• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

When did the United States stop following the path of the founding fathers?

When did the United States change stop following the founding fathers vision

  • 1790-1860

    Votes: 7 24.1%

  • 1860-1900

    Votes: 4 13.8%

  • 1900-1932

    Votes: 4 13.8%

  • 1932-1945

    Votes: 4 13.8%

  • Other (explain)

    Votes: 10 34.5%
  • Total voters
    29
Unitedwestand13

Unitedwestand13

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
20,738
Reaction score
6,290
Location
Sunnyvale California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
This should provide an interesting discussion.

The question is this: can you estimate the time period where the united state stopped following the founding fathers exact vision of how the government should operate, as detailed in the federalist papers, U.S constitution, and other founding documents?

The time periods under scrutiny are as follows:

1. 1790-1860s. The first time frame covers the administrations of the founding fathers and goes up to the start of the civil war. This time frame assumes that the founding fathers did not adhere to a static interpration of the constitution and found it necessary to fill in the blanks with regards to practical governance.

2.the second time frame starts in 1860 and concludes around 1900.

3. Time frame three is set around 1900 and lasts until 1932.

4. The fourth choice of time frame is from 1932 to 1945.

If these options seem limited, make your own theory as a fifth option.
 
When did the United States stop following the path of the founding fathers?
Click to expand...

around the time of the Alien and Sedition acts?
 
Helix said:
no, the other ones.

:roll:
Click to expand...

I was asking that question in order to follow up with the punch line.

What you are implying is that The founding fathers themselves did not strictly adhere to their vision of the constitution.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
I was asking that question in order to follow up with the punch line.

What you are implying is that The founding fathers themselves did not strictly adhere to their vision of the constitution.
Click to expand...

yep, that's exactly what i was trying to say.

a lot of people like to argue that we've betrayed the founding fathers by giving the poor welfare while ignoring the fact that Washington didn't even like political parties much and would definitely not have dug a state of perpetual war. like everything else, there's a lot of nuance when we're talking about the founding fathers.
 
Hamilton's creation of the first federal bank and Madison v Marbury. Later, Lincoln's many affronts to Constitution in the Civil War made us a federal first nation, the direct opposite of what the founder's envisioned.
 
clownboy said:
Hamilton's creation of the first federal bank and Madison v Marbury. Later, Lincoln's many affronts to Constitution in the Civil War made us a federal first nation, the direct opposite of what the founder's envisioned.
Click to expand...

I don't see anything that indicated that mandated we avoid becoming a federal nation?

Also, why is hamilton's viewpoint considered repugnant? I thought that hamilton was just as big an influence in the development of this country as Maddison and Jefferson?
 
All men created equal (except for certain black slaves)....




End thread?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
I don't see anything that indicated that mandated we avoid becoming a federal nation?
Click to expand...
Tenth amendment specifically. The federal has no power unless explicitly stated in the constitution. All other powers are reserved to the states and/or the people, that right there eliminates any idea of a centralized federal with more power than the states. The only time federal law is supreme is when they have that enumerated power, the way they get around this is a process called coercion, simply it involves withholding tax funds that it collects from the states.

Also, why is hamilton's viewpoint considered repugnant? I thought that hamilton was just as big an influence in the development of this country as Maddison and Jefferson?
Click to expand...
Hamilton was a centralized government guy, he was in a minority among the founders and the state delegates.
 
We left their path when we freed the slaves, allowed women to vote, and actually embraced the idea that every person should have equality and liberty. We've pretty much only gained by moving on from what people thought was the cutting edge of progress in the 1790s. Progress has progressed a lot more since then.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Tenth amendment specifically. The federal has no power unless explicitly stated in the constitution. All other powers are reserved to the states and/or the people, that right there eliminates any idea of a centralized federal with more power than the states. The only time federal law is supreme is when they have that enumerated power, the way they get around this is a process called coercion, simply it involves withholding tax funds that it collects from the states.

Hamilton was a centralized government guy, he was in a minority among the founders and the state delegates.
Click to expand...

Please explain what you learned about this issue that allows you to draw that conclusion.

You sound like you are arguing for is a strict constructionist interpration of the constitution, similar to what Jefferson believed in.

You seem to oppose the Hamiltonian concept of government so vehemently that it appears to loose all validity.

But didn't mcculloch v Maryland strike down Jeffersons ideals in favor of hamaltons? Or was mucculloch v Maryland an example of the tortured logic that Jefferson hated Hamilton for?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
I don't see anything that indicated that mandated we avoid becoming a federal nation?

Also, why is hamilton's viewpoint considered repugnant? I thought that hamilton was just as big an influence in the development of this country as Maddison and Jefferson?
Click to expand...

