Review of new books about the Founding Fathers

Two humorous new books explore these conflicting views while warning against the dangers of simplistic, binary thinking. What more can we learn, the authors say, from the Founding Fathers—and from the Constitution that these men entrusted to posterity with so much hope?

In “The Year of Living Constitutionally,” AJ Jacobs is initially skeptical. “Should we be skeptical of this set of rules written by rich racists who thought tobacco smoke enemas were cutting-edge medicine?” he asks. But should we be, or…?

His method of assessing the Constitution’s continuing utility is to “put himself in the minds of the Founding Fathers.” Jacobs wants to be “the original originalist”—that is, to follow the doctrine of constitutional interpretation that favors the semantic and political frameworks that prevailed at the time of its creation. Armed with a tricorn hat, a goose feather, and a large supply of candles, he does his best to live in 1790s style and exercise his rights granted by the Constitution, whether it’s carrying a musket, quartering a soldier, or obtaining a letter of marque and a declaration of reprisal and becoming a privateer. What fun.

Jacobs’ gonzo approach, while sometimes silly, is not ineffective. By testing the Constitution’s more outdated elements, he shows how foolish it can be to take 237-year-old rules literally. And he backs up his stunts with research and interviews with academics to get an even more alarming sense of the impact of originalist thinking. I was surprised to discover that even the clearly stated rights of the First Amendment were being interpreted radically differently in the late 18th century. Laws against swearing, laws banning the theater, and jailing members of Congress for dissent were basically kosher—imagine that!

Jacobs is not saying that the Founding Fathers were madmen or that we should abandon the Bill of Rights. Rather, he is arguing for living constitutionalism, the philosophy that the basic principles of the founding documents can serve as a guide even as society and technology change. At a time when a majority of the Supreme Court favors the opposite, originalism (at least when it’s convenient), and actively attacks freedoms like reproductive rights and the powers of federal agencies to protect the environment, it’s imperative to question the philosophical underpinnings of their approach. Jacobs seems to me to be essentially right when he calls the Constitution a “national Rorschach test.” We see what we want to see; the idea of ​​a definitive interpretation should be met with suspicion.

In any case, the text of the constitution was only produced after bitter debates. The fact that it is so full of ambiguities and requires interpretation by an expert is due, among other things, to the fact that the delegates at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 could not agree on what should be included in the text of the constitution and were forced to compromise. It was only after four sweltering months in Philadelphia that they had a draft they could live with. Benjamin Franklin spoke for many of the delegates when he declared at the end of the convention: “I confess that I do not entirely approve of this constitution.” Nevertheless, he added: “I also doubt that any other convention that we can convene could produce a better constitution.”

Franklin is the subject of Eric Weiner’s book “Ben & Me: In Search of the Founder’s Formula for a Long and Useful Life.” Like Jacobs, Weiner looks to the past for guidance for our lives today and finds an inspiring example in the Renaissance man Franklin.

Among his many admirable qualities, Weiner says, were his stoicism and the “humble reserve” (Franklin’s words) he displayed in conversation and debate – in stark contrast to today’s ferocious bipartisanship. These qualities are also, of course, among the essential tools of diplomacy, and fortunately Franklin was at the height of his power when his country was suffering the most. If you’ve seen “Franklin” on Apple TV, with a sparkling Michael Douglas enchanting the powdered wigs of French aristocrats, you’ll be familiar with the crucial diplomatic feats he accomplished during the Revolutionary War.

While there is much to admire about Franklin, he was also one of the slave-owning Founding Fathers mentioned above. In fact, it took until 1785 for him to free his last slave. Weiner attempts to use Franklin’s writings to demonstrate the gradual change in his thinking, but it certainly took him a while to become the “consummate abolitionist” that Weiner describes. Nevertheless, did change his mind and eventually become president of a prominent abolitionist society, and his development on this issue suggests one final virtue. “At a time when opinions are hardened,” Weiner writes, “Franklin reminds us that changing one’s mind is not only a noble act; it is also an American one.”

Although there are obvious limitations in seeking guidance in the early republic, there is still much to be learned from the past. Weiner focuses largely on Franklin, but the life stories of most of the Founding Fathers illustrate a certain mutability of intentions and ideology. And that’s a good thing! Flexibility and a willingness to compromise are desirable qualities in politicians, especially in a time of chronic hardening and bitter division.

As for the Constitution, what endures always has at least a good core, and the Founding Fathers’ greatest success has many good things about it. Jacobs, like many before him, particularly admires their ability to change. Although the amendment process is difficult, the passage of 27 amendments since 1787 largely demonstrates how the Constitution could be gradually improved through consensus building without having to start from scratch. Progress may be uneven, but it is growing.

But originalism impedes progress and must be thoroughly examined. Even the Founding Fathers were skeptical of it: no less a figure than Thomas Jefferson argued that “laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind.” This view has been adopted by all who believe that a living Constitution can still offer hope. These include the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., who viewed it as “a promissory note that every American should inherit,” Thurgood Marshall, who had no illusions about its imperfections but fought tirelessly for greater justice through its provisions, and President Barack Obama, who used the words of the Founding Fathers to speak hopefully of the promise of a “more perfect union.” This seems like a good way to look at the past: not only with a clear sense of right and wrong, but also with a desire to build on what the Founding Fathers started, not to destroy it.

Charles Arrowsmith lives in New York and writes about books, films and music.

The year of constitutional life

One man’s humble endeavor to follow the original meaning of the Constitution

In search of the founder’s formula for a long and useful life

Avid Reader Press. 336 pages. $29.99