Which of the Framers and Signers of the Constitution Could Win The 2012 Republican Presidential Nomination? [75*5]

WHAT IS YOUR OPINION??

39 Men Signed The Proposed U.S. Constitution On 9/17/1787. Do You Think More Than 4 Have Enough of the Same Values as Conservatives to Win the Republican Presidential Nomination Today?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know/Don't Want to Vote
See results without voting

IMAGES OF THE PAST

Click thumbnail to view full-size
ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATIONINDEPENDENCE HALL, PHILADELPHIA, 1787U.S. CONSTITUTION, Page 1U.S. CONSTITUTION, Page 2U.S. CONSTITUTION, Page 3U.S. CONSTITUTION, Page 4U.S. CONSTITUTION, SIGNATURESCONGRESS HALL, PHILIDELPHIACONGRESS HALL, SENATE SIDECONGRESS HALL, HOUSE SIDECONGRESS, 1800PRESIDENT GEORGE WASHINGTON, NO PARTYPRESIDENT JOHN ADAMS, FEDERALISTPRESIDENT THOMAS JEFFERSON, REPUBLICAN-DEMOCRATPRESIDENT JAMES MADISON, FEDERALISTPRESIDENT GEORGE MASON, ANTI-FEDERALISTRICHARD HENRY LEE, ANTI-FEDERALISTPATRICK HENRY, ANTI-FEDERALISTROBERT YATES, ANTI-FEDERALISTS (wrote as BRUTUS)
ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION
ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION | Source
INDEPENDENCE HALL, PHILADELPHIA, 1787
INDEPENDENCE HALL, PHILADELPHIA, 1787 | Source
U.S. CONSTITUTION, Page 1
U.S. CONSTITUTION, Page 1 | Source
U.S. CONSTITUTION, Page 2
U.S. CONSTITUTION, Page 2 | Source
U.S. CONSTITUTION, Page 3
U.S. CONSTITUTION, Page 3 | Source
U.S. CONSTITUTION, Page 4
U.S. CONSTITUTION, Page 4 | Source
U.S. CONSTITUTION, SIGNATURES
U.S. CONSTITUTION, SIGNATURES | Source
CONGRESS HALL, PHILIDELPHIA
CONGRESS HALL, PHILIDELPHIA | Source
CONGRESS HALL, SENATE SIDE
CONGRESS HALL, SENATE SIDE | Source
CONGRESS HALL, HOUSE SIDE
CONGRESS HALL, HOUSE SIDE | Source
CONGRESS, 1800
CONGRESS, 1800 | Source
PRESIDENT GEORGE WASHINGTON, NO PARTY
PRESIDENT GEORGE WASHINGTON, NO PARTY | Source
PRESIDENT JOHN ADAMS, FEDERALIST
PRESIDENT JOHN ADAMS, FEDERALIST | Source
PRESIDENT THOMAS JEFFERSON, REPUBLICAN-DEMOCRAT
PRESIDENT THOMAS JEFFERSON, REPUBLICAN-DEMOCRAT | Source
PRESIDENT JAMES MADISON, FEDERALIST
PRESIDENT JAMES MADISON, FEDERALIST | Source
PRESIDENT GEORGE MASON, ANTI-FEDERALIST
PRESIDENT GEORGE MASON, ANTI-FEDERALIST | Source
RICHARD HENRY LEE, ANTI-FEDERALIST
RICHARD HENRY LEE, ANTI-FEDERALIST | Source
PATRICK HENRY, ANTI-FEDERALIST
PATRICK HENRY, ANTI-FEDERALIST | Source
ROBERT YATES, ANTI-FEDERALISTS (wrote as BRUTUS)
ROBERT YATES, ANTI-FEDERALISTS (wrote as BRUTUS) | Source

CONSERVATIVES AND TEA PARTY: SAY THEY ARE THE PARTY OF THE CONSTITUTION - ARE THEY REALLY?

I RECENTLY POSTED a series of hub questions asking whether hubbers felt that Thomas Jefferson, George Mason, Grover Cleveland, or Abraham Lincoln could win the 2012 Republican presidential nomination today. I haven't received that many answers yet, which is a bit surprising, but hopefully more will come in more the questions get lost in the miasma of hub questions. I feel it is an important set of questions because of where both the Conservatives and Tea Party see themselves as the defender of the U.S. Constitution ... as it was intended to mean when it was written.

One test of whether that is a legitimate characterization of themselves, or whether others should believe that of them, is their willingness to back the framers and signers of the U.S. Constitution for President, if they were alive today. The question I pose is if Conservatives like John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Eric Cantor; Tea Partyers like its founder Dick Armey and major players like Sarah Palin, Michelle Backmann, Rick Santorum, etc; or even Libertarians like Ron and Rand Paul would vote for the very people who had a major input into or signed the Constitution they say they are trying to protect and that those to their political left are trying to destroy.

