• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Slave Owners who wrote all men are created equal

LeftyHenry

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
1,896
Reaction score
12
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I never got this. our constitution was written by slave owners and in accordance to their white christian views. How can we stand for it
 

GarzaUK

That European Guy
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
3,682
Reaction score
625
Location
Belfast, Northern Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Slaves weren't the only people thought to be "unequal". Women didn't get to votes until c1900 and white non-land owners didn't get the vote until 1820's. The founding fathers and land owners were lords and dukes in all but name.
 

iamjack

Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
107
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Che said:
I never got this. our constitution was written by slave owners and in accordance to their white christian views. How can we stand for it
You're right. Let's abolish the constitution.
 

LeftyHenry

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
1,896
Reaction score
12
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
iamjack said:
You're right. Let's abolish the constitution.
Not abolish but I'm just saying that it's kind of messed up that we base all of our countries decision on weither or not the constitution supports its.
 

F41

Active member
Joined
Sep 8, 2005
Messages
341
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Che said:
I never got this. our constitution was written by slave owners and in accordance to their white christian views. How can we stand for it
Interesting note; not all white people owned slaves, it also appears that blacks also owned slaves as well, and in some cases owned more then white people did.

So I would say these are not only views from Christian white but also are shared by blacks at that time as well as non Christians too.

http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm

According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the United States, with fewer than four million of them living in the southern slaveholding states. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. The country's leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city.

To return to the census figures quoted above, this 28 percent is certainly impressive when compared to less than 1.4 percent of all American whites and less than 4.8 percent of southern whites. The statistics show that, when free, blacks disproportionately became slave masters.

The majority of slaveholders, white and black, owned only one to five slaves. More often than not, and contrary to a century and a half of bullwhips-on-tortured-backs propaganda, black and white masters worked and ate alongside their charges; be it in house, field or workshop. The few individuals who owned 50 or more slaves were confined to the top one percent, and have been defined as slave magnates.

In 1860 there were at least six Negroes in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves
Do you think that the ACLU or other African Americans would demand reparations from other African Americans?

Somehow, I do not think so...
 

-Demosthenes-

Internet Revolutionist
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
919
Reaction score
7
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Che said:
I never got this. our constitution was written by slave owners and in accordance to their white christian views. How can we stand for it
1) Slave owners
Only about a third of the writers of the Constitution were Slave owners, and some of the slave owners wrote that slavery was immoral, and supported some sort of gradual emancipation. Further, nothing in the Constitution endorsed slavery.

2) White
Nothing in the Constitution says anything about race. The Demographics of America at the time was English, German, Dutch, and other Western/Northern Europeans. There had been little immigration from eastern Europe or other places yet, the people of America were mostly white, and so were the delegates, I fail to see your point.

3) Christian
What in the Constitution supports Christian values?

GarzaUK said:
Slaves weren't the only people thought to be "unequal". Women didn't get to votes until c1900 and white non-land owners didn't get the vote until 1820's. The founding fathers and land owners were lords and dukes in all but name.
That is a sad truth of the past, but nearly all societies (certainly European societies) were this way at the time. America most certainly wasn't alone in this respect.

The founding fathers and land owners were lords and dukes... I take that to mean that land owners were like "lords" and "dukes," and of course there were many land owners in America at the time. There was no reason not to have land. Land was cheap, and somethings free, all you had to do was move further west. Those without land were in a disadvantages class, sure, but it was largely of their own choosing.

Che said:
Not abolish but I'm just saying that it's kind of messed up that we base all of our countries decision on weither or not the constitution supports its.
Why? It works.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
243,161
Reaction score
73,249
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
-Demosthenes- said:
Why? It works.
BINGO we have a winner. CHe is pssed that Socialism is a joke and socialism and the other strains of that illness have killed over 100 million people in the last 100 years

socialism is a mental illness while the constitution is a vaccine against such a virus
 

LeftyHenry

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
1,896
Reaction score
12
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
TurtleDude said:
BINGO we have a winner. CHe is pssed that Socialism is a joke and socialism and the other strains of that illness have killed over 100 million people in the last 100 years

socialism is a mental illness while the constitution is a vaccine against such a virus
BINGO you can't spell pissed Trailer Trash turtle. Socialism is not the same as Stalinism. Stalinism killed 100 million not Communism or Socialism. If you read up on Marx not just bunch all leftist views together, then you'd realize that Communism and Socialism don't actually involve killing.

