2 debate questions the Prez will never get....but should

[bucfan64 309]

I feel that you are puting the founders up on a pedestal and making them out to be more than they were. Im not saying that they werent great men, they were, but they were also very flawed and far from perfect. Many of them were racist and many of the ones who werent racist lacked the backbone to make any move against slavery when given the opportunity for fear of how they would be viewed by their friends and society

 

Wasn't trying to imply that they were without flaw, but I can see where you would interepret my comments that way, I do believe that these men were perhaps the greatest collective group of minds ever united in one place in the history of the world. So, if that comes across as putting them on a pedestal then yes, I am placing them on one.

 

However, I know that they were far from perfect, I do believe that they embraced an idea that was as close to Gods natural intent for humanity as was ever created. But, it too was not without flaw, which is why we have the amendment process.

 

But, I disagree with this notion that they were racist. Was there a racist or two among this group of men, probably so, maybe more than a few. However, this contemporary notion that these men were racist because of the existence of the institution of slavery is nothing more than a leftist ploy to depict the Founders in as dark of light as possible in order to further contest the Constitution and the individual liberty which it promotes. Have you ever noticed that this rhetoric about the Founders was practically non-existent prior to Progressivism? Why wasn't everyone dragging their name through the dirt prior to the Progressive period? Why were these men embraced as Fathers of Freedom and men of high esteem for so many years prior to the Progressive era? It appears that you too are merely regurgitating progressive talking points without considering all of the facts.

 

1. Slavery WAS NOT introduced by the Founders, it was introduced nearly 2 centuries prior to the Revolution and Constitution. How can they be to blame for this?

 

2.Chief Justice John Jay mentioned that there had been several serious efforts prior to the Founders to eliminate the institution of slavery, but due to its entrenchment into our culture it was an extremely difficult task.

 

3. The Revolutionary War was a major turning point in American history concerning the attitude toward slavery, it was essentially the beginning of the decline and acceptance of the institution of slavery.

 

4. Many Founding Fathers who owned slaves, released them shortly after the American Revolution. George Wythe, John Randolph and George Washington to name a few.

 

5. Several leaders from the South supported the institution of slavery however. Which you are true in your assessment.

 

6. Historical FACT, the clear majority of the Founding Fathers were opposed to slavery. This sounds nothing like what you are suggesting!

 

7. excerpt from OUr Godly Heritage "In fact, based in part on the efforts of these Founders, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts abolished slavery in 1780; Connecticut and Rhode Island did so in 1784; New Hampshire in 1792; Vermont in 1793; New York in 1799; and New Jersey in 1804. Furthermore, the reason that the states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa all prohibited slavery was a federal act authored by Rufus King (signer of the Constitution) and signed into law by President George Washington which prohibited slavery in those territories."

 

8. Finally, I will once again add some information regarding the 3/5ths Compromise!

 

The records of the Constitutional Convention make clear that the three-fifths clause was actually an antislavery provision. As Professor Walter Williams explains:

 

 

“It was slavery's opponents who succeeded in restricting the political power of the South by allowing them to count only three-fifths of their slave population in determining the number of congressional representatives. The three-fifths of a vote provision applied only to slaves, not to free blacks in either the North or South.” (emphasis added)

 

The three-fifths clause was not a measurement of human worth; it was an attempt to reduce the number of pro-slavery proponents in Congress. By including only three-fifths of the total numbers of slaves into the congressional calculations, Southern states were actually being denied additional pro-slavery representatives in Congress.

 

I urge you to continue studying history, learn it, know it and promote it's truths, and be careful of being caught into the trap of REVISIONIST HISTORY (from both sides)! Please DO NOT mistake popular rhetoric for truth, continue studying history and you too will see and understand exactly what I am talking about. America's Founders did indeed have flaws, but the majority absolutely were not racist!

[redtiger 1,742]

From what I have read/studied(primary sources) most of the founders were against slavery but none of them were willing to abolish the practice. The issue of slavery is just the surface, the issue of racism is much deeper.

 

*Thomas Jefferson for example was anti-slavery(saw it as harmful to the entegrity and morals of whites) but refused to support its abolition because the freed slaves would live amongst whites, and that was unacceptable. It also proved too expnsive to ship them back to africa and the thought of giving them land in America was not a possability. He FIRMLY believed nature had made Caucasians superior to Africans. Not to mention the big hit his wallett would take. *Youre wrong about George Washington, he emancipated his slaves through his will(after his death). Again, not enough backbone to do it while he was alive and $ was a big factor. *James Madison, strongly opposed to slavery, but kept his slaves his whole life. Again im gonna assume $ played a big role it that decision. All of them could have freed their slaves(or atleast sold them and refused to take part in the practice) but none did. Maybe it wasnt racism, maybe it was just greed. They were opposed to slavery but, for various reasons, did nothing about it. I think they didnt abolish it because that would have split the country and the U.S. wouldnt have survived if split at that point. But they had that option in their personal lives and chose to remain slaveholders.

 

The founders racist views werent an issue before the Progressive movement because before the Progressive movement racism wasnt an issue. Most white americans were racist, it wasnt until the movement gained momentum that the issue of racism came to the forefront as something that needed to be dealt with. And before anyone says it, the Civil War was not about Slavery.

 

I will agree that they were great men, the best minds of their time and they had so much foresight. But they got alot of things wrong.

 

I wont speak on the 3/5ths comprimise because we clearly see it very differently.

 

As far as studying history, I have a Bachelors degree in it! And have studied political science. Im not as sharp on it as UVAO(espicially on the Political Science side of things) but I am well versed.

Edited September 1, 2012 by redtiger

[bucfan64 309]

I wont speak on the 3/5ths comprimise because we clearly see it very differently.

 

As far as studying history, I have a Bachelors degree in it! And have studied political science. Im not as sharp on it as UVAO(espicially on the Political Science side of things) but I am well versed.

 

1. We might see the 3/5ths Compromise differently, but the facts are the facts, it was an effort to put a damper on slavery with the hopes of one day seeing it eventually removed from American society. You are correct many of the founders, wanted it removed legally and positionally, but they didn't do anything about it personally. But then again, there were some who did. Many of those who supported the 3/5ths Compromise actually viewed the slaves as children, who were incapable of taking care of themselves, this was indeed based on the color of their skin, nonetheless some of the Founders assumed a "fatherly" role, but I will admit that the fatherly role was out of compassion, but the entire premise itself was built on the foundation of racism.

 

2. I too have a degree in history and one in Political Science, and I have learned a lot more since graduating college than I ever learned while in college. I was only suggesting that you keep an open mind to history, not implying that you don't know or understand the subject of history. Sorry, for sending the wrong message.

 

Not trying to argue with you at all, just suggesting that the history that we are never told about, for whatever reason, is sometimes more relevant than the things that we are told.

about history.

 

Guess, we've beat this horse to death, time to move on.....

Edited September 3, 2012 by bucfan64

[redtiger 1,742]

This conversation has about run its course but I for one have really enjoyed it! Glad to have had a conversation with someone whos views are largely opposed to mine without calling each other dumb or ignorant or worse(like so often happens in politics).

 

No offense taken at any point. I agree, always keep an open mind and never stop learning.