Where did all these “Founding Fathers” come from, anyway?

According to Wikipedia, which is sometimes right(!): 

In the late 17th and early 18th Centuries, many younger* sons of English aristocrats specifically chose to leave England for Virginia in the Colonies. Many of the early Virginians who were plantation owners were such younger sons who had left England fortuneless due to primogeniture laws. These Founding Fathers of the United States of America were nearly universally descended from the landed gentry of England, with many being descended from English Kings of the late 14th and early 15th Centuries, especially through the numerous offspring of Edward III of England.

(*–ie, non-inheriting)

Would I be a total Marxist if I didn’t fail to perceive lasting class-consciousness among most of these Founders… and their (so to speak) ‘heirs’???!  [Although they had royal and noble and knightly ancestors, they were not themselves – they ‘fell out of the tree,’ so to speak, at least under English law and custom.]

So what’s wrong with that?  I’m a Monarchist, after all, a Classical Conservative?  Only this: of the handful of mistakes King George III’s advisers/administrators (ie, ministers, politicians) made with regard to these Colonies, one of the biggest was in not supplying us more largely with men and women who were “honourable” or “noble.”  Occasional Crown officials of these Colonies had been knighted, sent here, and left when they completed their service.  As to the future Canada, Nova Scotia warranted a whole bunch of Baronets, a kind of hereditary knighthood, and some of them are still in existence.  And at least one Baronetcy was granted in the Province of New York, to a French-and-Indian War hero whose son moved to Canada as a Loyalist after the Revolution, and whose line of Baronets continues to this day.  But that seems to be all!  As I’ve recently said, if we are deprived of the honorable and the noble, we will be ruled by the dishonorable and the ignoble.  Sure, American textbooks of European history are filled with the misbehaviors of such men and women, but think about this: Out of the tens of thousands of knights and nobles in Europe, we only hear about a handful negatively.  Most were probably no more sinful than you or I.  But they could be prevailed upon, like the Monarch her/himself, with extra persuasion not applicable to you or me: They were “honored” and “noble,” so one could urge them, ‘Hey, live up to it!’  (Talk about “role models”!)  They had public duties and position, a family heritage, training and preparation, Christian/religous  social ethics to live by quite publicly.  They were rulers, regulated by a system and somebody definite, the Monarch; *we* have rulers who regulate themselves, which means not at all!  As I also recently said, at least in Orthodox Christianity, the Tsar of Russia all the way into the 20th century was exhorted by the Church to be moral, to do justice, to show mercy, to do the right thing, and despite Western propaganda to the contrary, usually did his best in a difficult job.  (Remember, Russia was the most diverse, largest landmass of its day – from Poland to Alaska!)

OTOH if our rulers here in America are just about a “contractual, commercial republic,” one whose design even pretends to rely on competing selfishness to limit abuse (like that’s ever worked, especially lately!), how can you morally urge anything on them?!  Instead, we hear just enough Horatio Alger-type stories to try to make us emulate them.  No thanks!  We can do better!  Lots of people do better!

Advertisements