Talk:Founding Fathers

	This United States politics related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Ack

Ack. Ack...so much wrong...ack. Researcher 23:54, 14 November 2007 (EST)

Eh, well, you fixied, so, so much better now! Thanks! human 01:25, 15 November 2007 (EST)

Perhaps a mention that most of them were freemasons? Totnesmartin 05:46, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

Shhhhhh! ħuman 21:34, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Rule #1: We don't talk about the Freemasons' Club. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 21:38, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Damn, that's what I meant to say :) ħuman 23:06, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Leotardo, I didn't delete your text, you idiot. I rearranged it. Look at the whole diff. ħuman 03:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, idiot, I know, that's why I'm reverting - it looks completely stupid to have lists start an article, particularly when you haven't given any sense of the significance of the lists. I thought the edit summary spelled that out, but apparently it went over your head. You deciding to move something is not "cleanup" as much as you making an editorial choice. "Cleanup" infers you had to fix my errors. --Leotardo (talk) 03:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Nah, you just suck at playing with others. I had to start the talk page comments here and at that other place you are endlessly reverting. I was "cleaning up" because there were probably typos you ignored in your reversion. It's your opinion that the ordering sucked, just as it was my opinion that it was better the other way. You simply argued by reverting, rather than coming here to make your point. The fact is, I suspect, you want your meandering section ab out some guy no one has ever heard of to come first. Other people might think listing a few well-known "mommies and daddies" shoudl come first. Chances are, both/all three sections should simply go bye bye. ħuman 03:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I've only had an issue with you, and that doesn't seem out of the ordinary around here. Oh, the burden you bear, having to create talk pages, clean-up typos and deal with all the people who just can not get things write. Oh woe, what a burden you have. If you want the changes as you propose, get someone else to agree with you, but they don't make a lot of sense from an organizational or an educational standpoint. You can easily replace Iredell with any number of other people--be my guest!--to point out that the founding fathers includes a lot of people. I thought that illustrated it nicely, but the idea of just getting rid of it is pretty dumb, particularly given what the article looked like before. The lists themselves make clear they were randomly thrown on there. --Leotardo (talk) 04:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with Leotardo on the lists issue. They need an introduction or they don't flow well at all. And Human, you're not really someone who should get huffy about others not playing well, you know? --Kels (talk) 04:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, Kels, I agree, the problem is the article is highly unfocussed. Anyway, my last edit left the section order the same as Leotardo prefers, leaving his section about some guy first. As far as the second point, I may have had issues with virtually everyone here at one time or another, but that is the price to pay for active editing over some time. What I get tired of is Leotardo simply reverting any edit he doesn't like to his edits. Etc. Etc. ħuman 04:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

George Carlin?

I kinda skimmed that reference about invoking the original founders on the Seven Dirty Words skit, and I can see lots of references to the Constitution but nothing about originalism. Can someone enlighten me how the ref backs it up? --Kels (talk) 03:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Good source

http://www.npiamerica.org/research/category/what-the-founders-really-thought-about-race 151.80.56.16 (talk) 10:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Terrorism

The Founding Fathers and Patriots by definition were violent non-state actors that engaged in political violence against civilian targets. That's called terrorism. Ergo we should categorize them as terrorists because by definition that's what they were. Terrorism isn't a snarl word in this context, or if we're going to classify terrorism as a snarl word then we should remove it from the other articles as well. Either be consistent or don't. Carthage (talk) 19:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Actually we cover this. Terrorist / Freedom Fighter. It's a bit in the eye of the beholder.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Not all the "Founding Fathers" engaged in political violence against civilian targets, as far as I know. So to me, this is a problematic tag to add, particularly with zero context in the article. Basically, some pre-war revolutionary organizations like the Sons of Liberty could arguably be described as a terrorist organization in modern terms (enough so that the Encyclopedia Britannica notes such [1]), and a fair number of Founding Fathers were also in Sons of Liberty (eg Samuel Adams). However, I see no evidence that others in this group (such as Thomas Jefferson or Benjamin Franklin) engaged in this sort of activity. So if we're going to include this tag (I personally don't think it quite fits), I think an explanation is called for. BobJohnson (talk) 20:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

As a group they engaged in and called for violence against civilian targets. Thomas Jefferson notably endorsed the Reign of Terror, applauding the drenching of the French streets in the "blood of tyrants". I don't really think this is a problematic addition, nor do I really think that terror tactics are automatically a bad thing. If you're a resistance movement fighting against an established power you need to level the playing field somehow. Carthage (talk) 20:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Do you happen to be Alexander Hamilton? A somebody. (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

