• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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!

Is The Citizenry Our Founders Feared Here?

Master Debator said:
That new country though was fighting to preserve slavery.... you see the problem...? :screwy
Click to expand...

Yes. Problem 1) Federal violation of the Constitution.

In his slender volume Lincoln's Constitution, Daniel Farber, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and the University of Minnesota, takes on these very questions.
Did the Southern States, like the Founding Fathers, have the right to secede? Farber says no, though he also contends that the case for secession was not frivolous. Did Lincoln violate the Constitution when, in his efforts to preserve the Union, he suspended habeas corpus, and in taking certain actions without Congressional authorization? Farber argues that nearly all of Lincoln's actions were permissible under the Constitution. Moreover, when he did infringe the Constitution, his trespasses were, at least, not egregious.
Click to expand...

Hey, as long as violations aren't VIOLATIONS.

Problem 2) If Confederacy wins the war how to end slavery?

I would bet if the South freed slaves through choice rather than force, institutional racism would have died a quicker death.

Did Lincoln Violate the Constitution? | FindLaw
 
Luther said:
As much as they disagreed, they did agree on this

They feared a non "virtuous" citizenry(weak )

Weak non virtuous citizenry still remains
Click to expand...

Are you able to cite that claim? In Federalist 68 Hamilton voiced concern about a gullible electorate being taken in and voting for a totally unqualified con-man as justification for the Electoral College; we saw how that worked out. But I find no reference to a "non-virtuous citizenry anywhere.

Luther said:
For one, one that would have allowed the Fed income tax to begin with?

After the original constitution stated "NO capitation or other direct tax shall be laid"

That is just one big example
Click to expand...

Talk about non-virtuous; why not quote the WHOLE Clause

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 4
Click to expand...
(bolding is mine)

instead of cherry picking the part that supports your view point
 
Hondo said:
Yes. Problem 1) Federal violation of the Constitution.



Hey, as long as violations aren't VIOLATIONS.

Problem 2) If Confederacy wins the war how to end slavery?

I would bet if the South freed slaves through choice rather than force, institutional racism would have died a quicker death.

Did Lincoln Violate the Constitution? | FindLaw
Click to expand...

They did choose which seems to be the giant clue you're missing. They chose slavery. They put protections for owning slaves into their constitution. What is the timeline on your guess when the south, who left the union and enshrined the right to own blacks into law, would willingly and peacefully give that up?
 
Last edited:
Master Debator said:
They did choose which seems to be the giant clue you're missing. The chose slavery. They put protections for owning slaves into their constitution. What is the timeline on your guess when the south, who left the union and enshrined the right to own blacks into law, would willing give that up?
Click to expand...

It was a dying institution. Eventually pro-abolitionist states would have pressured SC and GA. The war was started by college kids.
 
Last edited:
Hondo said:
It was a dying institution. Eventually pro-abolitionist states would have pressured SC and GA.
Click to expand...

Now you're just making wild assertions. Let's get back to facts. The south argued long and passionately about their divine right to slavery and the natural state of subservience in blacks to whites. It was a belief that went beyond economics to the very fabric of their society and culture and religous beliefs.
 
People that bleat on today about slavery and the founding fathers are idiots. Slavery was a reality of the day. It was a global concept. Trying to condemn people from 250 years ago using standards of today is just...dumb. And of course, none of the people that **** themselves over the slave owning founding fathers ever concern themselves over the slave owning, slave selling 'kings and queens' of Africa..just like they dont give the first **** about the millions of mostly brown slaves held today all around the world.
 
Master Debator said:
Now you're just making wild assertions. Let's get back to facts. The south argued long and passionately about their divine right to slavery and the natural state of subservience in blacks to whites. It was a belief that went beyond economics to the very fabric of their society and culture and religous beliefs.
Click to expand...

Economic sanctions from Europe, Canada, and the US (if trading) would have made it so.
 
KevinKohler said:
Unsure, as I don't know who they feared.

But I will say, the answer is simple. Kill the 2 parties, remove money from elections, and end gerrymandering.

The country would be to top in 50 years, maybe even less.
Click to expand...

End political parties, lobbying, private money in politics/elections (Citizens United) and put an end to gerrymandering. Vote by mail-in ballot so everyone gets to vote and doesn't have to stand in line. Strengthen the strict separation of church and state and have reasonable gun regulations instead of the NRA goal of requiring people to own guns.

We could fix this country in 10 years and return it to the 21st century instead of the 14th century the GOP is aiming at.
 
Hondo said:
Economic sanctions from Europe, Canada, and the US (if trading) would have made it so.
Click to expand...

Another baseless assumption. Fact, the Confederate constitution protected the right of whites to own slaves for all time.

Article I Section 9(4) - No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

That seems pretty definitive. Certainly Confederate politicians thought so at the time.

We have dissolved the late Union chiefly because of the negro quarrel. Now, is there any man who wished to reproduce that strife among ourselves? And yet does not he, who wished the slave trade left for the action of Congress, see that he proposed to open a Pandora's box among us and to cause our political arena again to resound with this discussion. Had we left the question unsettled, we should, in my opinion, have sown broadcast the seeds of discord and death in our Constitution. I congratulate the country that the strife has been put to rest forever, and that American slavery is to stand before the world as it is, and on its own merits. We have now placed our domestic institution, and secured its rights unmistakably, in the Constitution. We have sought by no euphony to hide its name. We have called our negroes 'slaves', and we have recognized and protected them as persons and our rights to them as property.

— Robert Hardy Smith,*An Address to the Citizens of Alabama on the Constitution and Laws of the Confederate States of America, 1861.
Click to expand...
 
VanceMack said:
People that bleat on today about slavery and the founding fathers are idiots. Slavery was a reality of the day. It was a global concept. Trying to condemn people from 250 years ago using standards of today is just...dumb. And of course, none of the people that **** themselves over the slave owning founding fathers ever concern themselves over the slave owning, slave selling 'kings and queens' of Africa..just like they dont give the first **** about the millions of mostly brown slaves held today all around the world.
Click to expand...

This is what is known as Republican projection. To be clear, it's you who doesn't care.
 
Irwin Corey said:
Are you able to cite that claim? In Federalist 68 Hamilton voiced concern about a gullible electorate being taken in and voting for a totally unqualified con-man as justification for the Electoral College; we saw how that worked out. But I find no reference to a "non-virtuous citizenry anywhere.
Click to expand...
Trump is exactly the kind of unqualified person that the Electoral Collge was created to prevent from taking office but because of political partisanship voting in the EC, the EC does not function as it was meant to do. We either need to modify it to work as created or end it because as it is now it can do more harm than good.
 
Master Debator said:
That new country though was fighting to preserve slavery.... you see the problem...? :screwy
Click to expand...

They could have ended slavery in the Constitution and many of the signers wanted to do that but they also knew that the Constitution would not get sufficient support by the slave-owning states to be ratified so they chose instead to ratify the Constitution by kicking the issue of slavery down the road for another genertion of politicans to solve.
 
Lisa said:
End political parties, lobbying, private money in politics/elections (Citizens United) and put an end to gerrymandering. Vote by mail-in ballot so everyone gets to vote and doesn't have to stand in line. Strengthen the strict separation of church and state and have reasonable gun regulations instead of the NRA goal of requiring people to own guns.

We could fix this country in 10 years and return it to the 21st century instead of the 14th century the GOP is aiming at.
Click to expand...

14th?


Nah. Definately 18th century.
 
Lisa said:
Trump is exactly the kind of unqualified person that the Electoral Collge was created to prevent from taking office but because of political partisanship voting in the EC, the EC does not function as it was meant to do. We either need to modify it to work as created or end it because as it is now it can do more harm than good.
Click to expand...

I have to note: the argument for the EC as a method of blocking populists comes from a learned advertising brochure, aka, the Federalist Papers. And it certainly is a good argument for the EC.

