The Pros And Cons Of The Founding Fathers

453 Words2 Pages
One hundred years after the Constitution was ratified, a political party emerged that threatened to destroy it: the Progressive party. The Progressive party was built upon the idea that the American government is not doing anything to help the country move forward. They believe that there must be moving forward for the “…uplift and betterment of mankind…”(PR pg. 319). They believe that the government of the founding fathers is not keeping up with the rapid changes in society and that it must adapt to the new challenges (PR pg. 333). Although both the progressive party and the founding fathers declare that they want to guard against tyranny and uphold the good of the people, they have different approaches to the issue. The founding fathers…show more content…
The founding fathers equate man’s tendencies to his nature while the fundamentalists equate a man’s desires with his surroundings. One can find evidence in the writings of the founding fathers and the original settlers that point back to this idea. A primary source for the idea of man being ruled by nature is the Declaration of Independence which states that men are bound to the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”(PR pg. 73). This statement is based upon the belief that man’s nature determines how he acts. The original settlers spoke of man’s nature in their writings such as “On Liberty” by John Winthrop which spoke of how man is corrupt due to his nature (PR pg. 6). The mindset of the time suggested that the character of man was formed by his nature just as animals who do act out of instinct. Government was formed out of necessity to maintain order among men so that they may pursue “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”(PR pg. 73). They believed that men without government would be mayhem; a society without any order or regulation while these regulations allowed citizens to be
Open Document