Walter E. Williams on slavery and our founding fathers

[Gary K]

Here is a link to a short biography on Mr. Williams. http://walterewilliams.com/about/

I subscribe to William's mailing list where he publishes articles on a variety of subjects related to race relations, the Constitution, liberty, etc.... In the quote below I will post one of the articles that arrived in my inbox this week. It focuses on our founding fathers and slavery.

Slavery Is Neither Strange Nor Peculiar

The favorite leftist tool for the attack on our nation's founding is
that slavery was sanctioned. They argue that the founders disregarded
the promises of our Declaration of Independence "that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
pursuit of Happiness." These very ignorant people, both in and out of
academia, want us to believe that slavery is unusual, as historian
Kenneth Stampp suggested in his book, "Peculiar Institution: Slavery
in the Ante-Bellum South." But slavery is by no means peculiar, odd,
unusual or unique to the U.S.

As University of Nebraska-Lincoln political science professor David
P. Forsythe wrote in his book, "The Globalist," "The fact remained
that at the beginning of the nineteenth century an estimated
three-quarters of all people alive were trapped in bondage against
their will either in some form of slavery of serfdom." Slavery was
common among ancient peoples -- Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians,
Hittites, Greeks, Persians, Armenians and many others. Large numbers
of Christians were enslaved during the Ottoman wars in Europe. White
slaves were common in Europe from the Dark Ages to the Middle Ages.
It was only during the 17th century that the Atlantic slave trade
began with Europeans assisted by Arabs and Africans.

Slavery is one of the most horrible injustices. It posed such a moral
dilemma at our 1787 Constitutional Convention that it threatened to
scuttle the attempt to create a union between the 13 colonies. Let's
look at some of the debate. George Washington, in a letter to
Pennsylvania delegate Robert Morris, wrote, "There is not a man
living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for
the abolition of it." In a Constitutional Convention speech, James
Madison said, "We have seen the mere distinction of color made in the
most enlightened period of time, a ground of the most oppressive
dominion ever exercised by man over man." In James Madison's records
of the Convention he wrote, "(The Convention) thought it wrong to
admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in
men."

John Jay, in a letter to R. Lushington: "It is much to be wished that
slavery may be abolished. The honour of the States, as well as
justice and humanity, in my opinion, loudly call upon them to
emancipate these unhappy people. To contend for our own liberty, and
to deny that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be
excused." Patrick Henry said, "I believe a time will come when an
opportunity will be offered to abolish this lamentable evil." George
Mason said, "The augmentation of slaves weakens the states; and such
a trade is diabolical in itself, and disgraceful to mankind."

Northern delegates to the Convention, and others who opposed slavery,
wanted to count only free people of each state to determine
representation in the House of Representatives and the Electoral
College. Southern delegates wanted to count slaves just as any other
person. That would have given slave states greater representation in
the House and the Electoral College. If slaveholding states could not
have counted slaves at all, the Constitution would not have been
ratified and there would not be a union. The compromise was for
slaves to be counted as three-fifths of a person when deciding
representation in the House of Representatives and Electoral College.
My question for those who condemn the Three-Fifths Compromise is "
Would blacks have been better off if northern convention delegates
stuck to their guns, not compromising, and a union had never been
formed? To get a union, the northern delegates begrudgingly accepted
slavery. Abolitionist Frederick Douglass understood the compromise,
saying that the tree-fifths clause was "a downright disability laid
upon the slaveholding states" that deprived them of "two-fifths of
their natural basis of representation."

Here's my hypothesis about people who use slavery to trash the
founders: They have contempt for our constitutional guarantees of
liberty. Slavery is merely a convenient moral posturing tool they use
in their attempt to reduce respect for our Constitution.

 

[The Barbarian]

Here's my hypothesis about people who use slavery to trash the
founders: They have contempt for our constitutional guarantees of
liberty. Slavery is merely a convenient moral posturing tool they use
in their attempt to reduce respect for our Constitution.

