Are we failing the Founders? [W:64,W:111]

[Guy Incognito]

Not at all for there is nothing to rationalize. But what you are failing to recognize is the original colonies under British rule were following the laws of Mother England. Slavery was a well established practice in that country and Europe as far as that goes. While the Founders were having the discussion to abolish slavery and some states taking it upon themselves to do so, Mother England wasn't even engaged in such talks.

Yes, you are rationalizing away the odious fact that the founders tolerated slavery. Your arguments are facile. You can't simply say that England had slavery too and that makes it ok.

Don't romanticize the founders, they were morally bankrupt in their support or toleration of slavery, not to mention their oppression of women and minorities and genocide of native Americans. You cannot just rationalize this away.

 

[vesper]

Yes, you are rationalizing away the odious fact that the founders tolerated slavery. Your arguments are facile. You can't simply say that England had slavery too and that makes it ok.

Don't romanticize the founders, they were morally bankrupt in their support or toleration of slavery, not to mention their oppression of women and minorities and genocide of native Americans. You cannot just rationalize this away.

You can keep repeating the same nonsense but in order for you to make it true you would have to rely on a revisionist form of history.


It’s absolutely impossible to make the argument that the founders were resolutely for slavery. Instead, they created a framework that would allow for the eventual abolition of slavery through a democratic process that embodied liberty and equality. By the end of the 19th century the 13th Amendment was passed. There is plenty of proof that early on in some states women, freed slaves and the poor were permitted to vote. And the earliest record of women voting is in the state of New Jersey in 1796 maybe it was 97. No matter, it was very early on... The Constitution does not include any voting restrictions based on race, gender or sexual classes. It does however, defer to the states to choose voter qualifications. A person is being intellectually dishonest when one refuses to include the historical and political implications involved during our founding. But when a person does, they can no longer blow the Founders off as racists, unfair or even outdated.

 

[American]

Luck.

Most powerful country in history from scratch in under 200 years by sheer luck. Wow, who knows what we'll achieve next. :thumbs:

 

[Guy Incognito]

You can keep repeating the same nonsense but in order for you to make it true you would have to rely on a revisionist form of history.


It’s absolutely impossible to make the argument that the founders were resolutely for slavery. Instead, they created a framework that would allow for the eventual abolition of slavery through a democratic process that embodied liberty and equality. By the end of the 19th century the 13th Amendment was passed. There is plenty of proof that early on in some states women, freed slaves and the poor were permitted to vote. And the earliest record of women voting is in the state of New Jersey in 1796 maybe it was 97. No matter, it was very early on... The Constitution does not include any voting restrictions based on race, gender or sexual classes. It does however, defer to the states to choose voter qualifications. A person is being intellectually dishonest when one refuses to include the historical and political implications involved during our founding. But when a person does, they can no longer blow the Founders off as racists, unfair or even outdated.

You are making a specious argument. The founders don't have to be unanimously "resolutely for slavery" to be morally bankrupt. Slavery is merely the worst of their many, many human rights violations. The ones who did not support it "resolutely" we're, nevertheless, collaborators. They are all accountable. Your pro-founder apologetics is disgusting.

 

[American]

You are making a specious argument. The founders don't have to be unanimously "resolutely for slavery" to be morally bankrupt. Slavery is merely the worst of their many, many human rights violations. The ones who did not support it "resolutely" we're, nevertheless, collaborators. They are all accountable. Your pro-founder apologetics is disgusting.

So that's why you hate the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment, and prefer and socialist regime.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Don't romaticize the founders. They were bigoted, plutocratic slaveholding criminals. As a society we have far exceeded them. We should look back on them with contempt for the horrors they perpetrated.

Right, instead of slaves we now kill our babies, so much better..... :roll:

 

[johndylan1]

Don't romaticize the founders. They were bigoted, plutocratic slaveholding criminals. As a society we have far exceeded them. We should look back on them with contempt for the horrors they perpetrated.

You have confused the imperfect actions of men who lived in a much different time and culture, with the ideals that they held and passed to us. Those ideals were meant to cut against the norm of history and empower each individual as opposed to the oppression of a ruling class or monarchy.

A perversion in practice doesn't negate the ideal nor the righteousness of the vision contained in the founding documents.

