Two hundred forty-four years after declaring its independence, the United States of America is the most powerful nation the world has ever known. The irony in that is that the Founding Fathers abhorred the concept of a standing army. That was one of three issues upon which they were short-sighted. The others being slavery, an issue they punted, expecting that “abominable institution” to eventually and mysteriously fade away; and the idea of political parties. They felt about as strongly in opposition to political parties as they did about standing armies.
In spite of their short-sightedness on those matters, the Founding Fathers created the great experiment in republican government that has been, at least until lately, a shining beacon for the hope of mankind. In spite of all the odds — and the odds were indeed stacked mightily against them — they created a marvel that has lasted nearly 2½ centuries, an experiment that put an end to monarchical rule and later overcame authoritarian despotism, just as Thomas Jefferson foretold. Looking back on how the Founding Fathers accomplished what they did, we can learn lessons vital to the sustainability of their great experiment.
As I view their struggles and achievements, I find two observations to which every American ought to give considerable contemplation. First is the folly of attempting to argue the meaning of the Constitution according to original intent. It is no accident that conservatives, liberals and libertarians all use the same document, even the same articles, to “prove” the Constitution supports their ideological stances. One must remember that except for agreeing on the need to split from Great Britain and agreeing to the language of the Constitution, the Founding Fathers agreed on almost nothing else. The founders could not even agree on the meaning of the very words they approved.
Virtually every contemporary issue of contention was born of the Founding Fathers’ generation. Our rural versus urban divide? Two hundred and forty-four years old. The partisan divide of their day sprung from the differing philosophies espoused by Jefferson and Hamilton? That divide remains today and is central to modern partisanship.
The only difference is that the Founding Fathers compromised to further their goals. A classic example is the dinner that Jefferson hosted for Hamilton and Madison to resolve the contentious issue of a central bank. Like Madison, Jefferson opposed such federal strength. But Jefferson realized that without compromise on that issue there would be no United States. Jefferson’s words should be required reading today; “In general I think it necessary to give as well as take in a government like ours.”
Thus, we come to the second lesson to be learned from our Founding Fathers. In spite of the fact they could agree on nearly nothing, in spite of deeply opposing ideologies, in spite of the fact that they trusted Washington, but not each other, they had an overarching goal and were not about to allow differences of opinion, no matter how deeply held, to stop them from reaching that goal.
Why did those who despised slavery — even slave owners such as Jefferson — bend to allow the South to keep their “peculiar institution” and allow slaves to count as three-fifths of a human being? Because without such a concession, there might be no United States of America. The founders knew that together such contentious issues could eventually be resolved.
There is no force, no nation on the globe that can destroy us. That power rests solely with the American people. If this great experiment is to die, it will do so with the blessing of the people. It will be because our leaders and the citizenry failed to learn the lessons of our Founding Fathers.
Michael Adkins formerly was chairman of the Hancock County Democratic Party.