As you note, many of the founders were entirely opposed to slavery. Others had a blind spot when it came to people of color. But you have to consider a man in the context of the times in which he lived.

The people who assail Americans for so poorly living up to American ideals for so long, do not want to end the Constitution; they want it enforced.

 

[Gary K]

As you note, many of the founders were entirely opposed to slavery. Others had a blind spot when it came to people of color. But you have to consider a man in the context of the times in which he lived.

The people who assail Americans for so poorly living up to American ideals for so long, do not want to end the Constitution; they want it enforced.

Hogwash. The attacks on the Constitution are an every day event and the cries that the founders were a bunch of racist slaveowners is part and parcel of those attacks as the attacks and cries of racism all come from closely allied political activists and politicians.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
As you note, many of the founders were entirely opposed to slavery. Others had a blind spot when it came to people of color. But you have to consider a man in the context of the times in which he lived.

The people who assail Americans for so poorly living up to American ideals for so long, do not want to end the Constitution; they want it enforced.

Hogwash. The attacks on the Constitution are an every day event

Other than the WH, and white nationalists, not all that common.

“I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida ... to go to court would have taken a long time,” Trump said at a meeting with lawmakers on school safety and gun violence.

“Take the guns first, go through due process second,” Trump said.

During his tumultuous campaign, Donald Trump declared war on the press, pledging to “open up our libel laws” and impose fines on critical journalists if elected.
https://www.cjr.org/special_report/president-threats-press.php

So the threats are there, true enough. But notice that he's been pretty ineffective at taking down our Constitutional rights. So far, it's mostly big talk, but little action.

and the cries that the founders were a bunch of racist slaveowners is part and parcel of those attacks

That's just a fact. No point in denying it. As I reminded you, we need to assess leaders in terms of the times in which they lived.

Trump would have been considered a loyal American with regard to race if he had lived in the early 1800s.

 

[Gary K]

Barbarian observes:
As you note, many of the founders were entirely opposed to slavery. Others had a blind spot when it came to people of color. But you have to consider a man in the context of the times in which he lived.

The people who assail Americans for so poorly living up to American ideals for so long, do not want to end the Constitution; they want it enforced.



Other than the WH, and white nationalists, not all that common.

“I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida ... to go to court would have taken a long time,” Trump said at a meeting with lawmakers on school safety and gun violence.

“Take the guns first, go through due process second,” Trump said.

During his tumultuous campaign, Donald Trump declared war on the press, pledging to “open up our libel laws” and impose fines on critical journalists if elected.
https://www.cjr.org/special_report/president-threats-press.php

So the threats are there, true enough. But notice that he's been pretty ineffective at taking down our Constitutional rights. So far, it's mostly big talk, but little action.



That's just a fact. No point in denying it. As I reminded you, we need to assess leaders in terms of the times in which they lived.

Trump would have been considered a loyal American with regard to race if he had lived in the early 1800s.

LOL. You remind me of a horse with the way you wear your blinders.

 

[ok doser]

LOL. You remind me of a horse with the way you wear your blinders.

That's funny - he reminds me of the other end of the horse

 

[The Barbarian]

(Barbarian cites examples of politicians attacking the First and Second Amendments)

LOL. You remind me of a horse with the way you wear your blinders.

If you think citing facts is "wearing blinders", maybe that's an important clue for you, no?

 

[Stripe]

(Barbarian cites examples of politicians attacking the First and Second Amendments)



If you think citing facts is "wearing blinders", maybe that's an important clue for you, no?

:mock: Trump haters.

 

[Gary K]

(Barbarian cites examples of politicians attacking the First and Second Amendments)



If you think citing facts is "wearing blinders", maybe that's an important clue for you, no?

That's right. Keep on insisting you have no idea what I meant. Keep up the fantasizing and the ignoring of reality. It's what I expect from you after all the the posts of yours I've read. However, we both know you understood me.

