John Adams Influence On The Constitution
John Adams.
The second president of the US and, at one time, a Massachusetts lawyer. One of the most conservative of the Federalists, yet condemned slavery loudly. He only used free labor on his lands (though he was an urbanite). He also predicted the Civil War. His influence on the Constitution was immense, though less well known than Madison and others. As one of the founding fathers and second president, he remains a mystery to the average American. Even in his lifetime he was accused of being a “royalist,” as of this is evil of itself, since he rejected the typical view of the day, which was basically the Enlightenment view that mankind is rational, good and only seeks freedom so it can be manifest in life.
Adams rejected the French Revolution, …show more content…
John Adams said that, among other people, Mayhew was one of the chief creators of the “awakening and revival of American principles and feelings” in the early 1760's. The basics of his theology were fairly modern. They included the ability of man, naturally, to grasp truth and falsehood without the aid of revelation. Yet, of course, he accepts and devotes himself to revelation. This doctrine was against the well known Enlightenment skeptics, holding that all truths normally taken for granted. He is likely referring to Descartes and Spinoza, well known at the time by educated people. In fact, it is precisely these doctrines, and modernity in general, that has dulled our access to natural law (in the medieval, not modern, sense).
So what exists for certain? That we exist, we experience pleasure and pain, that we have ideas, that we have distinct senses, and that objects appear to us as distinct, yet connected. All of this, of course, has many other truths that can be deduced, such as that pleasure might be the same as good, or that we are ignorant of many essential things. Objects are singular and that, we might deduce, have an existence external to us, since we also know that we did not create ourselves or …show more content…
While philosophy and poetry has different life aims (from aesthetic contemplation to duty), all three above deal with happiness. Mayhew defined it as having good morals, Adams, in holding man's power-hungry nature at bay, and Livingston in what would become only later a cultural value: solitude. This specific concept was not accepted in the US at the time. It is also an important difference between Livingston and Adams.
Interestingly, Mayhew did not interpret the famous passage in Romans that “all authority is derived from God” as justifying whatever those in power said. In fact, in Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, this view is rare. “Law” was just by definition. If it was not just, it was not a law, but an arbitrary decree. This is a time before legal positivism, and therefore, law was quantitative. It did not exist in its own right, it existed because a) it worked, b) it was basically just and c) it stood the test of time.
To conclude, you might say that these men are underappreciated. It shows how the old order of America was far from uniform, but quite vigorously intellectual and critical. Poetry, religion and politics here are fused, and each represents a mix of views that prove their lack of dogmatism. All three were well educated and well read, and to ignore them today is wrong. In their day, their influence was immense. It faded as the middle of the 20th century approached. The question is
The second president of the US and, at one time, a Massachusetts lawyer. One of the most conservative of the Federalists, yet condemned slavery loudly. He only used free labor on his lands (though he was an urbanite). He also predicted the Civil War. His influence on the Constitution was immense, though less well known than Madison and others. As one of the founding fathers and second president, he remains a mystery to the average American. Even in his lifetime he was accused of being a “royalist,” as of this is evil of itself, since he rejected the typical view of the day, which was basically the Enlightenment view that mankind is rational, good and only seeks freedom so it can be manifest in life.
Adams rejected the French Revolution, …show more content…
John Adams said that, among other people, Mayhew was one of the chief creators of the “awakening and revival of American principles and feelings” in the early 1760's. The basics of his theology were fairly modern. They included the ability of man, naturally, to grasp truth and falsehood without the aid of revelation. Yet, of course, he accepts and devotes himself to revelation. This doctrine was against the well known Enlightenment skeptics, holding that all truths normally taken for granted. He is likely referring to Descartes and Spinoza, well known at the time by educated people. In fact, it is precisely these doctrines, and modernity in general, that has dulled our access to natural law (in the medieval, not modern, sense).
So what exists for certain? That we exist, we experience pleasure and pain, that we have ideas, that we have distinct senses, and that objects appear to us as distinct, yet connected. All of this, of course, has many other truths that can be deduced, such as that pleasure might be the same as good, or that we are ignorant of many essential things. Objects are singular and that, we might deduce, have an existence external to us, since we also know that we did not create ourselves or …show more content…
While philosophy and poetry has different life aims (from aesthetic contemplation to duty), all three above deal with happiness. Mayhew defined it as having good morals, Adams, in holding man's power-hungry nature at bay, and Livingston in what would become only later a cultural value: solitude. This specific concept was not accepted in the US at the time. It is also an important difference between Livingston and Adams.
Interestingly, Mayhew did not interpret the famous passage in Romans that “all authority is derived from God” as justifying whatever those in power said. In fact, in Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, this view is rare. “Law” was just by definition. If it was not just, it was not a law, but an arbitrary decree. This is a time before legal positivism, and therefore, law was quantitative. It did not exist in its own right, it existed because a) it worked, b) it was basically just and c) it stood the test of time.
To conclude, you might say that these men are underappreciated. It shows how the old order of America was far from uniform, but quite vigorously intellectual and critical. Poetry, religion and politics here are fused, and each represents a mix of views that prove their lack of dogmatism. All three were well educated and well read, and to ignore them today is wrong. In their day, their influence was immense. It faded as the middle of the 20th century approached. The question is