Would they be proud of modern USA?

Would they be proud of modern USA?
>inb4 some cynical meme answer about how they were just oligarchs who wanted more power and similar shit

Other urls found in this thread:

google.com/search?q=private ownership of cannons in 1800&num=100&newwindow=1&hl=en&gbv=2&sa=X&as_q=&nfpr=&spell=1&ved=0ahUKEwjy8KKR_snZAhUMmoMKHUMcBtYQvwUIEQ
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

they were racist sexist homophobic bigoted old white men

fuck white people, fuck the 2nd amendment and fuck white privilege. fuck black exclusion

Eh, probably not. I mean, they’d like that they’re the most economically powerful country in the world, and that the rights in the Bill of Rights and Constitution are still upheld, but most of them would disapprove of the US taking an active role in international affairs (essentially replacing the British Empire), they’d dislike that a businessman was president, and not to mention the myriad of social issues, such as racial and gender equality, as well as the general lack of serious piety on a national level.

Aren't you glad to live in a country where you are free to shit on the people who created it, and fought so you have this right?

Did any of the Founding Fathers presume that America will become a great power, or even a hegemonic power, in the future?

No. The sort of government the founding fathers envisioned was a loose confederation of states, with the government in Washington being primarily a sort of referee in disputes between them. They weren't keen at all on the idea of an overarching national government with the kind of strength that it has now.

They'd certainly hate the foreign wars and mass surveillance aspects.

The Federalists were though. Adams and Hamilton had a massive hard-on for strong centralisation.

Even the federalists weren't pushing for a Washington with the strength that it has today. None of them, for instance, thought to apply the 1st amendment to state level governance, but that's part and parcel of modern conception of how the government works.

I get the feeling that a lot of them will be completely surprised it gotten as far as they did.

Quite a few will be pissed that we raped the south and allowed non-landowners the vote.

They would stage a revolution over income tax alone

no, they were white nationalists and who would be horrified to see their country conquered by jews

Non-American here.

The founding fathers were some of the smartest men in the colonies. They were intellectuals (in the actual meaning, not the demeaning shit the average Joe uses). And if they could see the current president they'll be disgusted.

Would U.S citizens follow the Founding Fathers like a cult if they made a speech and called for revolution or would most just shrug it off?

>they were just oligarchs who wanted more power
They literally were

I feel that they would be more accepting of Obama's presidency than Trump's in that context.

Though the latest presidency they would be completely approved of would be Eisenhower's.

>with the government in Washington being primarily a sort of referee in disputes between them.
that was madison's conception, not washington's or hamilton's

They would want to know why women, blacks, atheists, and poor people have the right to vote. They would be confused at our immigration policy. They would be confused at why pornography is legal.

I pretty sure they would be more disgusted with the nigger puppet before him

>they’d dislike that a businessman was president
Of all the things you mentioned, this is the one that they'd be okay with

I don't think they'd like someone as uncouth and populist as Trump.

If that’s the reason then he wouldn’t be the only president they disliked.

Of course, I agree.

You're right. The surviving Founding Fathers fucking hated Andrew Jackson.

It was a dream but did they expect it? I think they'd be surprised

I pretty sure they would have hated Obama a lot more because

1. he's a nigger
2. just reads of a script, no sign of independent thinking
3. is a nigger

I can see what you mean by niggers, wenches and paupers but when did the non-superstitious ever lack suffrage in the United States of America.

Jefferson certainly had dreams of the United States becoming a hegemonic power.

They were a bunch of leftist liberal hippies. They would jizz themselves with glee at the modern USA.

Hamilton too, who wanted to larp as Napoleon and conquer South America for lulz.

they would wonder why the fuck alaska and hawaii are american

they didn't hate black people. Jefferson considered them to be in some sense genetically inferior but none of them hated the black race.

I doubt they were anything but dimly aware of the existence of Hawaii

for a very brief period in some states there were religious tests for voting and holding office. these were done away with by the 1820s though

No they wanted a white republic not a Jewish oligarchy

This is true, much like Sardinia it wasn't even possible to travel by boat to Hawaii in 1797.

>They would be confused at our immigration policy.
Because of how restrictive it is?

now that's just total bullshit

>for a very brief period in some states there were religious tests for voting and holding office
Blimey. The USA truly was a shithole right from it's founding.

based

are you British? the UK had very similar laws.

what?

This but unironically

Yeah he was pretty cool. It’s sad we don’t live in the timeline when Hamilton rampaged across South America conquering Spanish lands and eventually setting himself up as a king.

No, of course not. They would tell us that they set up a system to resist tyrants, and that we are not using it properly.

pretty much this

kek

They'd be disgusted. I know I am.

They tarred and feathered people over taxes dude

This.

They would be massively upset fucking twelve year olds wasn't legal due to goddamn leftists.

the Founders never participated in such illegal frivolity. The only turned to revolution after parliament steadily ignored all forms of legal and peaceable protest. read a bit about Washington's reaction to the Whiskey rebellion.

>hey stop excluding me
>btw fuck off

They are not a hivemind, their opinions would largely depend on who you asked. But I think the general consensus would be proud of how long we've lasted and horrified by some of the power we hold. Jefferson would probably be appalled by the entire federal apparatus. Hamilton would probably want the States to have less power than they currently do. Washington would probably just say something based.

Don't take the bait.

Franklin would immediately go "Fucking jews".

>Hamilton would probably want the States to have less power than they currently do.
this I think is just completely wrong. The boundaries they were arguing over in the early republic on the issue vs state power are totally different than any contemporary debates on the issue. They would to a man be shocked if not appalled by the rulings of the New Deal SCOTUS.