 

[The Barbarian]

That's right. Keep on insisting you have no idea what I meant.

I know what you meant. I'm pointing out the faulty assumption. That's why I presented evidence, and you presented unsupported claims.

Keep up the fantasizing and the ignoring of reality.

I documented the evidence for you. Granted, it is unbelievable that the president of the United States would advocate overturning the Constitution he swore to uphold, but there it is. I gave you facts, not fantasies.

It's what I expect from you after all the the posts of yours I've read.

I've found that facts are far more credible than mere assertions. So that's why you so often see facts linked and documented in my posts.

However, we both know you understood me.

Of course I did. I even gave you two examples. It's just that the facts are unpleasant for you.

Here's a good idea; find facts that support your claims, and show them to us. That would be a lot more effective than complaining about the facts I showed you.

Perhaps you're unsure how to do that. While I don't know of any highly-placed government officials on the left, who have denounced our constitutional rights as Trump has, you could do a little research on Antifa, which has at least occasionally denied rights to their opponents. Worth a look.

 

[Stripe]

:mock: Trump haters who support the things he said.

 

[The Berean]

I'm calling it now. By 2030 there will be a loud and obnoxious push by SJW's to remove all public displays and the removal from US currency of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson because they were "slave owners". If fact it has already started in San Francisco.

Activists Want a Problematic Mural of George Washington Destroyed. It Will Cost a High School $600,000

A high school in San Francisco is considering three options for censoring a mural of George Washington deemed problematic by the local activist community: putting up a curtain (price tag: $300,000), painting over it ($600,000), or hiding it behind panels ($875,000).

No doubt San Francisco United School District could hire quite a few teachers in lieu of executing even the cheapest of those plans, but a 13-member working group asserts the mural must go. It "glorifies slavery, genocide, colonization, manifest destiny, white supremacy, oppression," and "doesn't represent SFUSD values of social justice, diversity, united, student-centered." It's also responsible for traumatizing students, according to the activists.

The truth is that George Washington High School's mural is provocative by design. It was painted in 1936 by a Russian-American artist named Victor Arnautoff, who held leftist sympathies. Arnautoff did not wish to blindly celebrate Washington while ignoring the less savory aspects of the American founding, and thus he depicted the first president working his slaves and sending men to confiscate Native American lands. It was an attempt to remind students that history is a lot messier than what they read in class.

 

[The Barbarian]

The truth is that George Washington High School's mural is provocative by design. It was painted in 1936 by a Russian-American artist named Victor Arnautoff, who held leftist sympathies. Arnautoff did not wish to blindly celebrate Washington while ignoring the less savory aspects of the American founding, and thus he depicted the first president working his slaves and sending men to confiscate Native American lands. It was an attempt to remind students that history is a lot messier than what they read in class.[/I]

They want to cover up that Washington owned slaves, and appropriated land that belonged to Native Americans?

Seems to me that's not something you want to introduce in middle school, but it should be appropriate for high school students.

 

[northwye]

I wonder how many of those who have posted on this thread know that the contemporary Identity Politics of the American Political Left - and of the Democratic Party - comes out of the Frankfurt School Transformational Marxism of Theodore W. Adorno, Herbert Marcuse and others?

The focus upon Identity Politics which led to an obsession of the Left with Racism, Feminism, Homosexuality, etc by the Frankfurt School psychologized Marxists began with their interest in anti-Semitism.

See: http://newpol.org/content/frankfurt-school-and-jews

"... Horkheimer and Adorno’s approach began to change in 1939-1940, when they began to develop a vast research project on anti-Semitism, ultimately sponsored by the American Jewish Committee."

"Adorno and Horkheimer organized, as mentioned above, a vast research project on anti-Semitism, which resulted in several books published as a series, “Studies in Prejudice.”