Socialism is virus that makes Sweden lowest in crime and best at healthcare. It's also the virus that got us out of the Great Depression.
 

LeftyHenry

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
1,896
Reaction score
12
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
-Demosthenes- said:
1) Slave owners
Only about a third of the writers of the Constitution were Slave owners, and some of the slave owners wrote that slavery was immoral, and supported some sort of gradual emancipation. Further, nothing in the Constitution endorsed slavery.

2) White
Nothing in the Constitution says anything about race. The Demographics of America at the time was English, German, Dutch, and other Western/Northern Europeans. There had been little immigration from eastern Europe or other places yet, the people of America were mostly white, and so were the delegates, I fail to see your point.

3) Christian
What in the Constitution supports Christian values?

Why? It works.
You're absolutely right! Nothing in the constitution says anything about
whites, christians, or slave owners but you can bet your ass that those type of people were the only ones to live out the constitution until very recently.

Imagine if a third of this country were part of the KKK. If they actually supported the emancipation, then why did it take until 1965?

Whites had a majority, but Blacks were second biggest but didn't have a single delegate.

It still says in Tenessee laws that Theory of Evolution is not allowed to be taught in schools. Although rarely enforced present day, it wasn't until the 1920's that people started to question the law. Today, people are suiting and making news channels broadcast the fact that stores now say Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas.

If none of this allowed by the constitution, then why wasn't it all put an end to until recently.

btw It may work but all I'm saying is that we've stopped using our morals and started using the constitution.
 

ngdawg

conliberaservatarianist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
2,149
Reaction score
24
Location
trackside
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Che said:
You're absolutely right! Nothing in the constitution says anything about
whites, christians, or slave owners but you can bet your ass that those type of people were the only ones to live out the constitution until very recently.

Imagine if a third of this country were part of the KKK. If they actually supported the emancipation, then why did it take until 1965?

Whites had a majority, but Blacks were second biggest but didn't have a single delegate.

It still says in Tenessee laws that Theory of Evolution is not allowed to be taught in schools. Although rarely enforced present day, it wasn't until the 1920's that people started to question the law. Today, people are suiting and making news channels broadcast the fact that stores now say Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas.

If none of this allowed by the constitution, then why wasn't it all put an end to until recently.

btw It may work but all I'm saying is that we've stopped using our morals and started using the constitution.
Til 1965 to do what?
If you're talking about civil rights, until then it was left up to the states, hence the Jim Crow laws that permeated the south.
A lot of things were done 200 years ago. They did the best they could with what they knew. Think Ben Franklin knew we'd be on computers?
Personally, my family didn't even arrive here until after WW1, so I couldn't care less about the mentalities of the founding fathers....
 

M14 Shooter

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Che said:
Not abolish but I'm just saying that it's kind of messed up that we base all of our countries decision on weither or not the constitution supports its.
Because it's the document that formed our current government.

The fact that the people that wrote it were imperfect doesnt in any way take away from the legitimcy of the document itself, not the government that sprang from it.

If your argument is that a legitimate government can only be formed by perfect people, then there will never be a government.
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Che said:
I never got this. our constitution was written by slave owners and in accordance to their white christian views. How can we stand for it

Are you serious?

Our economy at the time would have collapsed without slavery. Our people would have revolted. The founding father's knew this. Many of them wrote about it being the one unjust thing they had to let society and economics gradually discard.





BTW, the best way to tell if someone knows what their talking about with the Constitution is to see if they repeat that "3/5 of a man" misinterpretation.

In determining the number of representatives southern states should have in the House, southern states argued that slaves should be fully counted. Northerners did not think slaves should be counted at all. The compromise was that slaves should be COUNTED as 3/5 of a free person when determining representation.

