Tweet

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

More from @jbf1755

Dr. Joanne Freeman

@jbf1755

29 Dec 20

1/ What would the Founders say about millions of people under curfew?

First & most important:

There was no single block of "Founders." There were different people w/different opinions, so they would say a range of things.

There's no simple answer to that question

That said...

2/ Second:

"The Founders" WOULD agree on the existence of something called the "common good."

This, too, had no simple meaning.
The "common good" of who?

Even so, they recognized that--one way or another--gov't should protect it in some way

In a way, government is a big "we"

3/ Third:

And while we're talking about government & its role...

"The Founders" weren't anti-government.
They created governments.
A lot.

The Revolution was a revolt vs. one specific gov't.

Even as it was underway, people were creating new governments to replace the old one.

Read 6 tweets

Dr. Joanne Freeman

@jbf1755

17 Dec 20

1/ My research for #TheFieldOfBlood showed me something interesting about institutional dynamics.

In the antebellum Congress, one "team" blatantly broke rules, reveling in it & gaining power.

The other team upheld rules, scolding violators & insisting that rules be followed.

2/ For the institutionally responsible, well-behaved team, following the rules was expected of them. It was part of their identity.

And when someone broke that rule of civility, they were roundly criticized for it -- by the routinely uncivil opposite "team."

3/ This imbalance of institutional responsibility contributed to an imbalance of power

Bullies -- one team -- had more power.

Rule-followers -- the other team -- protested w/o punch.

Read 4 tweets

Dr. Joanne Freeman

@jbf1755

14 Dec 20

1/ An elector story.

Once upon a time, there was a very very very fraught presidential election.

An election where each side thought that the other would likely destroy the United States.

2/ The presidential campaign was long and fierce. Insults. Accusations. Widespread fear that government as we knew it would collapse.

3/ At one point, one side threatened armed resistance if they didn't get their way in the presidential contest.

They explicitly threatened people in power who could ultimately push the electoral contest one way or another.

Read 14 tweets

Dr. Joanne Freeman

@jbf1755

23 Sep 20

1/ In 2020, we learned that some people don't understand what democracy is; don't know that it takes work; don't know that it's fallible; don't accept that the USA can fall; don't know what they lose when democracy falls; & don't know how hard it will be to get it back.

2/ And preventing people from teaching & learning how we've had to fight for democracy; the people & events that attacked it; the people who fought for it vs immense opposition; & the failures in our democratic system from the outset is NOT the way to protect & sustain democracy.

3/ But....people in power know that.

Read 5 tweets

Dr. Joanne Freeman

@jbf1755

17 Sep 20

WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE ON AMERICAN HISTORY?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Oh good.

We're seeing "a coordinated attack on our heroes."

"Wise people learn from the past.
Unwise people bury the past."

But somehow, denying the negative is not burying the past.
Right.

Read 6 tweets

Dr. Joanne Freeman

@jbf1755

3 Sep 20

1/ An interesting nugget from my preparation for "History Matters" this AM.

We were talking about campaigning & the threat of demagogues, and I recalled & wanted to use this quote from A.Ham:

2/ I had forgotten that this quote was from the very first Federalist essay.

Hamilton was arguing that opponents to the proposed Constitution would probably appeal to the passions of the public to get them outraged over the Constitution's alleged tyrannical powers.

3/ In Federalist #1, Hamilton was basically saying that opponents to the Constitution would engage in demagogic politics to stir public passions against ratification with untruths.

In essence, he was denouncing opponents to the Constitution as demagogues of a kind.

Read 5 tweets

Share this page!

Dr. Joanne Freeman

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @jbf1755

Dr. Joanne Freeman

Dr. Joanne Freeman

Dr. Joanne Freeman

Dr. Joanne Freeman

Dr. Joanne Freeman

Dr. Joanne Freeman

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Like this author's thread?