![]() So what can we do to try to understand the views of the Founders? Do some research in primary sources. ![]() Q uotes, then, offer a very narrow window on the past. For example, a quote from Washington in 1754 is likely to be different to one from 1789. It is important to understand quotes in their historical context. So, the question is, which Washington should we listen to in 2022? The one from 1754, or the one from 1789? Sadly, the answer, all too often, is the one who agrees with us. In 1789, he was 57, a global celebrity, and the first president of the United States. In 1754, Washington was in his 20s, fighting in the Seven Years War as a loyal subject of King George III. Hartley who wrote (honest!), "the past is a foreign country they do things differently there." ![]() While there is both continuity and change over time, historians tend to agree with the writer L.P. We see ideas as the product of their time and place. Historians, however, are all about context. One of the potential pitfalls of original intent is that it can view ideas as timeless and unchanging. One legal philosophy in constitutional law is the concept of "original intent" - what did the Founders mean when they wrote the Constitution? Original intent draws a straight line from the founding period to the present in ways that invest the Founders' words with significant power to shape the future.Ĭherry-picking quotes to work out the original intent of the Founders is a different kind of historical misinformation. Why do we care so much about what the Founders said over two centuries ago? Hot button political issues are usually wrapped up in questions about the meaning of the Constitution. (You can read the entry about it here: /site/research-and-collections/strongest-reason-people-retain-right-keep-and-bear-arms-spurious.) The false quote above, for example, first appeared in print in 1989 and took on a life of its own in the 1990s. A librarian at Thomas Jefferson's Monticello, for example, has maintained a website of "spurious quotations" attributed to Jefferson for well over a decade. There are bona fide resources that are easily accessible online that track false quotations. If a politician invokes an authority from the past, be skeptical. H ow do we guard against the spread of historical misinformation? First, be suspicious. The danger to our political discourse, though, is that many of these fraudulent quotes are all too easy to believe when you're looking to confirm what you've already decided. You can easily shop around to find Washington or Theodore Roosevelt espousing a 21st century political cause that would have been completely unimaginable to them in their own time Alexander Hamilton did not go on the record about his views on cryptocurrency. ![]() Cyberspace is awash with bogus quotations from the Founders and other key historical figures, like Abraham Lincoln. The Internet, I think we've all learned over the past few years, is not the most reliable source. They begin with answers - their preferred political positions on an issue of the present-day - and then seek out a short, pithy quote from the Internet to help bolster their argument. Politicians (both the professional and the amateur variety) do the opposite. Serious scholars begin with questions and then seek answers in historical sources. It is the very opposite of what history should be. Invoking the words of key figures from the Founding period is a rhetorical strategy that aims to mobilize the intellectual giants of American history to support modern-day political positions. But they often don't particularly care if Jefferson, Madison or others actually wrote what they claim they did. Politicians, pundits and angry uncles all enjoy sharing quotes from the Founders.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |