Aristotle and the signing of the American constitution

Aristotle would have been pleased to see a large group of people working together to create a government for themselves rather than the tyranny of a monarch. Most likely though he would have assumed it to be an oligarchy given how few people were representing the greater population. That doesn't mean he would be displeased though for he seemed to like an oligarchy than a monarchy. In many ways the men who signed the constitution do not represent the idea we like to have about our government. They were all members of the gentry class of colonial life and were men well established in social and economic standing. In reality though it does well represent our government. In our representative democracy we generally elect people who are already rich and established.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton & Thomas Jefferson

Elizabeth Cady Stanton

 Stanton is as a very intelligent woman. She was one of the few to recognize in public that women are oppressed by men. Tons of obstructions to women's rights but she is one of the first in America to press through those long standing obstacles. She talks about the underlying hypocrisy in the Declaration of Independence and how its words do not apply to women. Accordingly she takes some of the format of the great document for her own calling it 'The Declaration of Sentiments'. Putting her paper in this way draws on the already great standing of The Declaration of Independence and creates both validity and intrigue for her cause.

Thomas Jefferson 

Freedom of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness were the words Jefferson immortalized forever for democracy. However, many argue the hypocrisy of his words due to most of the white population at the time owning slaves. I disagree. Slavery was the main driver of the economy of that time, especially in the south. In addition to that slavery was ingrained in the minds of whites as a just thing and as an obligation to civilize those they enslaved. They viewed them as 'heathens' who needed to be turned to the proper and real god. All this culminated in the justification of the system in the collective mind of most of the world at the time, including the colonies. I think that it would be wrong of us to judge them based on our values today as it would be wrong of them to do likewise. It is no more hypocritical than those who claim to be religious but yet support war and the death penalty. We realize that it is hypocritical but as we view our world right now, deem it necessary.

An examination of Thoreau's Civil Disobedience

Thoreau's ideal government

An ideal government for Thoreau, aside from none at all, would be one that truly acts as an extension of the people's will. The people cannot act out there will indirectly as the current system tries to. he would support the will of the individual. The majority would rule but the minority would still get a voice as well. He describes an instance where a clergyman threatens him with time in jail for not paying the church. His reaction is to not pay it and he suffers no consequences. Most likely he would support a government where people could easily voice their displeasure either by a simple refusal or a notification of some sort.

If Thoreau saw our government today he might like it a little more than his at his time but I still suspect he would be very displeased. He would likely want more freedom from government than we have now and more influence on how corrupt our politics have become.

Mexican War

Thoreau was concerned about the unjust use of power by his government and that it did not at all represent the people's will. The U.S. government was determined to claim land through warfare with mexico. This was what is now known as manifest destiny and through this war we acquired Nevada, California, new mexico, Utah, and Arizona. I do not think President Polk's intentions were at all ethical. It should be the right of the people judge if they are willing to wage war on another country.

Machiavelli and Rousseau's effect on America

Rousseau

Rousseau would approve of a democratic society where people have a lot of freedom and are not under oppressive tyranny of the government. He would support a ruling body that  rule as little as possible, fulfilling only the social contract. Even though he inspired the making of our constitution I do not think it would please him, because we have more of a republic than a democracy. This allows less voice from the public and more from the elitists and politicians. I do not think his vision for society is neither naïve nor unattainable. With a few adjustments to our constitution I think his ideas would be realized.

 

Machiavelli and Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson was very much unlike Machiavelli but in the instance of the creation of the Declaration of Independence he would have agreed with the statement "The end justifies the means". Jefferson states that it becomes necessary to break the bonds to a government and knows that this will cause conflict. Still he and the other founding fathers press the issue of independence, knowing that the goal of independence will justify the lives lost for it. In other cases I think he would have disliked Machiavelli's principles because it is the same logic that is always used by rulers to justify their actions.