No, this is a blatantly ridiculous category to add. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 20:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Care to qualify that statement? The Founding Fathers by definition were terrorists (violent non-state actors that engaged in or advocated for political violence against civilians). Carthage (talk) 20:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Uh, no they weren't? Even if I bought the Sons of Liberty argument, most of the Founding Fathers were not party to that organization. And the Founding Fathers were state actors after 1776. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 20:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it is up to the person adding the category to add some citations instead of the other way around. Almost no one in the lay public thinks that the Founding Fathers are terrorists, so if you're just going to add a category without any supporting text (with citations) that describes why they should be "terrorists", well, people will just go "what the fuck?" and dismiss the article as extremist crank. BobJohnson (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

They weren't internationally recognized. If we're to go off of self-declared statehood then by that metric Hamas isn't a terrorist entity either, as they too are a self-proclaimed entity with political power. 1776 is also an arbitrary cut-off date, since the Patriots were engaging in political violence prior to that date. Also what exactly is unreasonable about the definitional fact that the Patriots engaged in non-state political violence? Also seriously, an argument from popularity? "No one in the public seriously thinks that x" isn't a refutation, it's a handwave. Intimidation of local officials, incitements of riots, purging of political dissidents (the loyalists) etc were all activities engaged in by the Founding Fathers/Patriots and are typically associated with terrorism in the modern day. To say that this somehow isn't terrorism is special pleading. Also, college courses are also discussing the Founding Fathers as engaging in terrorism. Carthage (talk) 21:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

In a roundabout way, you actually sort of stumbled into the potential issue with these claims: The College Fix is a US conservative publication who seems to engage in the usual partisan rag nutpicking in order to paint schools as evil liberal commies or something.

Generally speaking, reading around, I don't think even the Sons of Liberty fit very well into the terrorism category. There is no definite consensus on the term of course, but in general "terrorism" is used when the primary activity of the organization's campaign is terrorizing civilians. Such doesn't even describe Sons of Liberty very well, let alone the Founding Fathers; the primary activity for both was a military campaign (however guerrilla it might be) against the British. BobJohnson (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

By that argument many of the organizations we categorize as terrorist groups aren't terrorists either. Hamas and the PLO fight for Palestinian independence. Shining Path for a socialist revolution in Peru. The IRA for an independent, socialist Ireland. Terror tactics are just that, tactics. It shouldn't be a snarl word. Carthage (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, Carthage seems to be twisting history and making up analysis to fit George Washington into the same moral category as Hamas. This, combined with the "terrorism isn't necessarily bad" statement, is dishonest and frankly disturbing behavior. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 21:53, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

How am I making up history? This is poisoning the well. You know, a logical fallacy. Was the Sullivan expedition not an act of terror against the Haudenosaunee? Were the tarring and feathering of colonial officials not acts of political violence? Was the violent oppression of Loyalists not an act of revolutionary terror? When you can't refute an argument, resort to fear, uncertainty, and doubt. The Founding Fathers sought to violently change the political status quo of the Thirteen Colonies. Our own article defines terrorism as "having a political motivation." It also says that "you can also classify any national liberation movement you don't like as terrorism" (slight paraphrasing). Carthage (talk) 21:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Your standard for what constitutes terrorism is ridiculous and would lead to basically every non state militant organization being termed as terrorists. Nobody else agrees with this fringe garbage idea. You are being unhinged with this. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

That's an ethical objection, not a scientific one. The Founding Fathers were flawed and violent extremists that founded a nation-state through acts of political terror and insurgency and only became a standing army with foreign assistance. By definition they were terrorists. Considering them to be sacred cows is an inherently irrational take. Just because the Founding Fathers were extremists doesn't mean that the US as a state is tarred by that affiliation anymore than the fact that Israel was founded by acts of political terror as well, or Ireland for that matter. "Your terrorists are our freedom fighters" and all that. Carthage (talk) 22:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ No, your tiresome insistence aside, they were not terrorists. And you’re obviously not going to get a consensus to add that category. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, you haven't given any substantial reasons as to why they weren't terrorists besides special pleading and ethical objections. Also, obviously I'm not gonna get a consensus here, but it's not as academically unfounded an idea as you might think. I'll go ahead and add that the Sons of Liberty engaged in behavior we today would consider terroristic if that's an acceptable compromise. Carthage (talk) 22:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah that’d be fine. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)