“Laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind,” Jefferson wrote in 1816. “As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstance, 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.”
The above quote appears on the Jefferson Memorial in Washington. It is used as a part of the argument made by Mark Kurlansky in an article entitled “Our Fathers Don’t Always Know Best,” which appeared in the Pilot. Kurlansky says that we spend too much time trying to figure out what the Founding Fathers intended, when, in fact, those we consider “Founding Fathers” were actually an elitist group of “sexist, slave-owning 18th century white men in wigs and breeches.”
There is no doubt that our country has had to deal with change. Abolition of slavery and the extension of the right to vote to women were two such major changes our country has dealt with. Whenever I read about those who want to interpret the constitution as it was originally written, I am reminded of these two critical issues, among others. Would those people who want a strict interpretation of the constitution rather we go back to those early days? Is it really their intention that blacks be slaves and that women have no rights? How, exactly, do we put the top back on the bottle when the genie is already out?
The great experiment that is the United States of America is, I believe, organic, ever changing in the face of new information, new ideas. If we want this country to reach its potential, we must be willing to adapt.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
I love how you pick and choose. When they favor things you agree with, they were brilliant. When they favor things you don’t, they aren’t.
You don’t seem to mind quoting the 18th century writings of those “sexist, slave-owning 18th century white men in wigs and breeches” when the issue is religion and politics, as seen by your post just a few days ago.
That was his characterization, which is why it is in quotes, and is a part of HIS argument. Did you even bother reading the attached article before making such an accusation?
Further, I believe I linked to the current Virginia constiution that contains the information regarding the separation of church and state.
Finally, I think it is quite clear that a strict interpretation of the constitution – especially in light of the changes that I have mentioned – is not something that I believe is appropriate.
I thought conservatives were supposed to be an “attack the message not the messenger” group?
Vivian, no offence, but if my comments are what you call an attack, it is you who must’ve not read the article.
And what an author! I certainly wouldn’t look for political analysis from the guy who offered the world such scholarly work as “Salt: A World History” and “Cod: A Biography of the Fish That Changed the World.”
Why didn’t you pull this jewel from his article? “The U.S. offers the worst health care program, one of the worst public school systems and the worst benefits for workers.”
Do you agree with that?
He whines about America and the “rut” we are in, and how much better the economies of Europe are (yeah, he’s a brilliant economist who happens to disagree with every actual economist in the world).
And he waxes eloquently about American Indians as if George Washington was Hitler. I was waiting for him to blame Benjamin Franklin for global warming.
He’s a flake.
Interesting topic. In defense of the Founding Fathers you have to look at their views in context. Even though many were slave-holders who denied women the right to vote; by almost any measure their attitudes were progressive for their day.
The simple fact that there were very open-debates about slavery during the Constitutional Convention suggest that many of the Founders followed their reasoning to its logical conclusion. Expedience trumped principle in the case of slavery and end result was the bloodiest war in our history.
If you read the Notes from the Constitutional Convention (compiled from James Madison’s notes); or the Federalist Papers (Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison)–it’s hard not to have tremendous respect for the deliberation and good-faith that these leaders and thinkers brought to the debate. These reads are incredibly demanding, but also tremendously rewarding. I doubt that anyone could come away from reading these books without having a much greater appreciation for what these guys accomplished in the late 1780s.
As far the living Constitution versus strict Constructionist attitudes go, my take is that you have to look first to the Founders intent. When you’re talking about issues such as separation of powers, or the concept of co-equal branches of government–the Founders arguments are still light years ahead of those who rail against an indepedent judiciary with lifetime appointments.
On a number of issues–abortion, uses of symbolic speech (e.g. flag burning)–the Founders are completely silent. A strict constructionist view only takes you so far–and no one–not even the so-called strict constructionists apply their philosophy consistently (e.g. Gore v. Bush 2000 doesn’t even come close to passing a strict constructionist smell test–even though Scalia voted with the “activist” majority).
I agree with your point that the Great Experiment is organic and ever changing. At the same time, I firmly believe that you have to fully understand what you’re discarding before you discard it (something that the Bush administration should heed in reference to signing statements and its NSA programs). You have to look to history and learn from both the successes and failures of the past. It’s always important to view ideas and actions in context.
BTW, there’s a company in Chantilly, VA, called the Teaching Company which produces some excellent audio and video lecture series on these topics (e.g. “History of the Supreme Court” by Prof. Peter Irons of the University of San Diego and another one called “American Ideals” by Prof. Daniel Robinson from Oxford U). They’re at http://www.teach12.com.
