Pursuing historical accuracy regarding the founders' intents, concerns and design of the U.S. (UII w/Claude)

DM

In reading Dan Sisson's "The American Revolution of 1800," he strongly points that many of our "Founding Fathers" adamantly worried and severely warned about two distinct issues which we're confronting today:

1) Jeopardies presented by political parties, and factions therein. They advised, advocated and designed for a "unified, ... yet constructively contentious," Democratic Republic, which should NOT include parties (...for human factors alone and issues therefrom ere formidable enough to attempt to counter, without an addition of further divisive, polarizing, collective organizing).

and

2) The Constitution should not be a static, brittle document; but rather it should be a fluid, evolving diligently deliberate document, being carefully remodeled and editable by forthcoming generations, so as to remain an effective, adaptive and malleable foundation for unforeseen futures. Indeed, they stated (paraphrased) "future generations should not be governed by dead men!"

Are these summations and understandings accurate and correct?

Your summations are indeed accurate.

Sisson argues that Jefferson and the founders "envisioned essentially a nonparty state" and that Jefferson "would have been horrified by this interpretation" of 1800 as the beginning of our two-party system.

Let me break down both claims to help you understand how well they align with historical evidence:

The Anti-Party Vision

Sisson's central thesis is that "most historians celebrate Jefferson's victory over Adams in 1800 as the beginning of the two-party system, but Jefferson would have been horrified by this interpretation!"

His interpretation is well-supported historically.

• George Washington famously warned against "the spirit of party" in his Farewell Address, calling political parties one of the greatest threats to democratic government.

  
  

• James Madison, in Federalist 10, wrote extensively about the dangers of "faction," though he saw them as inevitable and focused on controlling their effects rather than eliminating them.

The founders' concern wasn't just theoretical. They had witnessed how party divisions had torn apart European and ancient governments and contributed to violence and instability.

Jefferson himself wrote that he would never submit "the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever."

Many other founders genuinely hoped their new system could transcend the partisan divisions they saw as destructive to good governance.

The Living Constitution Concept

According to readers of Sisson's work, he presents Jefferson's belief that "our nation should have a revolution every 19 years so that the current generation massages the laws to better fit the current times." This accurately reflects Jefferson's most radical constitutional thinking.

Jefferson's views on generational renewal stem from his famous 1789 letter to James Madison, where he argued that "the earth belongs in usufruct to the living" - meaning each generation has the right to govern itself, without being bound by the conditions and decisions of previous generations.

Jefferson calculated that a generation lasted about 19 years (based on mortality tables of his era); and suggested that constitutions and laws should automatically expire and be renewed by each new generation.

This was Jefferson's solution to what he called the problem of "the dead governing the living:"

He believed it was fundamentally unjust for one generation to bind future generations to laws and debts they had no role in creating.

As he wrote to Madison, no generation should be able to impose perpetual obligations on their descendants.

Historical Context and Accuracy

Sisson's presentation of these ideas appears to be historically accurate, though it's worth noting that not all founders agreed with Jefferson's more radical views on constitutional renewal:

• Madison, for instance, was more concerned with stability and continuity.

  
  

• Hamilton favored a stronger, more permanent governmental structure.

  
  

  The tension between Jefferson's vision of regular democratic renewal and the need for institutional stability was a genuine debate among the founders.

The irony that Sisson highlights - that both the party system and constitutional entrenchment represent departures from at least some founders' original vision - and reflects real historical tensions that continue to shape American political debates today.

Jefferson's ideas about both non-partisan governance and generational constitutional renewal were far more revolutionary than most Americans realize, and Sisson appears to be accurately presenting these often-overlooked aspects of founding-era political thought.