The REPUBLICAN NORTH sought to limit the representation blacks had in the House because that representation would be used to further empower the racist Democrats and to perpetuate/strengthen slavery.

Anyone who claims the Constitution is racist over the lame misinterpretation of the 3/5 clause is being hysterical, ignorant, and should be regarded as full of crap.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,831
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Che said:
BINGO you can't spell pissed Trailer Trash turtle. Socialism is not the same as Stalinism. Stalinism killed 100 million not Communism or Socialism. If you read up on Marx not just bunch all leftist views together, then you'd realize that Communism and Socialism don't actually involve killing.
You do know that Ernesto Guevara was an avowed Stalinist who was actually ushered out of Moscow because he was too extreme?

You do know that Ernesto Guevara was responsible for creating the labor camp system in post-revolution Cuba which rounded up and executed, among others, ethnic minorities, homosexuals, and the Castro regime's political enemies, solely on the basis of being ethinic minorities, homosexuals, and political enemies?

You do know that it was Ernesto Guevara who pushed for totalitarianism in post-revolution Cuba when others in Castro's regime were pushing for true democracy with full civil liberties?

You do know that as commandant of the La Cabana fortress/prison, Guevara was particularly keen on performing the executions -- a bullet to the back of the neck -- himself (one of the victims being a small boy who stole some food, who was dispatched without trial), and rather enjoyed walking people past the blood-stained execution wall?

Can't understand why people would revere the US Constitution, the best governmental foundation yet devised, the finest bulwark against tyranny ever devised, because some of its authors were slave owners? Check your self-styled moniker, dude, and ask yourself who's being historically duped.
 

LeftyHenry

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
1,896
Reaction score
12
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Harshaw said:
You do know that Ernesto Guevara was an avowed Stalinist who was actually ushered out of Moscow because he was too extreme?

You do know that Ernesto Guevara was responsible for creating the labor camp system in post-revolution Cuba which rounded up and executed, among others, ethnic minorities, homosexuals, and the Castro regime's political enemies, solely on the basis of being ethinic minorities, homosexuals, and political enemies?

You do know that it was Ernesto Guevara who pushed for totalitarianism in post-revolution Cuba when others in Castro's regime were pushing for true democracy with full civil liberties?

You do know that as commandant of the La Cabana fortress/prison, Guevara was particularly keen on performing the executions -- a bullet to the back of the neck -- himself (one of the victims being a small boy who stole some food, who was dispatched without trial), and rather enjoyed walking people past the blood-stained execution wall?

Can't understand why people would revere the US Constitution, the best governmental foundation yet devised, the finest bulwark against tyranny ever devised, because some of its authors were slave owners? Check your self-styled moniker, dude, and ask yourself who's being historically duped.
WOW where did you get this crap from? This is worse then Navy Pride and Trajan put together :lol: :roll: :confused:!

Che actually MISTRUSTED the soviets if you actually knew anything about him. One of the reasons he left CUba was because he thought Castro was becoming too much under Soviet power. Che had grown up poor and didn't support communism because of greed and corruption as alot of Cons
critics try to make him out to have done. Che supported it because of all those poor people out there. Those dying but couldn't afford food or medicine because they don't have any paper bills with white presidents smiling.

I want to see proof about these labor camps that he ran, and these executions that he preformed lol. Anyhow, didn't you hear about the concentration camps we had here in America for Japenese Americans? They were uprooted from there homes and taken to desert desolate jails where many times they didn't have enough rations.

The thing I hate about Cons is that they think that all communism is Stalinism even though they have never read a single word of Marx. It was Che who pushed for MARXISM not STALINISM as you claim. The whole country and revolution was behind his ideas. If you recall the people had just REVOLTED against a US backed democracracy let by the tyrant Batista.

Your claims are are falcy with no proof whatsoever. They are just Conservative tactics used to diminish the Socialist dream.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,831
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Che said:
WOW where did you get this crap from? This is worse then Navy Pride and Trajan put together :lol: :roll: :confused:!

