Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here's another bombshell for those who think this country was founded on Christian principles !! I wonder how many people realize that the Constitution of the United States was actually modeled after a Constitution of the oldest continuous participatory democracy in the world today, I'm talking about the Constitution of the Iroquois Confederacy that is some 900 years old. Now GldnRule posted a link to it in his first post and I'm going to repost that link here if you want to know the truth about the Constitution of the United States and its origins you may want to take the time to read this link and educate yourself. Modern History Sourcebook: The Constitution of the Iroquois Confederacy, The Six Nations: Oldest Living Participatory Democracy on Earth
These are long articles but well worth the read and go down to line number 99, it reads. The rights and festivals of each nation shall remain undisturbed and shall continue as before because they were given by the people of old times as useful and necessary for the good of man.
You see they even have freedom of religion 900 years ago.
Of course, not everyone agrees that the Constitution was based on the The Constitution of the Iroquois Confederacy, and in my opinion a great majority of historians would deny it.
Quote:
George Will dismissed the idea as a "fiction", Pat Buchanan labeled it "idiocy", and D'Nesh D'Souza slammed the idea as "neo-Marxist ideology promoted in the name of multi-culturalism." (Johansen 1998:9,16) Robert Bork wrote "The official promulgation of this idea was not due to any research that disclosed its truth." (Johansen 1998:10) Historian Arthur Schlesinger took issue with the theory, calling it "feel good history." (Johansen 1998:16) Michael Newman wrote in the New Republic "This myth isn't just silly, it's destructive . . . even a cursory examination of Indian history indicates otherwise . . . Obviously Western civilization, beginning in Greece, had provided models of government much closer to the hearts of the Founding Fathers than this one. There was nothing to be gained by looking to the New World for inspiration." (Newman 1998:18) The National Endowment for the Humanities rejected a number of research proposals that dealt with the Iroquois influence theory. (Johansen 1998:64) Johansen's first book on the Iroquois influence, Forgotten Fathers, was ordered removed from the shelves of the bookstore at Independence Hall. (Johansen 1998:65) Elizabeth Tooker continues to be a chief critic of the influence theory, rejecting oral histories and demanding clear linear histories rather than the 'mosaic of history' that Grinde and Johansen advocate.
Samuel Payne attacks many of the assertions that Grinde and Johansen have made in defense of their influence thesis. He disputes the notion that federalism was an idea lifted from the Indian culture, citing the existence of the federalist body United Colonies of New England in 1643 as an example. Payne has stated that this confederation wrote a constitution called the "Articles of Confederation." (Payne 1996:611) Furthermore, Payne argues that this body functioned like a true confederacy, with internal sovereignty of the colonies blended with the power and sovereignty of the total body. Payne argues that this shows that early English settlers were familiar with confederation almost 100 years before Canasetoga's admonishments towards confederacy, and thirty years before New Englanders even made contact with the Iroquois in 1677 (Payne 1996; thus, the framers did not necessarily have only the Iroquois to thank for the notion of confederacy.
Payne further asserts that the framers had many potential models for confederacy other than the Iroquois. Ben Franklin had a significant knowledge of Indian culture, but Payne asserts that nowhere in Franklin's writings does he state clearly that the Iroquois Confederacy was the model for his Albany Plan. Even if a connection could be shown, Payne argues, the Albany Plan and the idea Franklin proposed almost 20 years later for confederation differed significantly. (Payne 1996:613) Payne continues by saying that the framers simply did not know that much about Iroquois government; only the most informed did, and when they wrote about it, they compared it to more familiar confederacies like those of ancient Greece and the Netherlands. Payne states that the framers knew of confederacy long beforehand, and as such, the influence of Iroquois government is most probably incidental. (Payne 1996:614)
Payne even goes on to claim that the contact that was had with the Iroquois by the nascent American nation was simply diplomatic - to win favor and support against Britain in the war. He argues that that is why the Iroquois were at Independence Hall during the Continental Congress, and not as a sign of homage to the Iroquois system. He claims that Canasetoga's advice for confederation was simply for the purposes of having a strong ally in the Iroquois struggle against the French. As Payne says, the framers had "no reason to believe that what might have served Iroquois interests in 1744 would serve their own interests in 1775." (Payne 1996:616)
Payne makes further arguments that Grinde and Johansen have made assertions about the Founding Fathers that are simply not supported by primary sources. (Payne 1996:616-618) Philip Levy picks up this tack and provides a convincing deconstruction of Grinde and Johansen; he is particularly damning of the assertions made by Johansen in Forgotten Founders. Levy takes on the claims about Ben Franklin's interest in the Iroquois Confederacy and concludes that proponents overstate it. He (Levy) argues that no citations from Franklin's own writings support the influence theorists' assessment of his motivations for meeting with Canasetoga or printing his quotes. That the meetings and printing are real is not in dispute; Levy merely feels that the influence theorists are creating links where no historical evidence exists to support such links. He criticizes Grinde and Johansen's assertion that internal sovereignty inside a federation "had 'no existing precedent in Europe'" as "hyperbolic."(Levy 1996:592) Levy further asserts that the Franklin-Canasetoga connection only shows that "at least some whites and some Indians in the eighteenth century realized the advantages of confederation." (Levy 1996:592) Levy feels that Grinde and Johansen jump to conclusions and use any evidence of contact between the Founding Fathers, such as Franklin, and the Iroquois as solid proof that real and substantive transmission of ideas took place, accusing them of making "revisionist mountains out of historical molehills." (Levy 1996:593) Levy claims that the plethora of solidly supported evidence that the Founding Fathers had numerous contact with Iroquois and other Indians provide ample opportunity for Grinde and Johansen to manufacture proof.
Levy takes issue with the contention that John Rutledge of South Carolina was a conduit for Iroquois ideas; he calls the idea "farfetched." (Levy 1996:593) Levy contends that Grinde and Johansen are guilty of underdone scholarship, using only Richard Barry's book Mr. Rutledge of South Carolina, as a source, citing no writings from Rutledge himself. Levy further criticizes their assertions that Jefferson was influenced by the Iroquois, evidenced by his enormous interest in Indian culture. Levy claims that Jefferson's writings are not cited thoroughly by Grinde and Johansen, and offer no other primary sources as evidence. When Grinde and Johansen do cite Jefferson's writings from Notes on the State of Virginia, they actually are taking words from and appendix to the volume written by Charles Thompson and putting them in Jefferson's mouth. (Levy 1996:594)
Levy continues to find fault with Grinde and Johansen's scholarship. Grinde and Johansen state in their work Exemplar of Liberty that Jefferson said to and Indian delegation in 1802, "your blood will mix with ours, and will spread, with ours, over this great island"; the great island, they claim, could be alluding to the Iroquois creation story, thereby establishing evidence that Jefferson revered Iroquois culture and was thus influenced by it [central to their 'mosaic of history' model.] Levy says that this seems to be a blind denial that the "great island" most probably meant the American continent. Moreover, Levy argues, a careful reading of the entire context of that speech in 1802 would reveal clearly that Jefferson did not revere the Iroquois culture to the extent that Grinde and Johansen seem to assert; indeed, Jefferson wanted to Americanize the Indians, in a Eurocentric manner. Levy writes:
He (Jefferson) encouraged them to adopt Euro-American agriculture: "on the lands now given you to begin to give every man a farm; let him enclose it, cultivate it, build a warm house on it, and when he dies, let it belong to his wife and children after him." Jefferson offered American help: "we are ready to teach you how to make ploughs, hoes, and necessary utensils." Finally, in direct opposition to the influence thesis, he prophesied that . . . "You will find that our laws are good . . . you will wish to live under them." (Levy 1996:594)
This last line Levy finds particularly damning to influence thesis theorists like Grinde and Johansen.
Levy does not stop there. He goes on to deconstruct Grinde and Johansen's conclusions and assertions about John Adams and James Madison. Grinde and Johansen claim that Adams was familiar with Native American culture and Indian governments, and that he wrote thoroughly on the subject. Levy argues that this, too is hyperbole, subject to the scrutiny of his earlier 'contact equals influence' theory. Levy points out that Grinde and Johansen base their conclusions almost exclusively on Adams' Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America. The problem, Levy contends, is that this is a three volume set analyzing government from the ancient Greeks through the modern English, but it contains a mere six references to American Indians in any manner. (Levy 1996:595)
Moreover, Grinde and Johansen are just plain wrong on some of the facts in their argument surrounding Adams. Grinde and Johansen claim that Adams received lessons from the Iroquois in 1776, and that he later wrote about in Defence. The lessons that Adams received, Levy claims, spoke of Iroquois alliance with the British, but not about Iroquois governmental systems. Levy feels Adams just didn't know anything about the Iroquois. Furthermore, Levy argues, Adams was in London for the winter when Grinde and Johansen claim he received the Mohawk leader Joseph Brant for a visit that might have included a discussion of Iroquois government. Not only is this conjecture, Levy asserts, but it is incorrect conjecture, since Adams was a whole ocean away at the time. (Levy 1996:596) Levy's argument continues for several pages, carefully challenging the veracity and accuracy of the claims that Grinde and Johansen have made regarding the connection that Adams had with Iroquois thought. He then does the same for Grinde and Johansen's claims about James Madison, showing through careful analysis of Madison's papers and other primary sources that Madison was not where Grinde and Johansen say he was, did not have meetings they say he did, and did not have the correspondence they claim him to have. Furthermore, Levy shows through the use of firsthand resources that on the occasions that Madison traveled to Indian territory, he was certainly not on fact-finding missions, but rather nights of revelry and drinking. (Levy 1996:596-602) Payne even points out that in his speeches at the Virginia convention to ratify the Constitution, Madison speaks admiringly of the Swiss Confederacy and United Provinces of the Netherlands, but not the Iroquois; in Federalist 18, 19, and 20, Madison discussed the Holy Roman Empire, the Achean League, Poland, the Swiss Confederacy, the Netherlands, but not the Iroquois. (Payne 1996:618) Levy not only challenges Grinde and Johansen on their conclusions (i.e. criticizes the 'contact as influence' analysis - making sweepingly generalized conclusions from facts most historians would judge as minor, including too much conjecture in their arguments), but further attacks the very quality of scholarship and research of Grinde and Johansen, systematically illuminating shoddy research.
Who cares about the founding?
The main thing is that the christians are in control of everything and that all laws are made to suit their likes and dislikes.
It's closer to 30%. China, Russia, and Eastern Europe remain primarily atheist. Western Europe is mostly atheist.
I don't know about that. It would be nice to think so, but I believe you're classifying the "non-religious" as atheists to get that number. Got an respectable studies that show your numbers? I'd love to see them.
Of course, not everyone agrees that the Constitution was based on the The Constitution of the Iroquois Confederacy, and in my opinion a great majority of historians would deny it.
That's true Boxcar, many will deny the influence and yet that democracy still exists to this day and has for over 900 years, so it's not hard to imagine that it did have some influence on the founding fathers and the similarities are not coincidental.
I'm not trying to say it's the definitive truth to where our Constitutional ideas come from, but rather something to read and think about for those who're interested.
I realize Christians will look at the title of the website and scoff, but hey, not everyone who post here are Christians.
Of course, not everyone agrees that the Constitution was based on the The Constitution of the Iroquois Confederacy, and in my opinion a great majority of historians would deny it.
I don't recall anyone saying our Constitution was based solely on the Iroquois Confederacy. But to deny its influence is reprehensible and bad history.
The experiences of our founders included the body of knowledge they brought from Europe as well as the knowledge they acquired in North America.
From 1777 to 1788 we lived under the Articles of Confederation.....which did not work, but were apparently based, predominately on European social theories of democracy. However, our founders and their peers and forefathers had had contact with the Iroquois since 1497, when the first missionaries landed on the northeastern coast. That our founders were well aware of the Iroquois Confederacy is undeniable. The original concepts brought from Europe, from the Roman and Greek Senates to the magna carta to the writings of the French philosophers and social theorists certainly influenced our founders. But the Iroquois Confederacy was certainly a major influence........perhaps not the only one, but a major one.
Quote:
When was the Iroquois Confederacy formed and by whom?
Quote:
August 18, 909.