Insider – I have no idea why you think that my linking to an article somehow means that I agree with every word of it. The article merely provides a discussion point.
JTPERP – Slavery & women’s rights were the two examples that came to mind as I was writing. No doubt the founders were men of their time, the key being “their time.” I do not impose 21st century standards on them; I only point out that if the Constitution were static, we would not have ever ended slavery nor would we have women’s rights.
I really do think that Jefferson (and the others) understood that there would be situations that they could not anticipate.
Vivian, I suspect we are largely in agreement.
It’s also worth noting that I agree with Kurlansky’s argument as a matter of principle (we have not fulfilled our potential as a nation; we have not fully lived up to our ideals). Although I think his argument suffers from an oversimplified view of history.
The Founding Fathers were “the establishment” in only in a very limited sense. In relation to the English parliament they were not. In relation to women and some minority groups they were. In relation to some of their fellow colonists they were and they were not (the colonial governments were elective–although limited to land-holding men).
Unlike Kurlansky I also wouldn’t invoke Robespierre’s example unless it was as a cautionary tale against the excesses of revolutionary zeal (the contrast between the French and American Revolutions is a very instructive exercise). In the case of Steinbeck, I admire him as a novelist, not as a political thinker.
“The great experiment that is the United States of America is, I believe, organic, ever changing in the face of new information, new ideas. If we want this country to reach its potential, we must be willing to adapt.”
That’s a good point Vivian. What concerns me is that the current White House residents prefer regression not adaptation. I surely don’t want any structural changes to our constitution or our government with the current puppets of the global corporate elitists running the show.
JPTERP – I think we are in agreement. To me, Kurlanksy’s op-ed was designed to get people thinking, even if the details were a bit skimpy.
Mosquito – you and I agree.
The Founding Fathers were possibly the best you could get in the 1700s, and they cannot be blamed for what is going on today. I doubt had they had a crystal ball before them , that they would have done things the same.
I dont think the Constitution ought to be adheared to rigidly, we are the custodians of today, we have to remember these people were only human.
I persanally see a safer course with proportional representation in a democracy, each vote counting, than all the power in a handful of men, who, we have no idea are representing our wishes or not.
John – I agree they could not have possibly forseen what his going on today. All the more reason for us to interpret the constitution based on today instead of trying to figure out what they meant as it applies to today.
Proportional representation is an interesting concept.
If you interpret the laws, as they were originally understood by the legislative bodies who passed them – i.e., the doctrine of original understanding – you do NOT end up with slavery. That is a favorite red herring argument used by critics of the original intent / original understanding school of jurisprudence.
This is particularly the case with slavery and the original Constitution. The delegates to the Constitutional Convention were very careful NOT to endorse slavery and not to imply that slavery was officially sanctioned by the Constitution — so careful, in fact, that they avoided using the term “slavery” in the original Constitution.
Most of the signers of the Constitution were against slavery. In fact, most of the Founding Fathers (including – interestingly and ironically – many slaveowning Founders) were opposed to slavery.
The Founding Fathers were a generation of men that grew up into and inherited a society that practiced race-based slavery. The first slave ships came to Jamestown several generations BEFORE Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison, et al were born! Remember that. It was the founding generation that began to take steps to UNDO slavery.
As Abraham Lincoln so eloquently and CORRECTLY argued in the 1850s and 60s, the Founding Fathers hated slavery and put it on the “road to ultimate extinction.” The Founding Fathers did that!
Sadly, the cotton gin came along – and the Deep South veered off the Founders’ vision to gradually abolish slavery. And North and South grew apart — and, well, the rest is history.
Also…anyone who categories the Founding Fathers as “sexist, slave-owning 18th century white men in wigs and breeches” is either being deliberately manipulative and provocative for seedy purposes – OR is displaying a shallow, superficial intellect and a vindictive spirit unworthy of publication in a mainstream newspaper. His writings should never get beyond bathroom graffiti – they warrant no more respect and attention than that.
As I understand it, the first slaves were brought into what is now modern day Norfolk in 1620, so yes, that would be prior to Jefferson, et al. I’m not so sure that the founding fathers – most of whom were slave owners – did intend that “all men are created equal” included black men, the notes on your blog nothwithstanding. And while the US stop the importation of slaves, Virginia, whose soil was not suited for the growth of cotton, became one of the main breeders of slaves, which were sold down south. If I recall correctly, slaves became Virginia’s cash crop.
No doubt the author of the original article used the terms that he used in order to catch people’s attention.