Pilgrims & Indians...

[Karen Kraft]

Yes, it was.

OK, the Great Law of Peace certainly INFLUENCED the Founding Fathers and therefore the US Constitution. No doubt about it.

http://www.iroquoisdemocracy.pdx.edu/

http://www.tuscaroras.com/graydeer/influenc/page4.htm

The governance ideas found in the Constitution of the United States were not a reflection of Iroquois ideas, but a reaction to European ideas of imperialism and monarchy. The document reflects the influence of European Enlightenment and emerging ideals of individual freedom and representative democracies. The philosophical foundations are found in the writings of Hobbes and Locke, who believed that it was natural for men to be free and equal but who also felt that, in such a natural state, absent strict governance and laws to avoid the natural progression of freedom to inequality, chaos would result. In addition, Voltaire, and Rousseau, also wrote on the dynamics of freedom and justice, and influenced progressive thought in the formational days of the American government.

From a political science point of view, the Constitution is the reflection of efforts of the Founding Fathers to attempt to balance equality and freedom within a framework that provided both stability and economic development in an ordered society. It was the balancing of Federalism with “checks and balances” that crafted the document, along with substantial compromises between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. The Federalist Papers (Hamilton, Madison, Jay) and Anti-Federalist thoughts merged uncomfortably to balance the conflicting ideas in the unique manner reflected in the final document.

Concerned with the need to balance conflicting interests to achieve structural longevity, while avoiding the Hobbes and Locke sorts of excesses of democracy (note Delegate Elbridge Gerry’s comments – Massachusetts at the Convention if you actually want to learn this stuff) and ensure that property rights were maintained, most of the delegates dismissed Franklin’s proposal that all White men receive voting enfranchisement as too radical, limiting the vote to White male property owners, fearing that non-property-owning people would scheme to deprive lawful property owners of their property or become dangerous, albeit foolish tools of demagogues.

This fixation on protection of property rights was fundamental and in the end, Gerry refused to sign the final document, fearing that, were less wealthy people, such as James Madison were to have their way, such rights would soon be abandoned in a frenzy of “fairness” and redistributive democracy… etc. Sound familiar? Also, the document reflects the serious concern that he interests of both the large and small states had to be considered – and balanced. Where the large states, such as Virginia, favored a strong central government, which was Madison and Hamilton’s idea, this frightened the smaller states, who felt that their interests would not be protected. The compromise was a bicameral system. The bicameral structure was already in place in many of the state legislatures during the colonial period. Under the bicameral system initially proposed, the larger house would consist of members elected by popular vote while the smaller house would have its members selected by the state legislatures. As the idea of a bicameral structure developed and compromises were obtained (see the Virginia Plan and the Connecticut Compromise), and a system was proposed where the more aristocratic house “the Senate” would provide that each state would have the same votes as every other state, and a lower house (the House of Representatives) where the vote would be based on population. Other than that, it was pure Iroquois….

 

[Rowdy_Y]

"In comparing the two, the preamble stresses unity and providing liberty for posterity, which is similar to the Wampums of the Great Law that also mandates unity and provides for the future generations. (27) In the Great Law, the Haudenosaunee use the symbol of five bound arrows to describe their unity and the strength of the Five Nations. Interestingly, the Great Seal of the United States of America, designed by Charles Thomson in 1782, had an eagle clutching in its claw a bundle of thirteen arrows. (28) Thomson originally proposed the use of five or six arrows, which was like the Five Nations bound arrows; however, Congress preferred thirteen. While the language is not exact, the symbolism and ideas are similar enough to see the influence."

"The Great Law's representatives are the Chiefs, Clan Mothers, Faithkeepers, and Pine Tree Chiefs. (29) Although the U.S. Constitution has a set number of representatives and senators based on a different set of rules, a general influence of the Haudenosaunee can be seen. For example, the Grand Council is composed of the Chiefs of each nation, but when they meet in Grand Council, these same chiefs then divide into three sections, the Elder Brothers, Younger brothers and the Onondaga, which is similar to the decision-making process of the U.S. Constitution's two-house congress.

The Great Law provides that the Haudenosaunee should have 50 Chiefs or Rotiianison (men of good), which is the number of chiefs who first accepted the Great Law. These chiefs are chosen for life terms and must be married and have children. (30) There is no age requirement. Whereas, the U.S. Constitution provides that the a representative should be 21 years of age, and "[t]he Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand"18 citizens of each state.

The Great Law, like the U.S. Constitution allows for impeachment of those in office not doing their duty. While, the senators for the U.S. "have the sole Power to try all Impeachments ... no person shall be convicted without concurrence of two thirds of the Members present." (31) The Great Law provides that the women have the sole power to "dehorn" (impeach) a Chief. If a Chief acts improperly, or if during a deliberation the Clan Mothers see that the Chief is not acting of the good mind or he is stalling consensus because of his own selfish reasons, then the Clan Mothers will call him outside. (32) Once outside, the chief will be talked to and warned that he is not acting with the best interests of the people in mind. If he persists to act wrongly, the Clan Mothers will have his antlers, which show his authority as a chief, removed from his kastoweh (hat); thus dehorning (impeaching) him."

The U.S. Constitution provides that the executive power is vested in the President, who shall hold his term for four years, must be elected into office, and shall be thirty-five years of age or older. (33) The Great Law provides for an executive-like power within the Grand Council in that the Onondaga Chief Hononwiretonh, who has gotten his seat through the Clan mothers has the final say as to whether a matter is either confirmed or denied.

Women amongst the Haudenosaunee are considered equals, and they are important to maintaining balance and harmony. Unfortunately, the founding forefathers of the U.S. Constitution did not embrace the Haudenosaunee's respect for women, for it was not until the year 1920 when the 19th Amendment was made into law allowing women to vote. (34)

The Great Law provides that women, the clan mothers, shall pick the chiefs. Women were given this duty and responsibility by the Peacemaker, for women were the first to accept the Great Law of Peace, and they are the ones to give birth, raise, and care for the children. Therefore, women are more sensitive to the maternal needs of the children and the people. (35)

Although the Women are empowered to choose the Chief, the current chiefs must sanction their choice, which allows for checks and balances; therefore, the Haudenosaunee avoid concentrations of power by making sure there is consensus and not just a majority acceptance.

The aforementioned are just a few of the many comparisons between the United States Constitution and the Great Law of Peace. When one looks at the Great Law of Peace in its entirety and the U.S. Constitution in its entirety, one is able to see evidence that the Haudenosaunee did have an influence on the founding fathers. The Great Law provided a foundation on which the founding fathers could build, for the Great law provided "the type of central government that would later be suggested by Benjamin Franklin to the colonies as an institution worthy of emulation." (36) The Great Law is a consensual constitution that "enunciate such democratic ideas and doctrines as initiative, recall, referendum, and equal suffrage."(37)

These few similarities are enough to prove more than just a coincidental causality.

The Founding Fathers admired the Iroqois and their system of government and most certainly borrowed from them, in part.

This is evidenced by the writings of Ben Frankin:

"the type of central government (Iroquois) as an institution worthy of emulation." (36) The Great Law is a consensual constitution that "enunciate such democratic ideas and doctrines as initiative, recall, referendum, and equal suffrage."

Sorry, the basic ideas are the same. One came first. One expanded on the other.

 

[Slowlane]

Yes, it was.

OK, the Great Law of Peace certainly INFLUENCED the Founding Fathers and therefore the US Constitution. No doubt about it.

http://www.iroquoisdemocracy.pdx.edu/

http://www.tuscaroras.com/graydeer/influenc/page4.htm

The Constitution, a document about basic human freedoms, my appear to be based upon any number of earlier works about the same subject. The plain fact is though although it took into consideration several English writings and ideas of the time, it was drawn mostly from whole cloth.

It is, of course, possible that any or all of the founding fathers threw in an idea or two from any source they chose to draw from.

Any comparison between the Constitution and the Great Law of Peace is circumstantial and tenuous at best.

 

[Karen Kraft]

The Constitution, a document about basic human freedoms, my appear to be based upon any number of earlier works about the same subject. The plain fact is though although it took into consideration several English writings and ideas of the time, it was drawn mostly from whole cloth.

It is, of course, possible that any or all of the founding fathers threw in an idea or two from any source they chose to draw from.

Any comparison between the Constitution and the Great Law of Peace is circumstantial and tenuous at best.

Quite true, but not nearly as politically correct as the alternative.

 

[Slowlane]

Quite true, but not nearly as politically correct as the alternative.

My bad.

 

[Rowdy_Y]

The Constitution, a document about basic human freedoms, my appear to be based upon any number of earlier works about the same subject. The plain fact is though although it took into consideration several English writings and ideas of the time, it was drawn mostly from whole cloth.

It is, of course, possible that any or all of the founding fathers threw in an idea or two from any source they chose to draw from.

Any comparison between the Constitution and the Great Law of Peace is circumstantial and tenuous at best.

Benjamin Frankin specifically mentioning them is "tenuous"?

You're simply ridiculous at best, inaccurate at worst.

