Interesting. Do you believe that the founding fathers were moral men?
They were moral men because they understood that morality was integrally linked to human nature, their own nature. When Jefferson said, "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." he wasn't talking magic. He meant something like this "We know that when a man gets hit in the face, it hurts him and we can identify with that hurt because we have mouths that are essentially like his. We humans, blacks, whites, Indians and others, are all in fact the same thing, and so we have the same essential rights. No one has the right to be master of anyone else." This was the essential philosophy driving the Founders. It is secular morality in a nutshell.
The problem with the idea was that it was born within a social and economic order that was patently immoral. The Founders knew it, admitted it outright, but were too afraid to make the changes to the social system their philosophy demanded. They tried to make these changes, but their attempts were too weak. They were not perfect men, but at least they understood and admitted the moral state around them, even setting the course for its eventual rectification. Modern Americans do nothing of the sort. They instead claim that what is fundamentally evil is in fact good and then they pass laws that attempt to affirm and codify their immorality, even forcing others to accept it.
Or that immoral men could "understand that morality was required", and set up a Constitution that required morality?
I think they were moral men, but flawed. For example, Jefferson, I believe, was deeply flawed, with a terribly weak character. I do indeed believe he slept with Hemings and fathered her children. We may, of course, make technical arguments against the evidence. But I think general historical standards support my view because the evidence is deep, stretching through time and its truth is now even shown probable through modern science. We believe other historical facts on far less information. Historians who claim this liason is 'out of Jefferson's moral possibility' are just lying to themselves to protect the Jeffersonian fantasy. If he could own Hemings, control her very person while also preaching against such a thing, he could definitely exploit her sexually, especially in his position. If he could teach against the wrongs of slavery and then give advice to friends as to how to conceal ownership of slaves, he could bend his principles to enjoy the sexual usages of his own slave. There are other indicators supporting a severe flaw in the Jeffersonian character. Jefferson was a known philanderer. Moreover, his behavior during the invasion of Benedict Arnold also shows how weak a character he was. I think when put under temptation, Jefferson would crumble precisely as has been claimed with the Hemings affair.
Nevetheless I honor Jefferson because of his moral philosophy, though it was imperfectly maintained in his own life. I can also identify with what he was up against. Hemings was apparently quite pretty, available and his property. Jefferson was also a heathen and a sensualist. I myself, while not a heathen, am a sensualist. I could certainly have been a philanderer - no doubt about it. I am faithful for one reason and one reason only, I swore on oath to God that I would be faithful to Him. Jefferson apparently did not have that benefit and I think his moral character suffered as a result (the same applies to increasing numbers of people today). But at least Jefferson had an intellectual grip on nature's morality, as incomplete as that morality is. He enshrined it in the Declaration and is therefore worthy of our honor. He, as with the other Founders, was a moral man, but with grave and fatal weaknesses. |