That's not a typo. It's a confirmed date for the founding of the oldest continuous democracy.
At the Cayugas' annual picnic at their farm, Jack Rossen and Shannon Keller O'Loughlin filled me in on some good news, already known to some of the Cayugas, Onondagas and others.
Jack Rossen, an archaeologist, has been excavating the Levanna site, some two miles from the SHARE farm, also on the east side of Cayuga Lake. The artifacts he found were clearly Haudenosaunee, and included ceremonial pipes with false faces on them. The site had longhouses with no palisades around, so it was from a time of peace.
The carbon dating put it in the mid 900s.
The Haudenosaunee have been saying for a long time that the Confederacy is over a thousand years old, and now they have the carbon-14 evidence to back them up.
The Confederacy of the Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga and Seneca was completed when the Senecas came in, the last to join. The oral tradition was that the Peacemaker and Hayonwatha had not quite persuaded the Senecas, during a time when the corn was high, until there was a total eclipse of the sun during one of their councils, which typically occurred around noon. Then they agreed to join.
Thanks to modern astronomy it has been possible to get a precise dating on total eclipses of the sun in late summer Ganondagan, the main village of the Senecas. A previous fix was for the most recent total eclipse before the coming of Europeans. However, Jack Rossen's research on the site from the mid 900s prompted turning the astronomical clock back further to identify a total eclipse that passed over Ganondagan at 12:48 pm August 18, 909. Jack Rossen said the eclipse was also observed at Onondaga that day.
This is a more consistent date to the information about the Tadodaho. The first Tadodaho was named at the time of the founding of the Confederacy, and there have been over 130 successors. With the 909 date, that averages out to about an eight year term per person on average, which seems about right.
The artifacts from the mid 900s and the 909 date are very significant for the return of artifacts and human remains from the museums. New York State museums have a huge collection of human remains, carbon dated from before 1500.
Heretofore the museums had refused to repatriate the remains, claiming a lack of connection to living natives. Euro-American archaeologists had dismissed much of the Haundenosaunee's oral history.
Shannon Keller-O'Loughin, Esq., attorney specializing in cultural topics such as NEPA and NAGPRA law on behalf of the Onondagas, invited Jack Rossen to testify regarding the return of remains from an Onondaga burial site near Binghamton. Research on the Engelbert site by others had shown Onondaga materials and burials over hundreds of years. Yet the State was using the 1500 CE (AD) date to resist repatriation of materials and remains.
The distinctly Haudenosaunee materials from the Levanna site established a critical link between the ancient burials and the Haudenosaunee alive today.
The federal government, based on the solid evidence that the Haudenosaunee Confederacy has been here at least since the 900s, has determined that the State of New York must repatriate the human remains to the living Haudenosaunee. The indigenous people have another name for themselves, Onkwehonwe, the people from here. That name goes back before the name Haudenosaunee, which refers to people building a longhouse (the confederacy). They were Onkwehonwe before they became Haudenosaunee, and are still Onkwehonwe.
The forthcoming August 18, 2009 will be the 1100th anniversary of the eclipse over Ganondagan and Onondaga. It is European of me to notice an anniversary that will happen in units of a millenium plus a century. Let's honor the oldest continuously functioning democracy. (The Icelandic Parliament, the Althing, was founded in 930, so it is a close second.)
These documents were fought and argued over before the final drafts.
The men who wrote them did so based on Judeo-Christian law.
The great men knew better than to include religion in those documents.
Other than the mention of Natures God and endowed by their Creator.
Again, what religion is God?
There was a lot of fighting and arguing. Much of that discussion took place among men who were not deeply religious. Often, even now, history describes Franklin, Jefferson and others as Deists. I think some of the Founding Fathers were atheist or agnostic, but society at that time would not tolerate such a position publicly, so they claimed to be Deist.
They left religion out of the government because they have already seen how badly the Church of England was for people of any other faith.
The basic structure of laws In the United States has its basis in the English Common Law. If it was based in Judeo-Christian law, all of those horrible punishments described in the Old Testament would now be codified in criminal statutes in America.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
; thus, the framers did not necessarily have only the Iroquois to thank for the notion of confederacy.
