Our Heritage: The Constitution and Our Founding Fathers
I admire many aspects about the founders and the constitution. With that said, I still acknowledge that the founder’s vision with our founding documents failed.
This is hard for many modern Americans to see, because we have been brought up to believe that everything about the founding was noble, just, and in some outrageous cases, even directed by God.
We are taught from a young age that the founders were political geniuses, the founding documents were flawless, and it’s simply the fault of the people if either don’t work.
While I believe the founders were both genuine and noble in their pursuit of the founding documents, they are not particularly good documents.
They didn’t serve a useful function for very long. Our system only lasted about 80 years before we had a civil war that resulted in the budding formation of our current American Empire.
The republic died in 1861. What we have now is an empire holding up a corpse in the image of a constitutional republic.
The true “founding republic” that the founders created only lasted from 1776 to 1861. If we count only when the constitution was in force, it would be from late 1787 to 1861. 85 versus 74 years. Either way, not a lengthy stretch of time.
The 1861 figure is often debated, but it is obvious if you take it in full context. If you have a handful of states that demand full obedience from the other states through the domination of the federal government, and the other states cannot leave under any circumstances, that is not a republic. That is an empire where one nation dominates another. It does not matter how kind they are to the other demographic. The Romans did not have a republic with the outside city-states that they conquered and destroyed; they were subjugated states. The republic only existed internally for one group. That is what happened to the U.S. within the first century of the founding.
Some people get murky on this, but think of it on a smaller scale. Imagine that we have four people living together in a house. We decide to use a republican system to decide on the chores. You and I are on the fun pro-republic side. The other two are also happy in the republic, but mostly want more power over us, so they don’t have to do as many chores. The other two people have used some cunningness to secure dominance over everything we do using our newfound republican system. We say that’s not fair, but they say too bad. We say we’re going to leave, so they slit my throat and hold you hostage at gunpoint. Does that seem like a free state republic? Did either of us have any real “state rights”? We had the right to obey the system, even if it was corrupted, but that’s about it.
The constitution incentivizes this kind of corrupt power-grabbing, because it leaves much power noncentralized. Thus, it is able to be centralized by whoever does so first. So, all parties know that whoever acquires the power first gets to use it permanently. This is what the North did.
This is a game theory dilemma, where the situation may be better if neither use it, but the situation comes with a near guarantee it will be done by both parties given enough time.
Even giving those 85ish years is iffy, considering the North was plotting to secede themselves far earlier, but held off for various reasons.
Our founding documents did not last long after the founders themselves left power. It was great while we had them at the helm, but the real test of the success of a political system comes after it’s handed off to the next generation. In our case, that transition was a complete disaster.
We don’t recognize those facts right now, because we live under the failed system. And it is useful for the ruling class to keep the charade going. So, everyone keeps telling us that the founding was the greatest thing ever and we just need to “get back to it”. But when history looks back on us, they will recognize that the founding documents only lasted those 80 some years before failure. Just like the Romans still thought they had a people-driven republican government far into what we now consider their empire stage. Augustus walked a fine line to keep the different classes happy, even though he was, without a doubt, an emperor.
What is more troubling is the further we degenerate, the further the worship of these founders and the founding documents become. This occurs mostly with neocons on the Right, but it pops up when convenient for leftists.
Many people even believe the documents were “divinely inspired”. I do not understand how anyone can believe that, unless they have never read them and have no concept of our true history.
But this degeneration is even evident in religious spheres: For instance, the Mormon religious cult (a spiritual degeneration of Christianity) actually preaches that God “established [the constitution] for the rights and protection of all flesh”. You really can’t make this stuff up. It’s like these people haven’t read the original document before the amendments were written. It wasn’t exactly the most friendly document to all peoples, but that’s what people seem to believe nowadays.
The most hilarious part of the “divine inspiration” belief is that those same people that believe the documents are divinely driven are usually the same people who strongly favor equal rights, direct election of senators, blacks being counted as a full person for census purposes, women voting, Indians being considered humans instead of “merciless savages”, etc. Which the original “divinely inspired” documents disallowed. God just likes to shift positions, I guess.
I greatly hope those documents were not divinely inspired, because if they were, the divines don’t know how to sustain a system for very long. We have much bigger things to worry about if that is the case.
This general admiration arising from a nostalgia of the constitution for the first two centuries of our founding has morphed under modernity into a literal cult-worship of the documents.
But, what else do you expect with degeneration?