 

[MechaBlade]

… or in politically correct speech:

“Disease Infested European Butchers and Victimized First Americans”​

That'll show those redskins to be sensitive about nearly being wiped off the planet.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

That'll show those redskins to be sensitive about nearly being wiped off the planet.

Should've kept 'em drunk and off-balance like the plan stated. Once they got a little self-actualization, they started sticking up for their basic pride like them Negroes did. Remember the good ol' days when you could dress up with a spear with a bone through your nose and be a cannibal from the Congo even though they didn't exist there but that's what Africa was supposed to be like?

Damn minorities!

 

[Rowdy_Y]

In many ways the Natives (some tribes) were more civilized than the Pilgrims. Example: they allowed their women much more political voice and power than the newcomers at the time.

 

[Karen Kraft]

Benjamin Frankin specifically mentioning them is "tenuous"?

You're simply ridiculous at best, inaccurate at worst.

Franklin, eh?

We all KNOW about that guy:

He was the one that put the helpless little mouse on a kite to watch it get electrocuted by lightning! That bastard!

http://www.kindredlearning.net/Images/ben-and-me.jpg​

No surprise that his fucking magazine when tits up!

http://www.curtispublishing.com/images/NonRockwell/9231201.jpg​

 

[Rowdy_Y]

Franklin wrote his observations on Haudenosaunee government in 1783, just four years before, as historian Robert Venables says, "he became the sage of the 1787 Philadelphia Convention" to draft the new Constitution.

Here then is what Franklin thought of the Five Nations methods of government in those years before the Constitution was written (Barreiro, Indian Roots of American Democracy, pp. 91-92—we’ve modernized some capitalizations, punctuation, and spelling for ease of reading):


"The Indian men, when young, are hunters and warriors, when old, counsellors; for all their government is by the counsel or advice of the sages. There is no force, there are no prisons, no officers to compel obedience or inflict punishment. Hence they generally study oratory, the best speaker having the most influence.

The Indian women till the ground, dress the food, nurse and bring up the children, and preserve and hand down to posterity the memory of public transactions ....

Having frequent occasions to hold public councils, they have acquired great order and decency in conducting them. The old men sit in the foremost rank, the warriors in the next, and the women and children the hindmost. The business of the women is to take exact notice of what passes, imprint it on their memories—for they have no writing—and communicate it to their children. They are the records of the council, and they preserve tradition of the stipulations in treaties a hundred years back, which when we compare with our writings we always find exact.

He that would speak, rises. The rest observe a profound silence. When he has finished and sits down, they leave him five or six minutes to recollect, that if he has omitted anything he intended to say or has anything to add, he may rise again and deliver it. To interrupt another, even in common conversation, is reckoned highly indecent.

How different it is from the conduct of a polite British House of Commons, where scarce a day passes without some confusion that makes the Speaker hoarse in calling to order; and how different from the mode of conversation in many polite companies of Europe, where if you do not deliver your sentence with great rapidity, you are cut off in the middle of it by the impatient loquacity of those you converse with and never allowed to finish it."

 

[Rowdy_Y]

btw:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZlDZPYzfm4&feature=related

 

[Slowlane]

Benjamin Frankin specifically mentioning them is "tenuous"?

You're simply ridiculous at best, inaccurate at worst.

There were fifty-five people involved in writing the Constitution (probably many more indirectly) Franklin had less input than many others. His mention of it (if he ever mentioned it in connection with the document) in no way changes what I said.

 

[Karen Kraft]

There were fifty-five people involved in writing the Constitution (probably many more indirectly) Franklin had less input than many others. His mention of it (if he ever mentioned it in connection with the document) in no way changes what I said.

Franklin was pretty much over the hill by the time the Constitution was finalized.

Amos the mouse, however, lives on -- as we speak.

 

[John Doe]

People still dress up in that shit? Why not just get real Indians to show up? If that's offensive (or not) I think you have your answer.

There aren't enough to go around.

 

[Rowdy_Y]

There were fifty-five people involved in writing the Constitution (probably many more indirectly) Franklin had less input than many others. His mention of it (if he ever mentioned it in connection with the document) in no way changes what I said.

Franklin was a principal delegate.