Note that the "theory" which Adorno and Horkheimer created around their interest in anti-semiticism looks a lot like a theory within American Personality and Social Psychology. In fact, in the fifties, this theory was accepted by many people then working in American Personality and Social Psychology. At that time one of the most referenced topics in the Social and Personality Psychology peer review journals was the F Scale, which Adorno and his associates used in their paper and pencil questionnaire study of anti-semiticism and the Authoritarian Personality.

And in the 1950 book, The Authoritarian Personality, Adorno as senior author does get into his original interest in the study of anti-semiticism.

"The present inquiry into the nature of the potentially fascistic
individual began with anti-Semitism in the focus of attention.
The authors, in common with most social
scientists, hold the
view that anti-Semitism is based more largely upon factors in
the subject and in his total situation than upon actual
characteristics of Jews, and that one place to look for
determinants of anti-Semitic opinions and attitudes is within the
persons who express them.."

Adorno and other Frankfurters in the U.S. at the time, thirties and early forties, talked about "Critical Theory" and pretended their theory was about the cause of fascism and the Authoritarian Personality due to anti-semiticism and rigidity, what they were creating was more of a strategy for political propaganda purposes to change the American Culture - and, as it worked out, through the Universities.

The object of Transformational Marxism was to change the dominant culture of the West, especially to weaken the influence of Christianity and the Family on the Culture. Eventually their strategy was to use Identity Politics, with its focus upon Racism, Sexism, and Homophobia as being "evil."

For a while, after Transformational Marxism established its base of followers (and leaders) in the American universities during the Counterculture of 1962-1980 and beyond in the Me Generation, their opposition - the Conservatives - had no idea of what was to come by the 2016 Election in the use of Identity Politics. Andrew Breitbart, though had warned of Frankfurt School Transofrmational Marxism before 2016.

 

[The Barbarian]

Facists and Leninists and other authoritarians have the same hatred of Jews because they don't assimilate.

'Cosmopolitan' is a dog whistle word once used in Nazi Germany and Communist Russia
Trump policy advisor Stephen Miller was at the podium to defend the president’s new immigration proposal, which would prioritize high-skilled immigrants who already speak English.

Miller faced pushback from reporters, including a heated back-and-forth with CNN’s Jim Acosta, who quoted the Statue of Liberty’s famous inscription (“give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses...”) and questioned whether the immigration policy changes were in line with those values.

Miller shot back, saying “that is one of the most outrageous, insulting, ignorant, and foolish things you’ve ever said.” But it was his accusation that Acosta has a “cosmopolitan bias” that stood out.

“Cosmopolitan” isn’t a word that’s frequently heard in American politics (“elite” is much more common), but it wouldn’t be out of place in Adolf Hitler's Germany or Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union.

It was an “anti-Semitic fighting term,” Volker Ullrich writes in his biography, Hitler: Ascent, “used against the Jews by Nazis and Bolsheviks alike.” Ullrich writes that the Jewish diaspora in Europe was “considered not only cosmopolitan, but also rootless, and in the late 1940s the term became a code word for Jews who insisted on their Jewish identity.”

Today, as Politico notes, the definition has expanded — “in the eyes of their foes, 'cosmopolitans' tend to cluster in the universities, the arts and in urban centers, where familiarity with diversity makes for a high comfort level with 'untraditional' ideas and lives.”

But its ugly history means that the word “cosmopolitan” still serves as a dog whistle within the white nationalist movement in the United States.
https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-08...d-once-used-nazi-germany-and-communist-russia

If you look at the fears and hatreds of white nationalists and other authoritarian people, you'll see that the greatest fear is that immigrants won't shed all of their "cosmopolitian" differences, and will become a different culture within America.

The average American tends to look on subcultures within the United States as benign, interesting, even enriching. Not these guys:

 

[Gary K]

I know what you meant. I'm pointing out the faulty assumption. That's why I presented evidence, and you presented unsupported claims.