The same is now occurring with the founders. On the Right, this is most notably seen with the neocon’s fetish of Lincoln and comparing him to George Washington.
My position is that the founders were noble in their goals but were unsuccessful in their endeavor. The constitution and other founding documents did not hold up. The anti-federalists made very good points that went unheeded.
They are not the worst documents ever written, but they do not deserve particular admiration, either.
Padraig Martin of Identity Dixie had a good article on the constitution in particular:
IS THE CONSTITUTION GOOD?
The United States Constitution, a document finalized on September 17th, 1787, and fully ratified on May 29th, 1790, is one of the greatest political documents of all time. It is, by far, the most significant codification of rights outside of the Bible. It led to the creation of a federal union of independent countries to form a galvanized block, ostensibly designed to work toward common cause. Today, the Constitution is often viewed as sacrosanct by the American political Right. Note, I did not state the Dissident Right. Instead, I am referring to those Americans who still maintain some level of confidence in the political mechanisms of a democratic republic. Yet, despite the inarguable position that the Constitution is a great document having led to the formation of a great country, I think it is worth exploring whether or not the Constitution is “good.” It is my personal opinion that the Constitution is not good. This article explains my position.
To begin, I must define “great” and “good” in the context of this discussion. When I refer to the term “great,” I mean something of enormity and importance. It is not necessarily an endorsement or praise that I wish to convey. When I say, “God is great,” I mean He is both larger than our human comprehension and excellent in a manner that exceeds good. I both recognize God’s power and I praise Him. I am not saying that about the Constitution. Rather, I am recognizing the profound influence and construct of a seminal document drafted to establish the boundaries of the government and the freedoms of those who empower the government. The definition of “good,” is one that refers to the Constitution’s ability to achieve the objects of its intended purpose. I believe it is abundantly clear in 2022 that the Constitution has failed that purpose. That is not good.
The failures of the Constitution are multifaceted and deserve exploration. It is important to remind the reader that the Constitution was not a document drafted to endure modernity. It was designed to be destroyed by it. It did this through the amendment process and executive authority system.
In sum, I believe the Constitution is a great document. It is well intentioned. It is also deeply flawed. The Constitution will collapse.
The Constitution failed to codify provisions necessary to protect the status quo. It is too malleable and thus easily manipulated by political winds. There are almost no provisions that are designed to hold elected officials accountable to the document itself, let alone unelected officials. The impeachment process – a procedure that was reserved for egregious crimes, not petty political disputes – is too weak in some areas. It was designed to be hard to execute. The last Congress proved that was no longer the case, based on the target of their impeachment – twice.
The reality of the Constitution is that it is a document that attempted to transcend ethnic origin, but neither race nor sex. It was designed for White men during an era when the social compact was understood, as was moral hazard. Its concepts on liberty and freedom are far too complicated for simpler peoples led by impulse and emotions. It is too high brow, making it a document that is not designed for the current electorate. It was created for a people that are being rapidly replaced. The Constitution fails because it was not designed to protect those people and consequently, it was not designed to survive. Therefore, the Constitution, on its own, is not good.
It’s a pretty great article that hits on numerous key problems with the constitution. They are certainly hundreds more problems with it (and the declaration of independence and future constitutional amendments), but Mr. Martin picks up on some essentials.
I agree with the author in that the constitution and the Founders were definitely well-intentioned. But the final product was not what it should have been, which is why it couldn’t even sustain our states for a single century.
This is a harsh lesson, and one that no one on the Right wants to hear. But it has to be said. If we are ever going to create a better system, one that could successfully last for longer than a century, we have to recognize and address these problems. We can’t ignore them or whisk them away using patriotism, pride, or nostalgia. Our country has fallen, and we have to accept that so we may build a new stronger version that we can be proud of and that can save our people.
We can’t keep clinging to past dreams. We must go forward.
Republics thousands of years ago lasted longer and with far less degeneration, so if we are using any benchmark, ours is simply not that great.
This does not need to reflect on the people. Remember the Three Essentials: nation (people), soul (the people’s spirit), and system (the political framework). The system is not a reflection on the people. Our system may not be great, but our people and their soul was once great, and can be again.
But it will take a revolution to get us there.
Read Next: We Cannot Operate Like The Leftists
If you enjoyed this article, bookmark the website and check back often for new content. New articles most weekdays.
You can also keep up with my writing by joining my monthly newsletter.
Help fight the censorship – Share this article!