You should do some reading on Hamilton and the banks and the stock exchanges. Madison and Jefferson both had a distrust and disdain for large banks, especially at a federal level.

And you only have to look to the Federalist Papers for your first point. There's a reason we became a UNION OF STATES and not just a nation state.
 
Paschendale said:
We left their path when we freed the slaves, allowed women to vote, and actually embraced the idea that every person should have equality and liberty. We've pretty much only gained by moving on from what people thought was the cutting edge of progress in the 1790s. Progress has progressed a lot more since then.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. About half the delegates didn't want slavery at all. Slavery was a compromise. Philly already freed any slaves brought there. It's why it wasn't chosen as our capitol. And we beat most of the rest of the world in the women's suffrage race.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women's_suffrage
 
Last edited:
clownboy said:
You should do some reading on Hamilton and the banks and the stock exchanges. Madison and Jefferson both had a distrust and disdain for large banks, especially at a federal level.

And you only have to look to the Federalist Papers for your first point. There's a reason we became a UNION OF STATES and not just a nation state.
Click to expand...

Hamilton and Jefferson were also political rivals.
 
clownboy said:
Nonsense. About half the delegates didn't want slavery at all. Slavery was a compromise. Philly already freed any slaves brought there. It's why it wasn't chosen as our capitol. And we beat most of the rest of the world in the women's suffrage race.

Timeline of women's suffrage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

That's not the question, though. The question deals with the beliefs of a SELECT group of people known as the FOUNDING FATHERS. Need I provide a list of who those men where, and a brief run down of their self professed beliefs?

They were slave owners who felt women had no voice, nor any place, in politics, work, or anywhere else, that wasn't inside the house, raising kids and managing a home.

Doesn't make them BAD people...they were par for the course of their time, on these issues. The failed to recognize women as a part of "all men created equal", and they failed to see blacks as being of the same species as the rest of us. Along with most of the rest of the population.

If you were to put one of them into our society, suddenly, I imagine they would be greatly distressed. Just as a few of us would be should we be transported to the future, when public nudity and same sex couples, along with public displays of affection, will likely be the norm.
 
I don't think we really ever did, we've just refined their vision and methods towards that vision. We've grown a tad wiser since then, we're far more fair now. It's a process.

“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." — Thomas Jefferson

I think they knew there'd be some changes along the way. Doesn't mean it's meant to crap on the founders' ideals and thoughts about this nation's future. The constitution is still sacred, it's just not all of us view it so rigidly.

And yea like others have said, starting from John Adams and onwards, people have pulled some risky business with the government for a while now.
 
Helix said:
yep, that's exactly what i was trying to say.

a lot of people like to argue that we've betrayed the founding fathers by giving the poor welfare while ignoring the fact that Washington didn't even like political parties much and would definitely not have dug a state of perpetual war. like everything else, there's a lot of nuance when we're talking about the founding fathers.
Click to expand...

And a lot of over lay and misinterpretation.

I do not believe the founding fathers were all seeing, nor heroes either, but men with a vision, who were well compensated for their time, they saw to that, beginning a long standing tradition of pocket lining.

The first to digress from the plan, was the architect himself, Thomas Jefferson who broke the intended tradition of one party, two candidates, second place gets a useless but highly paid job. He formed a second party and campaigned for four years after having been snookered in the first "stolen election" which he had not foreseen.

I do not believe they foresaw how deeply would the courts become law makers, and never foresaw the on-going concentration of power in the presidency.

So in answer to the question of when the departure started...right at the beginning when Mr. Adams conspired with Mr. Washington to create dynasties.
 
Well many of the founding fathers didnt even follow their own vision.. So pretty damn early...
 
I noticed that a lot of folks seem to see constitutional amendments (e.g. ending slavery, giving women the vote and taxing personal income) as when we stopped following the "founders" visions. I see constitutional amendment as completely OK because the "founders" thought far enough ahead to make such action possible. I chose 1937, with the "marijuana tax act"' as a critical point when the federal government decided that things could simply be banned (and unlike alcohol, without need of constituional amendment) simply becuase they were not popular with certain key players.

Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
clownboy said:
Nonsense. About half the delegates didn't want slavery at all. Slavery was a compromise. Philly already freed any slaves brought there. It's why it wasn't chosen as our capitol. And we beat most of the rest of the world in the women's suffrage race.

Timeline of women's suffrage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

And this has to do with liberty and self-governance for anyone besides wealthy landed white men being completely different from the founders' ideas... how? I get the knee-jerk reaction to any criticism of the United States' history, but it's not even on topic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom