The Misanthropy of the Founding Fathers

In today’s society most people tend to think of the Founding Fathers as near perfect individuals who, with idealism in their hearts, created the American Republic. This erroneous view has lead to the creation of populist fringe groups, such as the Tea Party movement, that stress what they believe are the core principles of the Founding Fathers and the concept of small government. These groups’ viewpoints couldn’t be further from the truth.

An example of the Tea Party Movement

Many of the Founding Fathers had a deep distrust of mankind as a whole and wanted to create a government with strong checks and balances to prevent mob rule. Some of the founding father’s, such as Ben Franklin, followed the philosophy of Hume who believed that “every man ought to be supposed a knave, and to have no other end, in all his actions, than private interest.” 

Another Founding Father, Hamilton, said that “Take mankind as they are, and what are they governed by? Their passions. There may be in every government a few choice spirits, who may act from more worthy motives. One great error is that we suppose mankind more honest than they are. Our prevailing passions are ambition and interest; and it will ever be the duty of wise government to avail itself of those passions, in order to make them subservient to the public good.” Hamilton’s viewpoint is that it is foolish to trust in the goodness of mankind and that it is more realistic to suppose that mankind is inherently governed by ambition and greed.

Alexander Hamilton

The Founding Fathers believed that in order to set up a stable and effective government it was important to limit the power of the common man. One of the examples of this was the fact that Senators were not elected by the people of the state they were from, but instead by state legislators. 

Another example of the Founding Fathers’ distrust in mankind was the setting up the Electoral College. Instead of having the President elected by a popular vote, the President was elected through the electoral college. The Electoral College is something that is still used to this day and still a hot topic, as seen in the 2000 Presidential Election where Al Gore won the popular vote but supposedly lost the Electoral vote. The Founding Fathers believed that by limiting the power of the common citizen they could prevent a situation where mob rule prevailed.

George W. Bush has the Founding Fathers to thank for his presidency

I tend to believe that the Founding Fathers, who had incredible faults of their own, where incredibly wise in their assessment of mankind. It is my personal belief that humans are inherently untrustworthy, greedy, and have their own interests above that of other people. By not trusting in the people of the United States the Founding Fathers created an institution that has survived to the present day. If the people were given too much power with their voting rights a dictator or oligarchy may well have eventually been swept into power. By limiting the power of the people in choosing their government the Founding Fathers forged a lasting institution that has survived relatively unscathed to the present day. This is a remarkable accomplishment considering the Founding Fathers formed America nearly two and a half centuries ago. 

Liberal vs. Conservative Interpretations of the Constitution

The Signing of the Constitution

Two of the main schools of thought on Constitutional Law scholarship that are still relevant to this day are the Conservative and Liberal schools of thought.

The Conservative school of thought tends to believe that when trying to interpret the Constitution it is important to emphasize the beliefs that the Founding Fathers had at the time of the signing of the Constitution. The Conservative school of thought also tends to have a stricter interpretation of the wording of the Constitution and believes in limited government. It would not be stretch to say that Conservatives tend to see the Constitution as a Bible, with the Founding Fathers as prophets. Conservatives tend to view so-called “activist judges,” that is judges that have a set agenda, with scorn and distrust.

An example of the deification of the Founding Fathers

The Liberal interpretation of the Constitution tends to be more flexible and open to interpretation. Liberals tend to see the Constitution as a living document, that is something that can evolve and change with the times. The Liberal school of thought also stresses the importance of individual liberties and has faith in the judicial system.

Liberals stress the importance of civil liberties

There are strengths and weaknesses to both schools of thought, but I tend to believe that the Liberal interpretation is the better one. The Conservative school of thought tends to idolize the Founding Fathers too much, to the point where the Founding Fathers undergo the process of deification. Conservatives tend to forget that the Constitution is a document that was not written by Prophets, but by regular men who had flaws. Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and other Founding Fathers were slave owners and far from perfect as human beings. 

The Founding Fathers, such as Thomas Jefferson, were complex figures in American history

This idolization of the past is dangerous since it prevents the evolution of our country from taking place. I find that the deification of the Founding Fathers in itself is an extremely dangerous interpretation not just of the Constitution, but history in general. By believing that America is the “city upon the hill” it leads people to believe they are superior to others and ferments the idea of American Exceptionalism. This belief in turn leads to the resentment of other countries who do not appreciate when America acts superior to that of other countries. 

The problems caused by the deification of the Founding Fathers

The Liberal school of thought is a more valid interpretation since it sees the Constitution as something that must be more interpreted as time goes by. The society of today is vastly different from the times of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution should be viewed differently for different eras. 

A Critique of Doris Kearns Goodwin’s Speech

Doris Kearns Goodwin

On Tuesday night, February 7, I attended a speech by Doris Kearns Goodwin at Aurora University. Doris Kearns Goodwin authored the book “Team of Rivals” about Lincoln and has written on Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Baines Johnson. Goodwin’s book “Team of Rivals” has greatly influenced President Obama in his political thought and is currently being made into a movie. 

I expected that the speech would be yet another boring academic speech by a dreary intellectual who only wanted to sell more of their latest book. Although Goodwin did sell her books at the event I was pleasantly surprised to find out that the speech was extremely interesting. Goodwin was able to effectively engage her audience with amusing and hilarious anecdotes about past presidents. More than finding it just amusing I walked away from the speech with a greater intellectual understanding of history and a better person for it.

A Promo Picture for the new movie based on "Team of Rivals." Here is Daniel Day Lewis as Abraham Lincoln.

One thing that struck me about the speech was her description of Lincoln and his spiritual beliefs. At a very young age Lincoln lost his mother and this incident affected his outlook on life. On his mother’s deathbed she told Lincoln that she would never see him again, even in the afterlife. This pessimistic view of the afterlife affected Lincoln and he struggled to find meaning in what his mother described as a meaningless world. Goodwin recounted that Lincoln eventually believed that by making a mark on history he could live long after he was gone in the memories of others. This belief led Lincoln to try to become a great figure who would be remembered for ages to come, something that he succeeded in brilliantly. The idea that if someone makes a mark on history they can live long past they have died is greatly appealing for a agnostic like myself. This thought makes me want to strive to do great things and be remembered for something in my life.

Another aspect of Goodwin’s speech that I found appealing was her emphasis on historical narrative. Goodwin talked abut the importance of being able to write well as a historian. Her advice on trying to forget how a historical event ends was very useful in that it allows the writer to tell of an event in an exciting way since they do not know how it will end.

Overall the speech by Goodwin was one of the most entertaining and intellectually enlightening speeches I have ever attended and I greatly look forward to reading and critiquing "Team of Rivals."

Different Teaching Styles

For a recent class assignment we were all asked to visit the exhibit “Lincoln, the Constitution, and the Civil War,” and teach aspects of the exhibit to a class. This assignment was interesting not in the way that I personally taught it, but in the way others taught the topic. Teaching can be very hard and making it interesting to students is itself a daunting challenge. Every person presenting in class had a different method of teaching. My method was to primarily use Lincoln’s quotes on certain issues to illustrate how he felt about the issues. Some people had mostly fact-based presentations like myself. Others had more interactive lessons planned for the class. One presentation in particular stood out in which the presenter asked us as a class to assemble a large amount of dates during the Civil War and match them to events that took place in the War. This activity was fun and engaged the whole class in the topic, while also teaching about the different events that took place during the Civil War. I realize now that although I am still proud of my presentation, it could have benefited by including more class interaction with the topics I covered. 

A Critique of "Lincoln's Constitution" and the Importance of Historical Narrative

Daniel Farber's book "Lincoln's Constitution" is a book that deals with Lincoln's response to the Civil War and the Constitutional powers he used. Farber makes good use of sources in his book, while also formulating a clear opinion on Lincoln's use of Constitutional powers during the Civil War. Farber’s opinion is that Lincoln was largely justified in his use of wartime powers and that his actions kept the Union together.

One glaring fault of Farber’s book is his failure to incorporate historical narrative into it. Historical narrative is a way to make historical writing more interesting by trying to tell a story using historical facts. Farber’s writing comes off mostly as stiff and impersonal, making no effort at all to entertain the audience. If Farber’s goal was to write a well-researched take on Lincoln and the Constitution he succeeded. But if Farber’s goal was to entertain an audience he failed. If Farber wrote using the methods of historical narrative he could have reached a much larger audience that would be able to absorb his opinions on Lincoln. As it stands, “Lincoln’s Constitution” is a book that would make an excellent source for a paper, but is woefully lacking the entertainment value of say a Jon Meacham. That is someone who can get his or her point across to a larger audience while being entertaining at the same time. 

The Importance of Martial Law During the Civil War

The Battle of Gettysburg

During the Civil War there were many instances where martial law was used to maintain order by Union forces. Martial law is where the military takes over for local government in administrating justice and order. After the fall of Fort Sumter Lincoln instituted martial law in order to prevent the spread of chaos across the country. It is important to note that the forms of martial law differed across the country during the Civil War.

At the start of the Civil War there was a great fear, with much justification, of Confederate saboteurs and spies. Southern sympathizers brought upon riots, saboteurs destroyed bridges, and Southern sympathizers restricted the movement of Union forces. With the institution of martial law in the North, along with the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, Lincoln was able to hold the Union together. In the North it was primarily draft dodgers and army deserters who were incarcerated under martial law, and not dissidents.

The institution of martial law by Union forces in Southern states differed from the North’s institution of it in that it was much harsher. As Union forces captured Southern areas and cities such as New Orleans there was a great need for order. The residents of areas like New Orleans were understandably upset at having their city captured by the enemy and used different forms of disobedience against the Union troops. After the fall of New Orleans in May of 1862 Union troops were routinely spit upon by Southern women and treated horribly. General Butler responded to this with harsh measures that demanded that the citizens of New Orleans treated Union soldiers with respect. One of these measures was the execution of a dissident who tore down an American flag. Another measure was General Butler’s proclamation that women not treating Union troops with respect were to be treated as prostitutes. In the South there were many more arrests than in the North due to the fear that Union forces felt for their own lives.

The actions of a Confederate saboteur

I personally believe that the implementation of martial law was largely justified. The Constitution does allow for the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, one aspect of the martial implemented, in cases of national crisis and rebellion. Seeing as the Civil War was one of our countries most trying and dangerous times it was fitting that martial law was used to maintain order. Daniel Farber makes the point that it was ridiculous for the Sheriff of Gettysburg to respond to the march of Confederate forces on the area when he had no means to do so. With the implementation of martial law, the military was allowed to take over the local duties and keep the peace. In fact many cities, such as Philadelphia, requested for the government to institute martial law, due to their fear from Confederate forces near their areas.

New Orleans during the Civil War

Although I do agree that the implementation of martial law was necessary during the Civil War, I do not agree with the more recent violations of civil liberties by the U.S. government. These violations can be seen in the passing of the NDAA and the response to the events after 9-11 by the government. My reasoning for this condemnation is that although terrorism is a serious issue, it is not grave enough to justify the restriction of civil liberties. 

The times of the Civil War were critical for the country. Washington D.C. was very near Southern territory and there was a chance that if it was captured the Union would lose the War. In comparison to the Civil War, terrorism does not pose the threat of destroying the U.S. government and is less justifiable in the restriction civil liberties.