 

[Guy Incognito]

You have confused the imperfect actions of men who lived in a much different time and culture, with the ideals that they held and passed to us. Those ideals were meant to cut against the norm of history and empower each individual as opposed to the oppression of a ruling class or monarchy.

A perversion in practice doesn't negate the ideal nor the righteousness of the vision contained in the founding documents.

No. Your mistake is anachronistically applying a romantic notion to the founders. They were men of their time, and the norms of the time were monstrous. Their vision did not extend past the despicable values of their time, and they would have been repulsed by the moral advancements of our era.

The extension of civil rights to women, minorities and the poor was anathema to the founders. It is naive and ahistorical to argue otherwise.

 

[Guy Incognito]

So that's why you hate the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment, and prefer and socialist regime.

The second amendment doesn't go far enough for protecting the fundamental right to own guns, and the Constitution doesn't do enough to protect liberty and free market capitalism.

Your unquestioning support for the Constitution and the ideals of the founders exposes your own love of racism and aristocratic oppression.

 

[cpwill]

Yes, you are rationalizing away the odious fact that the founders tolerated slavery. Your arguments are facile. You can't simply say that England had slavery too and that makes it ok.

Don't romanticize the founders, they were morally bankrupt in their support or toleration of slavery, not to mention their oppression of women and minorities and genocide of native Americans. You cannot just rationalize this away.

You are falsely applying a 21st Century Standard on 18th Century persons. I could just as easily point out that today's politicians often eat meat, even meat grown in animal factories rather than free range, claim that by 2287A.D. this will be seen as the horrendous abuse it is, and declare the vast majority of the populace of the world to be morally bankrupt.

The Founders were pretty clear on their thoughts on slavery - they thought it a generally atrocious compromise of their claim that all men were created equal and granted rights by their Creator, and had no idea how to go about getting rid of it. They put into place what mechanisms they could, which proved effective or not to varying degrees (the ban on import maybe less so than the northwest ordinance). They were ahead of their time on this issue, not morally bankrupt on it.

You can keep repeating the same nonsense but in order for you to make it true you would have to rely on a revisionist form of history.

That is absolutely correct.

 

[cpwill]

The second amendment doesn't go far enough for protecting the fundamental right to own guns, and the Constitution doesn't do enough to protect liberty and free market capitalism.

The Constitution did plenty for both. It is the idea that we can have a "living constitution" that can be twisted to mean whatever the people at the time want it to mean (the movement, though agreeably intellectually 'bankrupt' utilizes the same arguments you do) that has led to the loss of those ideals.

Your unquestioning support for the Constitution and the ideals of the founders exposes your own love of racism and aristocratic oppression.

:lol: history fail. Racism is a more modern invention than the Constitution, and the founders were pretty clear on where they stood on the subject of aristocratic oppression.

 

[Guy Incognito]

You are falsely applying a 21st Century Standard on 18th Century persons.

No. Morals are absolute. People who support the things the founders did are evil today, or in the eighteenth century, or in the twenty seventh century. Period.

 

[Guy Incognito]

:lol: history fail. Racism is a more modern invention than the Constitution, and the founders were pretty clear on where they stood on the subject of aristocratic oppression.

No. The attitude of the founders toward non-whites can only be described as racist. Not to mention rampant bigotry against women, the poor, and people of non-Protestant religions.

 

[RedAkston]

Moderator's Warning:

Stick to the topic - which is not each other. Knock off the personal attacks.

 

[TurtleDude]

The fact that the North caved to the demands of the South makes them complicit in the crime of slavery. Just one of the many human rights violations perpetrated by the founders.

yawn, they created the greatest government foundation known to man. Most of the human rights violations took place by those who wanted to change the intent of the founders

 

[TurtleDude]

No. The attitude of the founders toward non-whites can only be described as racist. Not to mention rampant bigotry against women, the poor, and people of non-Protestant religions.

Nothing in the document manifests that "racist" intent. where were catholics or Jews discriminated against in the Constitution. Where were the poor discriminated against in the constitution.

 

[cpwill]

No. The attitude of the founders toward non-whites can only be described as racist.