I documented the evidence for you. Granted, it is unbelievable that the president of the United States would advocate overturning the Constitution he swore to uphold, but there it is. I gave you facts, not fantasies.



I've found that facts are far more credible than mere assertions. So that's why you so often see facts linked and documented in my posts.



Of course I did. I even gave you two examples. It's just that the facts are unpleasant for you.

Here's a good idea; find facts that support your claims, and show them to us. That would be a lot more effective than complaining about the facts I showed you.

Perhaps you're unsure how to do that. While I don't know of any highly-placed government officials on the left, who have denounced our constitutional rights as Trump has, you could do a little research on Antifa, which has at least occasionally denied rights to their opponents. Worth a look.

The shallowness of your thinking demonstrates quite aptly what the Bible says is true: The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

LOL. You keep on with the one-sidedness no matter what. The left attacks our Consitutional rights every day of the week. Every court decision, every piece of legislation introduced that reduces my rights is an attack on the Constitution. When I, and those who believe as I do, are forced to do something we believe to be morally wrong it is an attack on the first ammendment, our right to worship and practice our religion. When your side of the political aisle tries to get rid of all evidences of the Christian history of this country it's an attack on the Constitution for you read "freedom of religion" to be "freedom from religion" and that is in direct conflict with every instinct of our founding father's ideals and principles in founding this nation.

http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

"While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian."
_{--The Writings of Washington, pp. 342-343.}

"Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the Bible for their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God ... What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be."
_{--Diary and Autobiography of John Adams, Vol. III, p. 9.}


"The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their address, or by me in my answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were United: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty...


"Now I will avow, that I then believe, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System."
_{--Adams wrote this on June 28, 1813, excerpt from a letter to Thomas Jefferson.}





"The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever."
_{--Adams wrote this in a letter to his wife, Abigail, on July 3, 1776.}

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever..."
_{--Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, p. 237.}



"I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ."
_{--The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, p. 385.}

Here is a link with many more quotes from early American leaders. https://www.learnreligions.com/christian-quotes-of-the-founding-fathers-700789 It is very clear that from their own words they believed their Christianity to have a profound influence on the creation of this nation. Meaning, that this nation's roots are grounded in Christian principles and Christian beliefs. What these men created cannot be separated from who they were and what they believed.

One of the greatest political minds of all time said, after spending a couple of years in the US studying it, the following in his book, Democracy in America, vol. 1.

Every religion is to be found in juxtaposition to a political opinion which is connected with it by affinity. If the human mind be left to follow its own bent, it will regulate the temporal and spiritual institutions of society upon one uniform principle; and man will endeavor, if I may use the expression, to harmonize the state in which he lives upon earth with the state which he believes to await him in heaven. The greatest part of British America was peopled by men who, after having shaken off the authority of the Pope, acknowledged no other religious supremacy; they brought with them into the New World a form of Christianity which I cannot better describe than by styling it a democratic and republican religion. This sect contributed powerfully to the establishment of a democracy and a republic, and from the earliest settlement of the emigrants politics and religion contracted an alliance which has never been dissolved.

In this statement de Toqueville is referencing the Pilgrims as he makes plain elsewhere in his writings on the US.

He follows the above statement later in the same book with this comment:

I do not question that the great austerity of manners which is observable in the United States, arises, in the first instance, from religious faith. Religion is often unable to restrain man from the numberless temptations of fortune; nor can it check that passion for gain which every incident of his life contributes to arouse, but its influence over the mind of woman is supreme, and women are the protectors of morals. There is certainly no country in the world where the tie of marriage is so much respected as in America, or where conjugal happiness is more highly or worthily appreciated. In Europe almost all the disturbances of society arise from the irregularities of domestic life. To despise the natural bonds and legitimate pleasures of home, is to contract a taste for excesses, a restlessness of heart, and the evil of fluctuating desires. Agitated by the tumultuous passions which frequently disturb his dwelling, the European is galled by the obedience which the legislative powers of the State exact. But when the American retires from the turmoil of public life to the bosom of his family, he finds in it the image of order and of peace. There his pleasures are simple and natural, his joys are innocent and calm; and as he finds that an orderly life is the surest path to happiness, he accustoms himself without difficulty to moderate his opinions as well as his tastes. Whilst the European endeavors to forget his domestic troubles by agitating society, the American derives from his own home that love of order which he afterwards carries with him into public affairs.

