There is no danger more malicious or more egregious to the stability of a nation than the undermining of its historical foundations to satisfy political ends. Indeed, as universities and government institutions venture to wipe out any remnant of American history giving credence to the work of the Framers from the minds of the next generation, one can question (as I did) what our history will be replaced with. Do we leave our foundations now suspended in a perpetual state of made-up progressive euphoria? Do we now choose other leaders of the socialist archetype to credit the founding of the American experiment of individual liberty and the sovereignty of the people to replace the Framers whom modern day academics held over from the 20th century onwards seem desperate to kill off? This seems to be the goal of the modern-day academic institutions, and its one not foreign to world politics. If history is any indication (no pun intended), historical revisionism serves only to benefit a Machiavellian control of the minds of the populace. If you control education, you control the narratives. Control the narratives, and you control the debate. Control the debate, and you control the people. Control the people, consider yourself the newly minted tyrant. As the despicable tyrant Adolf Hitler said himself, “What good fortune for governments that the people do not think.” What insight into the mind of tyrants that we can see such tyrannical control of the mind perpetrating itself onto the minds of today’s students!
Now, no one is free to think for themselves, and God forbid you show solidarity with the Framers of this nation as I vigorously do at the George Washington University as one of its students. I’ve learned long ago since being a student at Montgomery College in Rockville, Maryland, that if I was to truly to be educated on the principles of this country that I love so dearly, I would have to abscond with the dogmatism of the progressive academics in order to read the original sources to which they have preponderated their dismissive, militant opinions against for myself. Not only did I discover that the great majority of the modern-day hatred pouring out against the Framers and the Constitution they drafted to defend the liberty of the people was stemming from a revisionist interpretation of American history, but I realized that the great ignorance to our founding principles that was being propagated by the liberal elites within our government and education system was creating a society full of mush-minded individuals that needed only be molded into the progressive thinkers government uses to control the intellectual fields of thought. Step out of line, and you become a target of the hive.
Some weeks ago, I was approached by Ami Horowitz while he was shooting his short documentary entitled, “Should George Washington University Change Its Name?” at GW. I was on my way to drop off some paperwork at the school when I was stopped by Mr. Horowitz and was notified of his intended purpose for being on campus. I’ve seen his videos before and inquired about his interview results up to the point of our meeting. The disparity between students who wanted the name of the university changed and those who dissented was very significant (Horowitz stated a 70% (For)-30% (Against) disparity). After a brief discussion of the ludicrousness behind changing the name of the university, Ami Horowitz requested that I chime in my opinion, to which I agreed with zeal. Following students who seemed adamant about portraying George Washington as just some avid slaveholder who didn’t give a fig about real liberty because he had happened to own slaves (one gave some ridiculous perspective talking about the mythologizing of freedom), I gave my dissent and defended Washington.
Aside from my main point that questioned, “If we forget liberty; if we forget the intrinsic nature behind the founders’ philosophy of liberty, then what exactly do we have?” I believe my point here should be examined in greater depth. What was the Founders’ philosophy on liberty? Did it really have anything to do with protecting slavery as an institution? The answer is a resounding “No!” In fact, it was the American experiment of liberty that caused the gradual extinction of the idea that there could ever be property in men. James Madison stated himself at the Constitutional Convention in August of 1787 that it was, “…wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men. The reason of duties did not hold, as slaves are not, like merchandize, consumed.” This perspective wasn’t exclusive to Madison, who was also a slaveholder, but even the infamous “fiend,” Washington, of whom GW wants to rid their earth stated eloquently on the matter, “Not only do I pray for it, on the score of human dignity, but I can clearly foresee that nothing but the rooting out of slavery can perpetuate the existence of our union, by consolidating it in a common bond of principle.”
Both men, being slaveholders (and that was their sin to bear), did not see slavery in and of itself as a virtuous institution (quite the opposite) nor as one that should be embedded into the framework of this nation as a national institution. Both men recognized the evils of slavery and actively worked to ensure its pending death. Had it not been for men like Washington or Madison, who not only recognized the evils of slavery but worked viciously to prevent it from becoming a nationalized institution by omitting it from the Constitutional text and establishing a method by which slavery would die in America through the Constitutional process, slavery would have continued through the nation indefinitely, and it is likely we could have been still dealing with it today. I am an American of pure Puerto Rican descent and a conservative, and I am grateful for what the founders have done to ensure that I would have the liberty to be who I am today without infringement by some tyrant on a power-trip who tries to tell me otherwise (looking at you Bernie Sanders).