Who are the people that I am talking about; the people responsible for the original Constitution and Bill of Rights. While I won't list them all, you can look them up here, these are the ones you are most likely to recognize:

  1. George Washington, VA
  2. John Adams, MA
  3. Thomas Jefferson, VA
  4. Benjamin Franklin, PA
  5. James Madison, VA
  6. Alexander Hamilton, NY

Other names you might recognize are Roger and Gouverneur Morris of PA, Charles and Charles C. Pickney of SC, John Blair of VA, and William Blount of NC. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were not at the Constitutional Convention and did not sign the Constitution because they were overseas on Ambassadorship duty.

So, looking at this list of six of the most famous writers of and contributors to the United States Constitution, which ones, dear reader, do you think Conservatives and Tea Party members would support for president as the nominee of their party? My guess is not a oneof them because, while there are aspects pf each person's political philosophy that will resonate with Conservatives and Tea Partyers, there are many more beliefs that do not. I would offer that each one in the current set of candidates at the CNN/Tea Party debate last Monday would beat any one of these six, hands down in a Conservative primary.

If this is, in fact, true, exactly how does this jibe with the Conservative and Tea Party claim of being the defenders of the Constitution? This is confusing to me. It is confusing because it makes no sense that they would want to defend a philosophical document, a liberal and revolutionary one at that, put together by a group of people whose basic philosophy the Conservatives and Tea Party members fundamentally disagree with.

Who do the Conservatives and Tea Party members agree with? I would suggest they agree with the founders who support a different document; people such as Patrick Henry, George Mason, Richard Henry Lee, all of Virginia; George Clinton and Robert Yates of New York (who attended but left the Constitutional Convention); and Samuel Byran of Pennsylvania. I believe each of these individuals could and would win the Republican nomination; especially George Mason for I would argue he is the architect of the Conservative/Tea Party political platform. What do all of these founding members of freedom from England, many of them were very instrumental in the success of the Revolution by the way, have in common? They were the leaders of the fight against the ratification of the U.S. Constitution and supporters of what the Constitution was replacing; the Articles of Confederation.

It is my theory that it is this document, the Articles of Confederation, that today's Conservatives and Tea Party members are trying protect, whether they realize it or not; it is this document, not the current Constitution, which incorporates all of the States Rights values they express in their debates and political speeches; it is this document to which they are desperately trying to resurrect by putting as many parts of a straight-jacket on the federal government as is within their power to do.

I will leave it there and look forward to the comments. More in another hub.

DID YOUR OPINION CHANGE?

Having considered the hub and the comments, did this change your opinion from the original Poll question at the top of this Hub?

  • No
  • Yes (from "Yes to No" or "No to Yes")
  • Yes (from "I Don't Know" to either "Yes or No")
See results without voting

More by this Author


Comments 5 comments

HSchneider 5 years ago from Parsippany, New Jersey

Excellent Hub My Estoteric. I especially like your including Grover Cleveland at the top of your article. I am currently reading a biography of Thomas Reed, who was Speaker of the House for a period in the 1890's and transformed the House rules. Grover was a man who the Tea Partiers would embrace fully and he was a Democrat. Of course the parties were diametrically different back then. I wonder if Tea Partiers even knew that Grover did not fit in with the Founding Father era. Your observation that the Tea Party would have sided with the anti-Constitution crowd is exactly correct. They feared any central government at all. Sounds to me Ron Paul, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, etc. would have fit right in with them. Actually the pro-Constitution crowd were the ones who thought in a revolutionary way and changed the government into a stronger and more cohesive group. Of course your nuanced assessment would be totally lost on the Tea Party crowd. They live in sound bites and simplicity.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Great comment yourself, Hschneider, thanks. Grover was a Democrat, as you say, but a Bourbon Democrat, or what might be called a "Blue-dog" Democrat today; but, a rather socially liberal ones, if such a creature exists. In reality, I think I am finding in my tracing of the development of political parties, that the Bourbon Democrats are one of the founders of, or at least matriculated over to, today's Conservative wing of the Republican party.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

A clarification: Blue-dog Democrats would be considered socially liberal compared to Bourban Democrats. That gives you an idea of how right-wing the Bourban Democrats were on social issues.


mib56789 5 years ago

Hi My Esoteric. I didn't take any of the polls. I think Thomas Jefferson would win a Democratic or a Republican nomination. Out of all the founding fathers, more people quote him the most, which means they still think his ideas are relevant today. VOTED UP!!!


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Hi again MIB56789, yes, Thomas sure had a lot to say. It is interesting to note that his political party trek went thus: the "no party" of George Washington, then Anti-Federalist when John Adams became president, then the Republican party, which more or less became renamed the Republican-Democrat party (in opposition to the Federalist party of John Adams). Also, some would like to call his party the Jeffersonian party. It is all very confusing, isn't it, lol. After Jefferson left office, so did the Republican part of the name and all you had left was the Democratic party, a very fiscally and socially conservative group of folks) and the remenants of the totally destroyed Federalists party. Several decades later, the Federalists finally re-emerged as Whigs.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working