I discovered a quote I find quite interesting:
The problem with many American founding quotes is that they come from a time of idealism rather than realism. We tend to romanticize their stoic individualism -- ignoring the context of their rhetoric.
For example, Consider Franklin's "those who trade liberty for freedom deserve neither." He wrote that in 1755. However, in 1768 he wrote a letter from England criticizing
Jon Wilkes and his followers as deserving punishment "for abusing the best king England ever had." This was 4 days after the massacre of St. George's Fields where solidiers opened fire on unarmed Wilkes supporters, protesting the imprisonment of Wilkes for political reasons. (Wilkes was elected to Parliament from prison
three times.). Just 6 years later Franklin would be part of the American Revolution, criticizing the same king in the same way as Wilikes, and subject to the same orders of imprisonment. Wilkes supported the colonials.
Another 12 years later Franklin was a Federalist, supporting the constitution of 1789 and the creation of a vastly larger, remote and centralized government. In other words, he was willing to trade the liberty which existed under the relatively libertarian Articles of Confederation for the security which comes from a government with powers to search and seize, take property with "just compensation" (a vague definition to be determined by the government taking the property), raise standing armies, compel citizens to serve in standing armies, federalize state militias, and involve itself within interstate commerce, exclusively set the value of money, etc.
Jefferson can be viewed similarly. For example, we're often treated to Jefferson's "tree of liberty is watered by the blood of patriots and tyrants." The full quote says "God forbid we go 20 years without a revolution." Jefferson was arguing against growing public support for the proposed Constitution of 1789. That public support was a direct response to Shay's Rebellion -- a group of men who invoked revolutionary rhetoric from just a decade earlier, and the confederated colonies' inability to respond to it. The public was literally horrified that a group of men could decide it's time for insurrection just because they didn't like taxation, and that such violence could go so long without being stopped by society.
In other words, as goose-bumply as Jefferson's rhetoric was: the founding generation didn't agree with him. They supported a larger, more powerful, centralized government.
Sure, we could say the founding generation didn't envision the size and power of the federal government today. But, it's all relative. They dealt with the same challenges every generation as dealt with since. Like every generation, they chose more government. If they really believed in individualism and states rights they would have remained with the Articles of Confederation.
That period of America's history is amazing, and romanticized to the point of being a fairy tale. Loyalists were harassed and driven to Canada. One loyalist remarked "Better to be abused by a king 1000 miles away, than 1000 one mile away." (That fellow and his family were driven out.).
So much for all the lovely talk about due process, "taking without just compensation," etc.
During the period of the Articles of Confederation, New York charged the colonies usurious taxes for use of its harbor. New Jersey was referred to as "a cask tapped at both ends." During the ratification of the Constitution of 1789, New York offered New Jersey free use of the harbor and refund of all taxes paid if New Jersey would oppose the Constitution. Can you imagine how the US would be today if we lived under the libertarian Articles of Confederation -- where interior states could be held hostage to coastal states who could control entry of all goods and services through their ports and airspace?
It's so romantic to imagine a simple world where everything works the way we think it should. But, that's not reality. The founding generation faced the same perplexing problems we do today. They had to balance competing interests. They "transferred wealth" by nationalizing natural resources of states (such as New York's port -- and airspace which they didn't even imagine would be a resource).
They did a pretty good job with checks and balances, a bill of rights, etc. But, it was hardly as principled and absolute as we'd gather from impassioned rhetoric from that period. They were politicians, much like today. They said what they felt was necessary. They pandered while dealing with much less complex issues. They were a lot like us. Compared to every generation since, they embraced "big government" like no other. Abandoning the Articles of Confederation for the centralized Federal government of 1789 was *huge* (by comparison).
