Philosophical Pre-Suppositions of the Founding Fathers: Myth and Reality

THE THOMIST A SPECULATIVE QUARTERLY REVIEW OF THEOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY EDITORS: THE DOMINICAN FATHERS OF THE PROVINCE OF ST. JosEPH Publishers: The Thomist Press, Washington, D. C. 20017 VoL. XL JANUARY, 1976 No. 1 -A BICENTENNIAL ARTICLE PHILOSOPHICAL PRE-SUPPOSITIONS OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS: MYTH AND REALITY 1ULIAN BOYD has suggested that the era of the Founding Fathers was to government what the Age of Pericles was to art, the Age of Elizabeth to exploration and discovery.1 On the threshold of the nation's bicentennial, it would be advisable to separate this myth from the reality that is the great experiment that is America. For so much myth surrounds the Founding Fathers that the reality often disturbs the placid conviction that our heroes were unmoved by the base passions and the turbulence characteristic of contemporary life. The word, myth, of course need not be used pejoratively. Mircea Eliade has revealed how pre-scientific mythic visions of reality did at least give the ancient world a cohesive world 1 Fundamental, Testaments of the American Revolution, intr. Julian Boyd. Washington: 1973, p. 3. 1 ROBERT PAUL MOHAN view, even if the deeds of the gods were somewhat capriciously invoked, and the vision itself destined to yield to more precise scientific explanation. The mytho-poetic vision of Homer and Hesiod bore little resemblance to consequent Platonic or Aristotelian visions of the universe, but the power of myth seems less determined by inner structure than by the extent to which it is given credence. For instance, it has been comforting to us to see Puritan forefathers, harassed by the motherland, blazing new trails in an exciting new world, seeking freedom above all else. It has been said more accurately perhaps that they wanted to worship God in their own way and to force everybody else to do the same. The Puritan mind was as sternly conservative in the new world as it was in the old. In the 17th century it was theocentric and family oriented, paradoxically committed to the establishment of a theocracy and suspicious of the political realm. Faith, not reason, was to be man's guide, and the Convenant of Grace was more important than rational arrogance-especially since reason was and is an integral part of a nature vitiated by primal sin. The Puritans indeed rejected the formalism of establishment Anglicanism and Catholicism, were suspicious of an Anglican religious establishment allied to an inevitably unholy state, and they chose simplicity over what they considered a quasi-popish ritual. Although James Madison was later to see a vital link between liberty and learning, the 17th century Puritan of the "Holy Commonwealth " was not tolerant theologically, not democratic politically, nor inquisitive intellectually.2 A native toughness of mind did pose questions that Puritan mysticism was to avoid.3 The attempt to understand the world of the 2 Cf. Perry Miller, Errand into the Wilderness, New York: 1956, Ch. V, "The Puritan State and Puritan Society," pp. 141-153. Alan Hemert has best described the complexity of the eighteenth century religious mind in his book, Religion and the American Mind, Cambridge, Mass.: 1966. 8 John Bentley disagrees. He sees "democratic ideals embedded deeply in Puritan hearts," and "with matchless wisdom they joined liberty and learning in a holy alliance." Outline of American Philosophy, Patterson: 1963. PHILOSOPHICAL PRE-SUPPOSITIONS OF FOUNDING FATHERS 3 Founding Fathers will not be satisfied as much by a study of their political institutions, social conditions, and economic situation as by a study of their manner of thinking. Gordon Wood, in his monumental work, The Creation of the American Republic, cites Joel Barlow's observation that the mind of man is the only foundation for any system of politics. If this be so, it becomes increasingly necessary to study the .evolution of a mentality, rather than limit oneself to empirical data. This is but another way of expressing the primacy of the logos over the deed, if we really want to understand the deed.4 It is also probable that we see here the power of myth and the limitation of fact. If men think that they are unequal in an Aristotelian political sense, they will not be disturbed...