Debates on controversial social and political issues are often fueled by an annoying crutch that dates back to the 18th century: the appeal to the founding fathers. It is especially common when it comes to the stubborn partisanship that now defines Congress.
As a recent example, let’s look at a tweet from South Dakota Senator Mike Rounds Statehood issue for Washington DC, what is currently being discussed in Congress. For Rounds, a group of men who lived in a disjointed group of former colonies 300 years ago would have unanimously opposed the addition of a 51st state in 2021.
Similar references are often made to the Constitution when other high profile debates take place. In the wake of this month’s mass shootings in Atlanta and Boulder, Colorado, renewed gun control calls inevitably fall on the deaf ears of Republicans, like many fundamentalists of the Second Amendment tend to conjure up America’s early days to strengthen their support for an untested gun culture.
After shooting on Monday in Colorado, the National Rifle Association tweeted the second amendmentin a recurring suggestion that the organization – not its critics – be committed to the national guiding principles established by a small group of white, possessive slaveholders who lived before the advent of electricity.
G / O Media can receive a commission
These invocations are not only a reducing statement, but also do not form the basis for a decent argument. It is far more useful to use other strategies that do not use speculative arguments about what Thomas Jefferson would have thought about abortion rights or what Ben Franklin would say about a bump stick ban.
Why this argument is fundamentally racist
The founders were staunch advocates of the militia as an institution for maintaining social order. Every member of the militia should be armed; However, the founders advocated strict rules as to who could join the ranks. Blacks and Native Americans were banned from entry. According to 18th century gun rights, gun ownership was a privilege clearly intended for white men.
As historian Noah Shusterman wrote for the Washington Post in 2018:
Laws rarely allowed free blacks to have guns. It was even rarer for African Americans who were in slavery to be allowed into them. In slave states, militias inspected slave shelters and confiscated weapons they found. (There were also laws against the sale of firearms to Indians, though these were more ambiguous.)
He continued:
These restrictions were not a mere footnote to eighteenth-century American arms policy. White Americans were armed in order to maintain control over non-whites. Non-whites were disarmed so as not to jeopardize white control over American society.
Against this background, the question arises: Do the absolutists of today’s second amendment advocate a world in which gun possession is a hallmark of racist superiority? Most would argue otherwise – but when you refer to the 18th century gun possession period, it means you are directly appreciating America’s racist heritage.
Try to justify your reasoning in the present
You are probably not a constitutional scholar. This country’s founding document and the motivations of the men who wrote it are an evolving field of study for historians, judges, lawyers, and archivists charged with interpreting its relevance to the social mores of the 21st century.
That said, if you want to point to the Constitution or the early days of America to prove your point, you need to understand history inside and out. Instead, consider giving reasons for your reasoning in this day and age. If you’re deeply interested in breaking statehood in Washington, DC, try sharing your views in practical terms, and list what a 51st state would do to improve the balance of power in the Senate. When you have a strong sense of a company’s personality, don’t invoke clichés about freedom of expression – talk about how you think lower corporate tax rates are good for the economy and job growth (if you believe that).
It is far more honest to discuss current issues than to invoke a bygone era.
They are only confirming your own prejudices
Given that the real intentions of the founders – apart from today’s notions of freedom and equality for all – have been disputed, the only way to mask your true intentions is to call them. Will Wilkinson, Senior Fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute, recently pointed this out on Twitterand wrote, “The founders were not an enterprise that could intend anything … It would be better if we just cut out the incoherent extra step and just said what we want and the real reasons we want it.”
It’s an important point. It is far better to be honest with your intentions than to hide them behind a constitutional straw man. This means that your views are clearly American and therefore correct, which couldn’t be more wrong.
