You just brilliantly gave examples of what the Native American nations meant in a phrase attributed to them that said, “The white man speaks with forked tongue.”
Thank you, Leslye. That phrase fits because presidents like Jefferson and Andrew Jackson both spoke in universal terms while believing that the people they excluded were not equal to white men. Jefferson wrote “all men are created equal,” but placed Black people beneath whites in body and mind. Jackson called Indian removal “benevolent” while describing Native people as “savages” who needed to become civilized. Their words sounded noble because their idea of humanity and equality already had a racial boundary. The “forked tongue” was not only saying one thing and doing another. It was creating a language in which dispossession and bondage could be made to sound reasonable, even righteous to white people.
And it still sounds righteous to a lot of white people. I listen to and read people who are rightfully angered by the activities of I.C.E. Yet, they forget there are millions of Americans who think what I.C.E. is doing is necessary, and so what if a few innocent people are deported or killed?
Great article! Interesting how Washington was managing his public image. The examples in this article are clear evidence the framers had a consciousness of guilt. Also, no one could seem to extricate themselves from their financial conflicts of interest. I see a lot of motivated reasoning by the founding "fathers'. Everyone should be very cautious of sanctifying these men as saints.
Thank you, Cynthia. I agree completely. “Motivated reasoning” is exactly the right phrase. Washington’s concern with secrecy shows that he understood the gap between the republican image he cultivated and the reality of what he was doing. He knew that forcibly returning enslaved people and quietly moving them to avoid Pennsylvania law would look indefensible, which is why he wanted it done without attracting public attention.
The so-called Founders weren’t simply trapped by circumstances beyond their control. Many of them were wealthy, powerful men whose fortunes, status, and political influence depended on slavery. They recognized the contradiction, discussed it, and then repeatedly chose convenience, property, and power over the principles they championed. They turned self-interest into prudence, delay, compromise, and constitutional necessity. As you said, that’s why sanctifying them is so dangerous. It replaces history with mythology and asks us to admire their words while ignoring the people whose labor, land, and freedom made their republic possible.
You just brilliantly gave examples of what the Native American nations meant in a phrase attributed to them that said, “The white man speaks with forked tongue.”
Thank you, Leslye. That phrase fits because presidents like Jefferson and Andrew Jackson both spoke in universal terms while believing that the people they excluded were not equal to white men. Jefferson wrote “all men are created equal,” but placed Black people beneath whites in body and mind. Jackson called Indian removal “benevolent” while describing Native people as “savages” who needed to become civilized. Their words sounded noble because their idea of humanity and equality already had a racial boundary. The “forked tongue” was not only saying one thing and doing another. It was creating a language in which dispossession and bondage could be made to sound reasonable, even righteous to white people.
And it still sounds righteous to a lot of white people. I listen to and read people who are rightfully angered by the activities of I.C.E. Yet, they forget there are millions of Americans who think what I.C.E. is doing is necessary, and so what if a few innocent people are deported or killed?
Great article! Interesting how Washington was managing his public image. The examples in this article are clear evidence the framers had a consciousness of guilt. Also, no one could seem to extricate themselves from their financial conflicts of interest. I see a lot of motivated reasoning by the founding "fathers'. Everyone should be very cautious of sanctifying these men as saints.
Thank you, Cynthia. I agree completely. “Motivated reasoning” is exactly the right phrase. Washington’s concern with secrecy shows that he understood the gap between the republican image he cultivated and the reality of what he was doing. He knew that forcibly returning enslaved people and quietly moving them to avoid Pennsylvania law would look indefensible, which is why he wanted it done without attracting public attention.
The so-called Founders weren’t simply trapped by circumstances beyond their control. Many of them were wealthy, powerful men whose fortunes, status, and political influence depended on slavery. They recognized the contradiction, discussed it, and then repeatedly chose convenience, property, and power over the principles they championed. They turned self-interest into prudence, delay, compromise, and constitutional necessity. As you said, that’s why sanctifying them is so dangerous. It replaces history with mythology and asks us to admire their words while ignoring the people whose labor, land, and freedom made their republic possible.
Ok.