" Franklin's Albany Plan of Union in 1754, one of the first attempts at colonial union, was based on the Iroquois Confederacy. Franklin had visited the Iroquois earlier and had observed their government in action. Franklin spent his whole life advocating a one-house legislature similar to the one he saw in action in the Iroquois Confederacy. Delegates to the Albany Congress were called using Iroquois terminology. Their purpose was to "brighten the chain" of union, to "sit under the Tree of Peace" (Johansen 1998:9) Johansen further argues that the Mohawk disguises used by the Tea Partiers were not merely for disguise, nor coincidentally Mohawk; it was indeed a tribute to the liberty the Mohawk enjoyed through their Confederacy, as well as a symbolic reminder to themselves of the reasons behind their actions
(Johansen 1998:9)"

Not just Ben took lessons from the Iroquois Nation:

Adams, in his book Defence of the Constitution of the United States, discusses the "fifty families of the Iroquois" as a model for the Americans to follow. (Johansen 1998:75) Thomas Jefferson, perhaps the quintessential libertarian in American history, wrote admiringly to John Rutledge during the Constitutional Convention "The only condition on earth to be compared with ours is that of the Indians, where they still have less law than we." (Johansen 1998:75) These are strong words from a man who was no fan of excessive lawmaking.

Finally:

Iroquois leaders were invited to Independence Hall in 1775 to observe the Continental Congress. They were given positions of honor, indicated by their sleeping quarters in the hall. (Johansen 1998:9.) This bit of history suggests that the Iroquois people were respected, and therefore could have held influence over the thought process of the framers of the emerging American nation.

http://www.campton.sau48.k12.nh.us/iroqconf.htm

Now that is interesting. I never knew Native Representatives were actually invited and present at the Philadelphia Convention.

 

[Rowdy_Y]

Franklin was pretty much over the hill by the time the Constitution was finalized.

Amos the mouse, however, lives on -- as we speak.

Franklin was pretty much instrumental in organizing the CC and extremely influential:

CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. At the age of 81, Franklin was the senior statesman of the Constitutional Convention, but his advanced years only served to enhance his importance in the Convention, giving him a singular role to play. His few formal discourses were written out and read, since he was no orator, and none of his major ideas, including a single-chambered legislature, an executive board rather than a single President, and service in public office without pay, was ever adopted. Yet he remained among the most influential delegates because of his unique ability to soothe disputes and encourage compromise through his prestige, humor, and powers of diplomacy. When a deadlock developed over the question of how the states should be represented in Congress, Franklin rephrased the problem in simple yet direct terms: "If a property representation takes place, the small states contend their liberties will be in danger. If an equality of votes takes place, the large states say their money will be in danger. When a broad table is to be made, and the planks do not fit, the artist takes a little from both, and makes a good joint." In the end, Franklin was an important member of the committee that adjusted the matter of representation, thus working out the "good joint" that was to be the most important prerequisite to the adoption of the Constitution. When the time came to sign the document, Franklin encouraged his fellow delegates to take this spirit of compromise to its conclusion by lending the Constitution their unanimous support, despite the fact that he himself did not approve of every aspect of the new plan of government. He concluded: "On the whole . . . I cannot help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention . . . would with me, on this occasion, doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to the instrument."


http://www.history.army.mil/books/RevWar/ss/franklin.htm

 

[MechaBlade]

Should've kept 'em drunk and off-balance like the plan stated. Once they got a little self-actualization, they started sticking up for their basic pride like them Negroes did. Remember the good ol' days when you could dress up with a spear with a bone through your nose and be a cannibal from the Congo even though they didn't exist there but that's what Africa was supposed to be like?

Damn minorities!

Their victim mentality is making it hard for regular white folks to do anything. It's rough, I tells ya.

 

[Karen Kraft]

Franklin was pretty much instrumental in organizing the CC and extremely influential:

CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. At the age of 81, Franklin was the senior statesman of the Constitutional Convention, but his advanced years only served to enhance his importance in the Convention, giving him a singular role to play. His few formal discourses were written out and read, since he was no orator, and none of his major ideas, including a single-chambered legislature, an executive board rather than a single President, and service in public office without pay, was ever adopted. Yet he remained among the most influential delegates because of his unique ability to soothe disputes and encourage compromise through his prestige, humor, and powers of diplomacy. When a deadlock developed over the question of how the states should be represented in Congress, Franklin rephrased the problem in simple yet direct terms: "If a property representation takes place, the small states contend their liberties will be in danger. If an equality of votes takes place, the large states say their money will be in danger. When a broad table is to be made, and the planks do not fit, the artist takes a little from both, and makes a good joint." In the end, Franklin was an important member of the committee that adjusted the matter of representation, thus working out the "good joint" that was to be the most important prerequisite to the adoption of the Constitution. When the time came to sign the document, Franklin encouraged his fellow delegates to take this spirit of compromise to its conclusion by lending the Constitution their unanimous support, despite the fact that he himself did not approve of every aspect of the new plan of government. He concluded: "On the whole . . . I cannot help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention . . . would with me, on this occasion, doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to the instrument."


http://www.history.army.mil/books/RevWar/ss/franklin.htm

Ummmm.....

