A Society Without Honor?

-x-

Founding Brothers is a book whose message can be taken in several different directions.  A man (or woman’s) word of honor is not to be pushed aside as meaningless.  Important figures of the Revolutionary era believed in their word to the extent that they would die for it – and a few did.  Their honor was a badge that forever hung on their sleeve for all to see and acknowledge.  

Revolutionary characters such as Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and George Washington are generally looked upon as highly moral men.  But this brings one to ponder: What happened to the politicians of today? It is well known that our recent presidents have not been the most imperatively positive influences on today’s United States of America; however, was this always the case? If one were to go back in time and glance over the chivalrous teachings of yesteryear, they might just find men and women were brought up to prioritize morality above all else. In many occurrences, this is proved true simply because of the conservative nature of those times. A president cheating on his wife was unacceptable in those times and punished my more severe means as opposed to today. The overall reasoning for this is our society has (inevitably) become more liberal.

The definition of honor in the dictionary is “high respect, as that shown for special merit.” (Dictionary) The special merit was not necessarily blatantly visible to the unsuspecting eye. In a way, it was intertwined into the character’s reputation and string of personal victories.

In Founding Brothers, Ellis states that government could not be run by corrupt officials; however, he gently brought the realization in front of us that it was a matter of when our government would be corrupted not if it would be, therefore giving his personal opinion. He believed since our country was new, it needed a firm and unyielding hand to guide it with. At this critical time, the last obstacle our country needed to overcome was false pretenses. “It (America) still required honorable and virtuous leaders to endure.” (Founding, 47)

Honor also impacted the public officials with more force in those times because the relationship they had with their public was significantly closer and more intimate. Today, most of us will never meet the president personally, and actually, some of us never want to. This brings up yet another issue: Generally, the public liked the candidates/ officials. This goes hand in hand with the intimacy aspect. When one knows more about another, they have more reason to like or dislike the person. Maintaining one’s honor and integrity kept their good reputation amongst the public. No one knows what to believe today, because yellow journalism is everywhere spouting lies about everyone. Politics today are like a game of telephone. No one knows what the original message was because going through so many different mediums, it has become so distorted and twisted the public does not know how to respond to it without confusion and questioning.

In the first chapter of Founding Brothers, Ellis recaptures the duel in Weehawken, New Jersey between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton. He tried his best to prevent bias by telling the story from two main points of view. From my perspective, it seemed as if Burr had taken the duel challenge more seriously than Hamilton. I personally believe this is credited to Hamilton’s holier-than-thou attitude. All politicians’ personalities require a certain amount of confidence; however, Hamilton came off as overly arrogant and even obnoxious as he sank to immature means by degrading his opponents. Perhaps if Hamilton had brought this nose down from out of the air, he would’ve realized what Burr’s actual intentions were. I am by no means attempting to put Burr in a bad light – he seemed rather grounded and Ellis even stated that he was “surprised and regretful at the outcome of his shot.” This brings me to wonder: How would two public officials react if put in this situation? In the aftermath of the duel, both parties were quite apathetic about the events prior. I can’t help but think that it could not have been handled in the same manner if it had taken place in today’s society (this is despite the fact of this occurrence being illegal then and especially now). (Founding, 20-47)

My point of the last paragraph is simply that it was honor that brought these two men together. They felt it was their sworn duty to defend what had been questioned. The clues from historic text point to Hamilton having no real intent on terminally harming Burr, just to maintain his honorable status to the public. Burr, although the technical winner, was said to have encountered a harmed reputation after the duel. (Founding, 20)

On a different note, I also believe honor has a way of beating around the bush when trying to accomplish a task. Honor also requires a certain amount of consideration towards others. In this respect, one who had an honorable character must not cause offense to anyone or anything. This may prevent what one wants to say without much conversation to prepare the audience for their actual thought. So, one must try to combine just the right amount of honor with disarming persuasion.

Depending on how one looks at honor, it can be a useful or useless trait. Everything has an angle and various different ways to look at it – even the most one-sided items. It all depends on how one’s mind works. In 1776, honor was a character trait that was implanted into the vast majority of people. Today it is assumed by many that we possess it, but many do not. Some lessons in etiquette have dissipated with time and it seems honor might be in danger of extinction. When politicians stop taking shortcuts and manipulating the public to achieve their goals, maybe honor will slowly seep back into our school systems and eventually become what it once was. I, for one, would like to be able to be proud of the country I live in and the president who runs it.

In conclusion, I feel I am in agreement with this statement. I would not be as inclined to state this, but Ellis included the word “still” in this quote. Yes, when our country was new, we needed strong virtuous leaders to leap over the obstacles to come. It is evident that we no longer require these traits in our leaders. Politicians today are know for their sleazy nature and promising ways of making our country a better place but never actually fulfilling them. I feel as if public officials have learned nothing from our founding fathers and everything from Niccolo Machiavelli.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Works Cited

Dictionary.com. “Honor.”
     Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000.

Ellis, Joseph J. Founding Brothers. New York. Vintage Books, 2000.For AP US history.