Only by historical illiterates. Racism is the argument that membership in a particular ethnic group carries with it genetic determinations that grant the individual either less of positive traits (intellect, ability to grasp civilized norms, etc.) and more of negative traits (emotionalism trumping reason, tendency towards childlike or evil behavior, violence, theft, etc.). The Founders did not demonstrate this set of assumptions towards blacks - in fact, they put them in trusted positions and in many states blacks were voting (wait, voting! Yes, oh guy icognito who thinks he knows history because he read howard zinn, voting.). You do not put people whom you think are intellectually incompetent moral ingrates in charge of the design of your capital city, nor do you hand them the reins of power over government. They would not even have had (really) the intellectual tools to engage in what we describe as racism, as the theory had not yet been promulgated.

Not to mention rampant bigotry against women, the poor, and people of non-Protestant religions.

:shrug: again you are attempting to judge the founders by a 21st century set of assumptions that is as ahistorical as it is asinine. The founding generation saw an explosion in cooperative groups to alleviate the condition of the poor, the enshrinement in the highest of laws that the national government ought not be involved in religious matters, and women in America were freer than anywhere else in the world (not least because for quite a long time there were so few of them, they exercised significant selective power).

 

[cpwill]

No. Morals are absolute. People who support the things the founders did are evil today, or in the eighteenth century, or in the twenty seventh century. Period.

:shrug: and do you eat meat?

 

[TurtleDude]

Only by historical illiterates. Racism is the argument that membership in a particular ethnic group carries with it genetic determinations that grant the individual either less of positive traits (intellect, ability to grasp civilized norms, etc.) and more of negative traits (emotionalism trumping reason, tendency towards childlike or evil behavior, violence, theft, etc.). The Founders did not demonstrate this set of assumptions towards blacks - in fact, they put them in trusted positions and in many states blacks were voting (wait, voting! Yes, oh guy icognito who thinks he knows history because he read howard zinn, voting.). You do not put people whom you think are intellectually incompetent moral ingrates in charge of the design of your capital city, nor do you hand them the reins of power over government. They would not even have had (really) the intellectual tools to engage in what we describe as racism, as the theory had not yet been promulgated.



:shrug: again you are attempting to judge the founders by a 21st century set of assumptions that is as ahistorical as it is asinine. The founding generation saw an explosion in cooperative groups to alleviate the condition of the poor, the enshrinement in the highest of laws that the national government ought not be involved in religious matters, and women in America were freer than anywhere else in the world (not least because for quite a long time there were so few of them, they exercised significant selective power).

at the time they existed they were the most politically enlightened group in the world. and many of our modern politicians are far more racist. Guy has yet to explain what part of the Constitution or the BOR contains bias towards blacks, catholics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, or worshippers of the horned devil Ba'al.

 

[American]

at the time they existed they were the most politically enlightened group in the world. and many of our modern politicians are far more racist. Guy has yet to explain what part of the Constitution or the BOR contains bias towards blacks, catholics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, or worshippers of the horned devil Ba'al.

If he understood the Constitution, he might be able to tell you.

 

[American]

The second amendment doesn't go far enough for protecting the fundamental right to own guns, and the Constitution doesn't do enough to protect liberty and free market capitalism.

Your unquestioning support for the Constitution and the ideals of the founders exposes your own love of racism and aristocratic oppression.

Really? I think you've become irrational about this.

 

[TurtleDude]

If he understood the Constitution, he might be able to tell you.

excellent point doctor. I don't see what good comes from whining about the founders using current social mores.

Its like complaining Galileo's astronomy was imperfect based on the hubble telescope and the space program

 

[TurtleDude]

No. Morals are absolute. People who support the things the founders did are evil today, or in the eighteenth century, or in the twenty seventh century. Period.

That's just plain stupid a comment that ignores reality. They were the enlightenment that lead to the freest society in known history

 

[American]

The Founders tried to address slavery, but there would have been no union had they outright abolished it. They compromised, to address it another day. The union was first priority.

 

[TurtleDude]

many of the rants about the founders is an oblique attack on the constitution and our nation itself. Socialists, for example, claim that the constitution protected the rich. Gun banners whine about the constitution preventing "effective gun control" and its easier to claim that the founders were rich gun owning racists than to actually formulate a superior alternative to our constitutional republic