The Framers were incredibly flawed human beings like anyone else has been in this God-forsaken world, but at least they recognized the evils of slavery well enough to ensure that no word supporting its nationalization would be written in the Constitutional text and that the will of the people (and I mean all people) would be and should be the guiding force of law. Frederick Douglass points this out in his speech to the anti-slavery society in Glasgow, Scotland in 1860, and rebuked anyone who tried to paint the Constitution as a foundationally pro-slavery document or that its original intent was to preserve slavery. As Douglass argued on the subject,
“It was what they (The Framers) said that was adopted by the people, not what they were ashamed or afraid to say, and really omitted to say (Madison and Washington both openly condemned slavery). Bear in mind, also, and the fact is an important one, that the framers of the Constitution sat with doors closed, and that this was done purposely, that nothing but the result of their labours should be seen, and that that result should be judged of by the people free from any of the bias shown in the debates. It should also be borne in mind, and the fact is still more important, that the debates in the convention that framed the Constitution, and by means of which a pro-slavery interpretation is now attempted to be forced upon that instrument, were not published till more than a quarter of a century after the presentation and the adoption of the Constitution….Men, at that time, both in England and in America, looked upon the slave trade as the life of slavery. The abolition of the slave trade was supposed to be the certain death of slavery. Cut off the stream, and the pond will dry up, was the common notion at the time. Wilberforce and Clarkson, clear-sighted as they were, took this view; and the American statesmen, in providing for the abolition of the slave trade, thought they were providing for the abolition of the slavery. This view is quite consistent with the history of the times. All regarded slavery as an expiring and doomed system, destined to speedily disappear from the country. But, again, it should be remembered that this very provision, if made to refer to the African slave trade at all, makes the Constitution anti-slavery rather than for slavery; for it says to the slave States, the price you will have to pay for coming into the American Union is, that the slave trade, which you would carry on indefinitely out of the Union, shall be put an end to in twenty years if you come into the Union. Secondly, if it does apply, it expired by its own limitation more than fifty years ago. Thirdly, it is anti-slavery, because it looked to the abolition of slavery rather than to its perpetuity. Fourthly, it showed that the intentions of the framers of the Constitution were good, not bad.”
Martin Luther King Jr., in his Letter from Birmingham Jail also argued from this line of logic,
“One day the South will know that when these disinherited children of God sat down at lunch counters, they were in reality standing up for what is best in the American dream and for the most sacred values in our Judaeo-Christian heritage, thereby bringing our nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathers in their formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.”
Both these incredible icons of the civil rights movement saw great utility in honoring the remembrance of the Framers’ efforts to create a free society that would correct itself to expand the blessings of freedom for all peoples. Why are the progressives so intent on negating them by revising history altogether? All the progressives’ efforts have done is create a perpetually ignorant generation that’s more willing to resign freedom into the hands of despots for breadcrumbs than give a fig about self-determination.
Alexis de Tocqueville, during his extended trip to the United States, also analyzed the state of slavery within America in the 1830s, and his argument on the trend approximately thirty years before the Civil War and the attack on Fort Sumter in 1961 is not what progressives want to hear,
“Christianity destroyed slavery by insisting on slave’s rights; nowadays it can be attacked from the master’s point of view; in this respect interest and morality are in harmony… Slavery, first introduced in the South spread to the North, but now it is in retreat. Freedom, starting from the North, is spreading without interruption toward the South. Of all the great states Pennsylvania is now the extreme limit of slavery toward the North, but even within those limits the system is shaken; Maryland, immediately to the south of Pennsylvania, is just on the point of abolishing it, and in Virginia, which comes next to Maryland, its profitability and dangers are under discussion.”
I think it’s safe to conclude that this downward spiraling of slavery that Tocqueville saw early on in the American experiment with Democracy wouldn’t have ever been made possible had men like Washington and Madison not prevented it from becoming a nationalized institution and also setting slavery on a course to obscurity within the Constitutional text itself.
The narrative to abscond with George Washington to head up the name of the university is just another stupid attempt by the liberal hegemonic behemoth that dominates universities like mine at GW to undermine America’s founding to satisfy their progressive revision of history. It’s idiotic, and if I did not know well enough to read and educate myself to see through their smoke, I would have ended up like the rest of the indoctrinated socialists I call my classmates, who’d rather give praise to murderous tyrants like Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Vladimir Lenin, and Che Guavara than maintain respect for a man who fought, bled, and relinquished his power as commander of the U.S. Colonial Armies in order that American liberty would be secured so that we could enjoy the freedoms we take for granted today. Today, if you were to ask, many of the GW students can’t even state basic facts about George Washington, so I hardly find it a service to academia that I should consider the university’s social justice-warrior factions as legitimate authorities on the matter of whether or not Washington’s name should remain the title of our university. Liberty is sacred, and if we suspend our foundations and leave them in midair, we just open the doors for tyranny to demolish it, which is what the progressives at GW are attempting to do through their revisionist history. Shame on all of them.
-“Hitler Quotes”, Gordon State University, accessed May 14, 2018. https://ptfaculty.gordonstate.edu/jmallory/index_files/page0508.htm
-David Azerrad, “ What the Constitution Really Says About Race and Slavery,” The Heritage Foundation, December 28, 2015, accessed May 14m 2018. https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/commentary/what-the-constitution-really-says-about-race-and-slavery
– “Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations,” Bartleby, 2015, accessed May 14, 2018. http://www.bartleby.com/73/1706.html
-Frederick Douglass, “The Constitution of the United States: Is It Pro-Slavery or Anti-slavery?” (speech, Scottish Anti-Slavery Society, Glasgow, Scotland, March 26, 1860).
-Ali B. Ali-Dinar., “ Letter From A Birmingham Jail”, African Studies Center, accessed May 15, 2018. http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html
– Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, ed. J.P. Mayer (New York: Harper Perennial Modern Classics, 1969), 348.