“Founding Fathers” began trending on Twitter due to a tweet by South Dakota Senator Mike Rounds. The tweet claimed the Founding Fathers never intended for Washington D.C. to achieve statehood and the idea of it becoming a state was part of a “left-wing agenda.”
The Founding Fathers never intended for Washington D.C. to be a state.#DCStatehood is really about packing the Senate with Democrats in order to pass a left-wing agenda.
Just look at the DC voter registration data:
🔵 76.4% Democrat
🔴 5.7% Republican
— Senator Mike Rounds (@SenatorRounds) March 22, 2021
The tweet prompted thousands of responses from different groups including minorities, women, guns legislation activists, and others who critiqued Rounds’s response at a logical level. All these groups pointed out two things: that the Founding Fathers were not the height of morality and the ideas the Founders wanted America to embrace has changed and will continue to change as the country undergoes growth at a technological level and a spiritual level.
Most women and minority tweeters continued to talk about how the Founders interpreted their existence in the 1700s versus how things are for them currently. Among the topics discussed was how the Founders never intended suffrage for women and freedom for minorities.
Most of the founding fathers wanted America to be a white-supremacist, patricharical, slaveocracy — so maybe we don't have to be so limited by their intentions?
— Max Berger (@maxberger) March 23, 2021
The Founding Fathers never intended for me to be free. https://t.co/irVEe4IEq8
— Be A King (@BerniceKing) March 23, 2021
The founding fathers never intended for me to be viewed as a human in the eyes of the Constitution of this country. https://t.co/vcfgKXk9lS
— Michael Tubbs (@MichaelDTubbs) March 23, 2021
'The founding fathers never intended for DC to be a state' sir the founding fathers never intended for me to legally be a person. But here I am, personing.
— Barred and Boujee (@AudreLawdAMercy) March 23, 2021
For the anti-gun, pro-legislation groups, the focus was more on how the Founders never could have predicted how guns would evolve into what they are today. Many of those talking about the Colorado shooting bled over into this new discussion as well. A large part of this discussion focused on the difference between the single-shot musket, which was what the Founders were familiar with, and the AR-15, an average gun by today’s standards.
Hmm, when the Founding fathers wrote the Constitution the kind of guns around were the single shot muskets (the rapid repeating rifle was developed during the Civil War) . Now it is unfortunate that they weren't psychics and could foresee the future , the NRA lobbyists, etc. pic.twitter.com/NxGgWZ3iYA
— PocketPuppy1970 (@pocketpuppy1970) March 23, 2021
what would the founding fathers think about the fact republicans want to make it harder to vote than to carry a gun in public?
— JOHN PAVLOSKY (@jpav98) March 23, 2021
Just a reminder to all the gun people who believe that the 2nd Amendment is irrefutable because the founding fathers knew everything:
In 1791, there was no such thing as illegal immigration.
— Steve Hofstetter (@SteveHofstetter) March 23, 2021
Happy Tuesday to everyone who DOESN'T believe the founding fathers were thinking of AR-15s murdering innocent civilians when they wrote "well regulated militia" into the 2nd Amendment
— BrooklynDad_Defiant! (@mmpadellan) March 23, 2021
For most others, the focus was on South Dakota and how there was a controversy between the Founders on whether the state should exist. The topic is relevant because that is the state Rounds represents. Many of the Tweets question if Rounds would continue to support this idea of the Founders still being a huge part of the government’s decision-making process if the government began to look at the necessity of South Dakota’s statehood.
I don't think the Founding Fathers had any intentions regarding South Dakota either, and yet https://t.co/9F7ma6PbAu
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 23, 2021
The Founding Fathers also never intended there to be a Dakota Territory, or split it in two.
The only reason Sen. Rounds has a state (SD) to represent is late-19th-century political deal to split the territory into two, explicitly to pad the number of likely GOP Senate seats. https://t.co/fjrW1VGgpj
— James Fallows (@JamesFallows) March 23, 2021
The founding fathers never intended for two Dakotas or even one. https://t.co/HKSoujtcDL
— Molly Jong-Fast🏡 (@MollyJongFast) March 23, 2021
As the debate on the statehood of Washington D.C. continues to develop, more politicians will comment on the idea. The number of comments that will be positive or negative will depend on how the public continues to react to this idea.