Toqueville is affirming conservative thought in the vast importance of the family to liberty and domestic (national) tranquility. The destruction of faith in God and the family by the left has brought about the condition of the constant agitation of society that leads to the same violence brought about by the French revolution in its attacks on, and rejection of, the very idea of God. That's what is going on right now with the political left.

Also, the attacks on the morality of the female gender and motherhood through radical feminism is just as destructive as de Toqueville said above. And your side is replacing morality and decency with nothing more than licentiousness and immorality which things will always destroy society. History demonstrates that quite clearly. Every previous ruling civilization in this world's history has been destroyed by the collapse of the morality of its people. Babylon, Greece, Rome, Medo-Persia, etc... all fell because partying and licentiousness became the ruling passion of their citizenry. The consequences were fatal every time.

 

[drbrumley]

On the national scale here in Crazyland, we have on the docket in Congress reparations for descendants of slaves, another fabulously bad idea. Could it be that the Democratic Party is only dangling this giant goodie-bag out now because black America is rumored to be disenchanted with life on the Democratic plantation? And without them, they can’t possibly win a national election? The unintended consequences of the proposal were nicely set forth in congressional testimony by a 23-year-old philosophy undergrad from Columbia University named Coleman Hughes who writes frequently for the Quillette website (and several major media platforms) on US race politics. The hearing room was incandescent with Wokester suspense when Hughes was called to speak, and he laid it out with stark eloquence:

…the people who were owed for slavery are no longer here, and we’re not entitled to collect on their debts. Reparations, by definition, are only given to victims. So, the moment you give me reparations, you’ve made me into a victim without my consent. Not just that: you’ve made one-third of black Americans—who consistently poll against reparations—into victims without their consent, and black Americans have fought too long for the right to define themselves to be spoken for in such a condescending manner.

Ouch! That stung a little! Naturally the room erupted in boos and catcalls of Wokester indignation. (Did he actually say that!) You could hear the sentimental arguments of Ta-Nihisi Coates just gurgle down the drain. (Watch the five-minute YouTube.) Of course, this reparations cherry on the over-baked victimhood cake would arouse so much resentment and disappointment from all concerned (repeat ALL concerned, black and white), that any hope for social comity in this sore beset nation would lie moldering in the grave… along with John Brown, Martin Luther King, and 360,000 Union dead.

Crazyland
By James Howard Kunstler

 

[northwye]

The idea or hypothesis is that Frankfurt School Transformational Marxism, especially that of Theodore W. Adorno and Herbert Marcuse, was important in forming the present day view of the American Left on our Founding Fathers, and the rejection of their political ideology, which is opposed by the Left.

Adorno and his social psychology associates made use of the evils of Nazi Fascism to promote their version of Marxism, but their Marxism was not Bolshevism, but a more gradual takeover of the Culture of the West, and what was called the "long march through its institutions." The Transformational Marxists like Adorno wanted to do away with Christianity and the family which the Marxists saw as supporting that Culture and its raising up of the individual.

The Transformational Marxists started from the idea that Anti-Semitism is correlated with Ethnocentrism, Conservatism, receptivity to fascist ideals and that this cultural mix can be opposed effectively by criticism of its supposed racism, conservatism,anti-feminist position and homophobia.