Che actually MISTRUSTED the soviets if you actually knew anything about him. One of the reasons he left CUba was because he thought Castro was becoming too much under Soviet power. Che had grown up poor and didn't support communism because of greed and corruption as alot of Cons
critics try to make him out to have done. Che supported it because of all those poor people out there. Those dying but couldn't afford food or medicine because they don't have any paper bills with white presidents smiling.

I want to see proof about these labor camps that he ran, and these executions that he preformed lol. Anyhow, didn't you hear about the concentration camps we had here in America for Japenese Americans? They were uprooted from there homes and taken to desert desolate jails where many times they didn't have enough rations.

The thing I hate about Cons is that they think that all communism is Stalinism even though they have never read a single word of Marx. It was Che who pushed for MARXISM not STALINISM as you claim. The whole country and revolution was behind his ideas. If you recall the people had just REVOLTED against a US backed democracracy let by the tyrant Batista.

Your claims are are falcy with no proof whatsoever. They are just Conservative tactics used to diminish the Socialist dream.
It's amazing what four words -- "Che Guevara La Cabana" bring up on Google. You should try it sometime.

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1535

http://realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-10_8_05_AVL.html

http://www.malaspina.org/home.asp?topic=./search/details&lastpage=./search/results&ID=465

http://www.che-lives.com/home/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=3
(This one's even from a favorable website.)

The man was a brutal and ruthless butcher. But believe whatever makes you comfortable.

Funny, though; honest Che groupies will say "those things were necessary for his cause" or some such excuse.

Or, they do as you do, but they say "oh, yeah??? Well, the US does THIS . . . " as though that's some kind of excuse.
 
Last edited:

LeftyHenry

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
1,896
Reaction score
12
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
"His execution of deserters and spies in the revolutionary army, have led some to consider Guevara a ruthless leader. However those persons executed by Guevara or on his orders were condemned for the usual crimes punishable by death at times of war or in its aftermath: desertion, treason or crimes such as rape, torture or murder. For example, Dwight D. Eisenhower signed orders for imprisoned troops that had deserted to be executed. In 1959, Che Guevara was appointed commander of the La Cabana Fortress prison. During his term as commander of the fortress from 1959-1963, he oversaw the execution of what some estimate to be approximately 500 political prisoners and regime opponents. Many individuals imprisoned at La Cabana, such as poet and human rights activist Armando Valladares, allege that Guevara took particular and personal interest in the interrogation, torture, and execution of some prisoners. In fact, when Che's column had captured enemy soldiers who had not committed crimes against the public, such as rape and torture, he would simply take their ammo and release them."


All in the link you provided.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,831
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Che said:
"His execution of deserters and spies in the revolutionary army, have led some to consider Guevara a ruthless leader. However those persons executed by Guevara or on his orders were condemned for the usual crimes punishable by death at times of war or in its aftermath: desertion, treason or crimes such as rape, torture or murder. For example, Dwight D. Eisenhower signed orders for imprisoned troops that had deserted to be executed. In 1959, Che Guevara was appointed commander of the La Cabana Fortress prison. During his term as commander of the fortress from 1959-1963, he oversaw the execution of what some estimate to be approximately 500 political prisoners and regime opponents. Many individuals imprisoned at La Cabana, such as poet and human rights activist Armando Valladares, allege that Guevara took particular and personal interest in the interrogation, torture, and execution of some prisoners. In fact, when Che's column had captured enemy soldiers who had not committed crimes against the public, such as rape and torture, he would simply take their ammo and release them."


All in the link you provided.
Yeah, nice to cherrypick the one you like and ignore the others.

Look, do honest and thorough research on your hero, if you can stand to. If you've never even heard of La Cabana before now, you've done very, very little.

Or keep your head in the sand; I don't care. It's not like I expected to change your mind. I've known too many youthful, arrogant neo-Marxists to think I had a chance of that.

But I'll call out Che worshippers when I see them, especially if they're accusing everyone else of crimes against humanity.
 
Top Bottom