitution and the documents, philosphy, discussions and debate that went into the final draft or do they just listen to sound bites without studying further or seeing what else the same people they quote said. In many instances, even with James Madison there were what appear to be self-contradictions.
Many hold Jefferson up as the father of freedom and equality, even as he maintained slaves and somehow forgot to include them and women as having the same "equality" as free white men.
Let's face it, we humans are not infallible and that includes me, but I do believe we do have some parts to us that do seem to have track records of being more virtuous and beneficial to humanity than troublesome. Being closer to balance seems to work than being further from it, if for no other reason than for all our similarities, we are all different and the balance point or center point of gravity could perhaps be defined as what are referred to as universal values. I think most people might agree that no limitation on intentional killing or murder is perhaps not a healthy advocation for human survival in the longer term, although some might argue for it based in it's occurrence in some species of living creatures. There are other human activities and their associated philosophies which throughout history have revealed a pattern of higher benefit to humanity than cost and problems for humanity. Some of these have been recognized and given identities as moral or virtuous values that are widely accepted to the point of being thought of as universal.
The interesting thing to me is that nearly a century after this nation's founding, this nation became severely divided over the right of states versus the uniting federation those states agreed to ratify and be a part of and one of the predominant, if not the most predominant factors in that serious divide was the "right" of people of certain states to decide whether the ownership of other human beings as property was something they, not the higher level government they agreed to be a part of, should be able to decide. I'm not sure how a "right" to own human beings as property and therefore limit their choice to follow their own destiny or be in charge of themselves fits in with "liberty and justice for all" or symbolic of the freest nation in the world, expecially when the Empire we fought for our independence from was ahead of this nation on the issue of slavery.
One might also wonder whether places that still flew the Confederate States flag in their places of government up until recent times, had Jim Crow laws up until the latter half of the last century, still has some claiming the slogan "the south shall rise again" and all that symbolizes have changed much from when the politics mostly went under the label Democrat and now somehow mostly go under the label Republican.
In consideration of "Dixiecrats" and the "Southern Strategy" there comes more understanding that some things can change, but in many ways, remain the same.
There seems something strange in the concept of being for "smaller goverment" so you can be "free" to chose to enslave people (that's take their freedom away). There either is not a great deal of thought going on in that concept, especially in a reciprocal or multi-directional and consideration way or there is some imagining going on that somehow no one will notice the incongruity, contradictory or even hypocritical reality of such.