But Transformational Marxism in its version by the time of the Counterculture of the Sixties and Seventies and later was deceptive. Its leaders like Adorno tried to hide that fact that they were Marxists, and that they intended to change the Culture of the West to allow it to accept a Collectivist Marxist culture and government. Adorno died in 1969, but his views continued with the work of other Marxists in the universities. In the words of an earlier leader of Transformational Marxism Georg Lukács (1885-1971) they wanted to "Aufhebung der Kultur,"or abolish the culture, in order to establish a Marxist regime.

 

[Gary K]

The idea or hypothesis is that Frankfurt School Transformational Marxism, especially that of Theodore W. Adorno and Herbert Marcuse, was important in forming the present day view of the American Left on our Founding Fathers, and the rejection of their political ideology, which is opposed by the Left.

Adorno and his social psychology associates made use of the evils of Nazi Fascism to promote their version of Marxism, but their Marxism was not Bolshevism, but a more gradual takeover of the Culture of the West, and what was called the "long march through its institutions." The Transformational Marxists like Adorno wanted to do away with Christianity and the family which the Marxists saw as supporting that Culture and its raising up of the individual.

The Transformational Marxists started from the idea that Anti-Semitism is correlated with Ethnocentrism, Conservatism, receptivity to fascist ideals and that this cultural mix can be opposed effectively by criticism of its supposed racism, conservatism,anti-feminist position and homophobia.

But Transformational Marxism in its version by the time of the Counterculture of the Sixties and Seventies and later was deceptive. Its leaders like Adorno tried to hide that fact that they were Marxists, and that they intended to change the Culture of the West to allow it to accept a Collectivist Marxist culture and government, In the words of an earlier leader of Transformational Marxism Georg Lukács (1885-1971) they wanted to "Aufhebung der Kultur,"or abolish the culture, in order to establish a Marxist regime.

While I don't doubt what you say, it has always been the goal of Marxists to do away with Christian beliefs and morals. That started with Marx himself as he very well understood that Marxism could not succeed while Christianity was the majority belief system for Christian beliefs are the fundamentals of liberty itself and Marx had no use for liberty, honesty, morality, etc.... He hated everything to do with religion for he understood it was diametrically opposed to his goal of radically changing society.

 

[northwye]

"The greatest part of British America was peopled by men who, after having shaken off the authority of the Pope, acknowledged no other religious supremacy; they brought with them into the New World a form of Christianity which I cannot better describe than by styling it a democratic and republican religion. This sect contributed powerfully to the establishment of a democracy and a republic, and from the earliest settlement of the emigrants politics and religion contracted an alliance which has never been dissolved."

That the Founders of the United States Constitutional Republic were under an influence from the Northern Renaissance and the Protestant Reformation is affirmed by Historian Quentin Skinner in The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, 1978. Quentin Skiner goes over the influence of some Protestants, such as John Knox and Samuel Rutherford, from Scotland, on John Locke, an Englishman, and the late 18th century American political ideology behind the creation of the Constitutional Republic.

John Locke's book, Two Treatises of Government, according to Skinner, influenced Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, and had an influence on James Madison and other Founding Fathers.

James Madison and his Committee in the House, created and got passed our Bill of Rights which makes our system a Republic rather than a Democracy.

Isaiah 10: 1-2: "Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed. To turn aside the needy from judgment, and to take away the right of the poor of my people, that widows may be their prey, and that they may rob the fatherless."

There are some other verses in the Old Testament about the right of the people. See Lamentations 3: 33-36, and Malachi 3: 5.

John Knox and Samuel Rutherford in Scotland, created, from scripture, a view that supported the right of the common people to oppose a totalitarian government, which does not respect the rights of the people. These ideas
of Knox and Rutherford were secularized by John Locke and
Thomas Jefferson made them into the Declaration of Independence, one of
our founding documents which does briefly state a political ideology.

But now in 2019, Political Correctness, which comes out of the Marxism of the Frankfurt School, makes use of the manipulation of the people by race, gender and other stereotypes. The Marxist Left in 2019 is trying to discredit the patriot and populist movement by associating it with white supremacy and racism.