Franklin actively loved Jews and hated G*rmans

You got BTFO, just give up

They'd probably be both relieved but also disappointed. Relieved that their experiment of liberty has managed to last as long as it has, and has spread overseas to other nations as well. Yet also disappointed that the nation they conceived has lost its piety, infringed upon the right to bear arms, become an hegemonic empire interfering in the affairs of others, has a large standing army, places incredible power in the hands of the Federal government as opposed to the states, and intrudes upon the privacy of its citizens with regularity.

>Start calling me a Jew
>BTFO
Idiot.

They would be sad. They would view us as they viewed Rome, a great civilization that fell.

much of what you say is silly speculation. hard to draw conclusions about what they would think about regulating machine guns or gov't reading people's emails based on what they said about the world they lived in

Fuck no

>hard to draw conclusions about what they would think about regulating machine guns
They allowed people to own cannons, grenades, warships, and a 20 round rifle. I doubt they'd have a problem with machine guns.

>gov't reading people's emails
I guess the answer to that is how would they have felt about the government looking through people's mail in their time?

Some quotes:

Hamilton said: "A dissolution of the Union after all seems to be the most likely result." Later in his life he called the Constitution a frail and worthless fabric, and a temporary bond.

John Adams, said "he saw no possibility of continuing the Union of the States; that their dissolution must necessarily take place."

Jefferson:
"I consider slavery at once the death knell of the Union. It is hushed indeed for the moment, but this is a reprieve only, not a final sentence."

Thomas Jefferson, in the 1790s, awaited the fall of the Spanish Empire "until our population can be sufficiently advanced to gain it from them piece by piece".

Thomas Jefferson said that the United States "must be viewed as the nest from which all America, North & South is to be peopled"

Jefferson: "Where this progress will stop no-one can say. Barbarism has, in the meantime, been receding before the steady step of amelioration; and will in time, I trust, disappear from the earth".

>They allowed people to own cannons
source?

>I guess the answer to that is how would they have felt about the government looking through people's mail in their time?
With or without armed redcoats rifling through your house?

No, they'd lament how much power we handed to the Feds and they'd be abhorred by the idea of the CIA and an income tax

go home Ron.

>Unironically being Statist scum
Are you even a WASP? If not, sit down and shut up

The complete lack of any laws on cannonry in the times of the Founding Fathers. Also mean, there were private warships armed with cannons conducting raids on British shipping with the permission on the government (commonly known as privateers).

Their own government, that is to say the government they established after the revolution.

the alt-right would do well to keep the message of that cartoon in mind.

>The complete lack of any laws on cannonry
um, source?

The gov't isn't spying on you

How is the absence of anything a source?

give a source for your claim dipshit

How do I provide a source for something that doesn't exist?

>alt-right
Fuck off with your meme """ideologies"""

>tfw no pro-white paleoconservative movement

>Restrictive

What exactly is restrictive about it when any ugly emasculated piece of slop slung that washes ashore is given free housing, free food, free everything and encouraged to have as many children as possible.

Go away, these references aren't 4u

>voting
Absolutely disgusting, I agree

nice try, cia

They wouldn't hate him for being a business man. I doubt they'd like an president in the last 50 years, but their least-favorite would probably be Obama, since he's a nigger.

Can't prove a negative. You need to find laws on cannon regulation, since he can't find laws that don't exist.

you made the claim now back it up. Presumably you read that claim in some reputable historical source and didn't just invent it out thin air?

>How do I provide a source for something that doesn't exist?
Because in the 18th century literally anybody from anywhere in the world could move here with no interference from the federal gov't and everything you just said is a lie

He made the assertion. If he hasn't done the scholarship point to someone who has.

>you made the claim now back it up
Okay, here you go:


Great. Now the burden of proof is on you to disprove it. After all, the claim I'm making is that the Founding Fathers did not make regulations or laws restricting civilians from owning cannons, and since I can't find any laws nor regulations it is on you to provide any proof as to their existence.

The assertion that he made is that they passed no laws restricting the ownership of cannons. Not that they passed laws declaring cannons legal. If they passed no laws, he cannot find them.
Anyway, just look.
google.com/search?q=private ownership of cannons in 1800&num=100&newwindow=1&hl=en&gbv=2&sa=X&as_q=&nfpr=&spell=1&ved=0ahUKEwjy8KKR_snZAhUMmoMKHUMcBtYQvwUIEQ
If you can find any laws restricting the ownership of cannons, feel free to post them.

Pro-tip: People who aren't members of the National Guard have no constitutional right to own any kind of weapon.

>disprove the shit I pulled out of my ass with no evidence.
Fuck off tea faggot

>thinks we've already fallen
you're in for a surprise

user, the claim I made was that they made no laws restricting the ownership of cannons. Now, if they made no laws restricting the ownership of cannons, THEN WHAT THE FUCK AM I SUPPOSED TO SHOW YOU? I can't show you something that doesn't exist.

How do you know they didn't?

My sides
They literally limited immigration to sane white men of good character

that's not true.

user I have some bad news for you.

>no land ownership requirement to vote
>direct election of senators
>government agencies with independent regulatory authority
>courts have more power than the congress or president
>standing army in peacetime
>permanent deployment of troops in foreign countries
>federal income taxes levied directly on individuals
And that's not even getting into issues of race.

If you brought the founders to the modern day, I doubt you could even convince them that they were in America.

I mean, they'd be happy that we managed to last this long because they didn't think it would.

...