WWFFD?

A question often asked by Americans as they contemplate politics is “What would the founding fathers say?” What would they think? As members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, this is especially compelling, for we believe that the founding fathers are inspired and wise men, and that the Constitution is a divinely inspired document, set up for God's own purposes. We strive to keep the meaning of the Constitution in our hearts, and we attempt that by trying to keep in mind the founding fathers' purpose in setting up the Constitution.

However, as I've studied my text and researched further in my American Heritage course, I've realized just how ambiguous, and even misleading, that question can be. Here's an example.

The Civil War, we are taught in schools growing up, was fought over slavery. But as we grow older and more mature, we realize it was actually more complex. At the heart of the matter was an age old question asked by Americans since the inception of the Union – what is the relationship of the federal government and state governments and the people?

On one side was the southern states, who wished to keep their institution of slavery. They felt bullied by the northern states, who they claimed were making sectional alliances to subvert the Constitution and use it to force their will on the southern states. The core of their argument was that the Constitution was like a compact, a two-way agreement between state governments and federal governments, and if one side didn't keep their side of the bargain, the other side could dissolve the compact at any time. Southern states felt the federal government was stepping on their toes and reasoned among themselves that what the northern states were doing was unconstitutional. Thus, they reasoned that once Abraham Lincoln entered office as President of the United States (whom they erroneously believed would force the abandonment of slavery upon them), they would leave the Union and strike off on their own, as independent states.

The northern states felt differently. Slavery was an abomination, a horrible blight upon the American psyche and a moral issue. The government should protect the rights of all men, and are not slaves men? Constitutionally, they were only considered 3/5 of a man, to be exact, but they should be free nonetheless. They felt that the southern states' threat of secession was madness; the Union was indivisible, and we needed to keep it that way! Suppose a minority could set off and separate themselves from the Union whenever they wished. Why, the nation would fracture into a hundred tiny Balkan states, devolving into petty squabbles and wars. No, the Constitution said in its preamble that its purpose was to “form a more perfect union,” and how, Abraham Lincoln asked in his first inaugural address, can we keep a perfect union when we allow ourselves to be fractured?

Thus the stage is set. We know the ultimate outcome of the Civil War: The north won, the Union was preserved, slavery was abolished and Africans were able to achieve a measure of dignity and rights and Lincoln cemented the United States of America together. But what would the founding fathers have said? Who was right? Did the Union need to be preserved, or did states have the right to dissolve the compact when the federal government refused to be (in their eyes) unconstitutional?

Surprisingly, historical precedent may lie on the side of the southerners. Two founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, made similar threats on the federal government. When founding father Hamilton helped pass the Alien and Sedition Acts (which allowed the president to deport “aliens” he felt were dangerous to the Republic), the two founding fathers responded with the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. These states both declared the Alien and Sedition Acts unconstitutional and therefore could not be enforced within their boundaries, thus effectively nullifying federal government laws. Ironically, Madison, who is sometimes called the Father of the Constitution, had during its drafting reasoned for more stronger power for the central government, and wanted to completely abolish state rights in general. Now he wanted to protect state rights and even nullify federal laws within states, should they deem it necessary.

But not all the founding fathers felt this way. Washington was supportive of Hamilton and his federalist views. So was John Adams, the president at the time the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed. And Patrick Henry, the fiery orator who had issued the ultimatum “Give me liberty or give me death!” and who had also actually opposed the Constitution during its ratification because it didn't give enough rights to the states, dedicated his last speech to a passionate plea to the states not to tear the Union apart with secession and nullification (the Civil War wasn't the only time this issue came up).

In the end, we like to think we were right. Abraham Lincoln won the Civil War, preserved the Union and freed the slaves. He is almost unanimously loved by the common American people and considered a hero. Many consider him the best president that ever lived. But of course, with these wonderful sentiments and achievements, Lincoln also effectively destroyed much of the individual state's powers and expanded the powers of the federal government. Some Americans don't like that idea.



And so, if you were asked, “What would the founding fathers say?” you would have to respond, “Which one?” And while we're asking questions, at what time? Are we talking pre-Constitution James Madison who believed in a strong central government, or post-Washington Administration James Madison, who believed in states rights? Do we mean Thomas Jefferson, or George Washington, who were political enemies during the latter's terms of presidency? Do we mean Alexander Hamilton, or Patrick Henry, and do we mean revolutionary Patrick Henry, Articles of Confederation Patrick Henry, or Constitution Patrick Henry?

The more effective question to ask is, “What would the founding fathers do?” And in this, we see their brilliance. The founding fathers were a diverse group of men who held differing views about government and human nature and philosophy. Their genius was not so much in their political views (which varied and shifted greatly from time to time) but their ability to cooperate and compromise on subjects, refusing to be easily polarized like American politics often does today. They remained flexible and teachable, realizing that their ideas were not perfect nor doctrine, but could be modified. They were less concerned with what was philosophically or theoretically right, but what actually worked, and eventually realized that extremes on either side would lead to excess and tyranny. “Experience must be our only guide,” John Dickenson, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, said. “Reason may mislead us.”

What would they do? In preparation for the Convention, James Madison asked his friend Jefferson to send him a crate of books on politics and read voraciously. Many of them attended schools and studied law, as well as science, literature, philosophy and political science (or what was its humble beginnings at the time). They kept large, diverse libraries and continued to learn and educate themselves long after they left formal education. Many served their government and were what we would call “professional politicians.” And they disagreed, disagreed, disagreed. They often did not agree with what the current government was doing, but once the will of the people was voiced, they submitted themselves to it, despite their disagreements. Despite the fact that they often hated each others' ideas and views, they remained open to discussion and learning, and always remained humble and teachable. They realized that sometimes, old, traditional ideas (such as the classic view of republican virtue or that kings are mandated by God to be kings) are not necessarily right, and embraced new, radical ideas (such as governments are from the people, and that every man has certain unalienable rights) with gusto. They desired to be flexible and nimble intellectually. They realized that sometimes their own ideas were wrong, and were willing to switch sides, switch ideals and switch beliefs, for to the founding fathers, it was more important to ascertain what actually worked than to have their pet philosophies (and subsequently, their pride) be right.