I think you just proved my point, since the issue was the structure of the Constitution, not how the guys got along.

 

[Slowlane]

Franklin was pretty much over the hill by the time the Constitution was finalized.

Amos the mouse, however, lives on -- as we speak.

Amos was always the smarter of the two - and the best looking as well. (sexy little bastard, that mouse. He almost makes me want to cross the fence)

 

[Slowlane]

Franklin was pretty much instrumental in organizing the CC and extremely influential:

CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. At the age of 81, Franklin was the senior statesman of the Constitutional Convention, but his advanced years only served to enhance his importance in the Convention, giving him a singular role to play. His few formal discourses were written out and read, since he was no orator, and none of his major ideas, including a single-chambered legislature, an executive board rather than a single President, and service in public office without pay, was ever adopted. Yet he remained among the most influential delegates because of his unique ability to soothe disputes and encourage compromise through his prestige, humor, and powers of diplomacy. When a deadlock developed over the question of how the states should be represented in Congress, Franklin rephrased the problem in simple yet direct terms: "If a property representation takes place, the small states contend their liberties will be in danger. If an equality of votes takes place, the large states say their money will be in danger. When a broad table is to be made, and the planks do not fit, the artist takes a little from both, and makes a good joint." In the end, Franklin was an important member of the committee that adjusted the matter of representation, thus working out the "good joint" that was to be the most important prerequisite to the adoption of the Constitution. When the time came to sign the document, Franklin encouraged his fellow delegates to take this spirit of compromise to its conclusion by lending the Constitution their unanimous support, despite the fact that he himself did not approve of every aspect of the new plan of government. He concluded: "On the whole . . . I cannot help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention . . . would with me, on this occasion, doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to the instrument."


http://www.history.army.mil/books/RevWar/ss/franklin.htm

You'r losing here kid. Why? because you're wrong.

Give it up.

 

[Rowdy_Y]

Wow, what a slowbrain.

http://www.tuscaroras.com/graydeer/influenc/page1.htm

 

[Rowdy_Y]

Ummmm.....

I think you just proved my point, since the issue was the structure of the Constitution, not how the guys got along.

Why didn't you bold the next sentence?

"Yet he remained among the most influential delegates..."

You're right, Ben Franklin had nothing to do with the constitution. In your warped bizarro-world.

 

[Karen Kraft]

Why didn't you bold the next sentence?

"Yet he remained among the most influential delegates..."

You're right, Ben Franklin had nothing to do with the constitution. In your warped bizarro-world.

My "warped bizarro (sic) world" is called the study of history. You might learn something.

Franklin's role was that of peace-maker, leaving the structural development to other, younger men. Yeah, I know, Ben Franklin was an Indian, right? Little Red Schoolhouse at work, eh?

 

[Karen Kraft]

That'll show those redskins to be sensitive about nearly being wiped off the planet.

Well, Mechy, what we have here is a sad generalization and chronological misstep a foot (so to speak).

There were both good and bad times during the relationships between various Indian tribes and the 17th Century settlers. Thanksgiving Day is celebrated to recognize one of the good times -- a two-day feast with a lot of food, drinking, showing off of warrior skills, etc. Such multi-day-long harvest feasts were more the tradition of the Indians than the Pilgrims, and yes, Virginia, the Indians wore feathers (but not ones made out of poster paper). That having been said, many of the Pilgrims wore feathers as well, so there's really no point in classifying feather-wearing as "stereotypical insults" toward anybody. To this day, Native American (or First American) tradition includes the use of feathers in a variety of circumstances.

The chronological misstep is somehow trying to jam the square peg of 17th Century Indian-Settler relations into the round hole of the 19th Century Comanche, Lakota, etc. relationships with Texas and high plains settlers, Texas Rangers, and the U.S. Army's 4th Cavalry. The tragedy of the clash of the two peoples in the West, and the relative strength and fighting tradition of the different Nations are as different as Romans and Jains.

Re-writing American history to imply that The First Thanksgiving was a celebration of the inhalation of First Americans is crap -- the exact kind of crap they teach in schools these days: Politically correct non-history where everybody is a victim.

It's a wonderful holiday and should not be tweaked into some nightmarish and ghoulish miscarriage to bend minds to PC-ism... particularly young minds. In the present case, we are talking Kindergarten kids.

http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/97/96797-004-66B24CFA.jpg​