But what went before it was a deal that hot summer in Philly: the slave states were not going to try to ratify unless they got the 3/5ths compromise AND EC. That's the real underlying reason we have it: to assauge slave state fears of northern federal domination.
 
KevinKohler said:
14th?


Nah. Definately 18th century.
Click to expand...

I disagree. the 18th century was the rebirth of representative government and rights for the people. The GOP prefers a monarchy or a plutocracy with rights only for those who owned land. It also included a much large role for religion control in public life and rights.
 
The founding Fathers feared factionalism much as Madison did.

What would Madison make of American democracy today, an era in which Jacksonian populism looks restrained by comparison? Madison’s worst fears of mob rule have been realized—and the cooling mechanisms he designed to slow down the formation of impetuous majorities have broken.

The polarization of Congress, reflecting an electorate that has not been this divided since about the time of the Civil War, has led to ideological warfare between parties that directly channels the passions of their most extreme constituents and donors—precisely the type of factionalism the Founders abhorred.
 
Master Debator said:
Another baseless assumption. Fact, the Confederate constitution protected the right of whites to own slaves for all time.

Article I Section 9(4) - No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

That seems pretty definitive. Certainly Confederate politicians thought so at the time.
Click to expand...

It's not a baseless assumption. Most historians agree that slavery would have ended economically. They disagree as to how long. Do you honestly think it would exist today in an SJW world? That was the first issue we tackled in a US since 1865 class in college. Lots of great works on the subject. I tried Googling some good source material and, for whatever reason, the well is dry on either side of the argument, pulling up message boards, Quora, blogs, a few professors' book reviews, but no quality academic works. Found several for and against slavery dying out, but it's like a sanitized Google black hole in cyberspace. Had the same issue with sports of vertigo in the philosophy of sport and play. We can barely hang on to freedom let alone slavery.
 
Last edited:
Hondo said:
It's not a baseless assumption. Most historians agree that slavery would have ended economically. They disagree as to how long. Do you honestly think it would exist today in an SJW world? That was the first issue we tackled in a US since 1865 class in college. Lots of great works on the subject. I tried Googling some good source material and, for whatever reason, the well is dry on either side of the argument, pulling up message boards, Quora, blogs, a few professors' book reviews, but no quality academic works. Found several for and against slavery dying out, but it's like a sanitized Google black hole in cyberspace. Had the same issue with sports of vertigo in the philosophy of sport and play. We can barely hang on to freedom let alone slavery.
Click to expand...


We have 100 years of terrorism, segregation and discrimination after the war and especially in the south to inform us on how deeply ingrained racism and white supremacy were in the south. Would slavery exist today? Probably. It still does in some respects. Provisions in the 13th amendment allowed slavery to continue for those in prison. After the war there was a large effort to round up and incarcerate newly freed blacks and to put them to work in chain gangs to rebuild the south. Fast forward to today and those prison are now private businesses where prisoners have to work a 12 hours a day to make 3 dollars so they can have a 1 min phone call that costs them 2. Slavery didn't completely end, it just adapted.
 
Lisa said:
They could have ended slavery in the Constitution and many of the signers wanted to do that but they also knew that the Constitution would not get sufficient support by the slave-owning states to be ratified so they chose instead to ratify the Constitution by kicking the issue of slavery down the road for another genertion of politicans to solve.
Click to expand...

He's not even talking about America. He's talking about the confederacy. He claimed hed fight for the confederacy over America even though he opposes slavery because states rights trump human rights apparently...
 
Master Debator said:
That's also nonsense. During the constitutional convention it was northern states who wanted slaves counted as whole people after an amendment passed to determine taxation from states based on population. During the ratification process it was the southern states who wanted to count slaves in order to give them greater representation in the House. The 3/5s compromise allowed both sides to benefit. The south had to pay more in taxes but gained greater influence in national politics which helped to prolong slavery, not end it.



I'm not white, whether that was directed my way or not. Just to be clear. The Founders were just men. Some decent, some not and everything in between. Did that matter a whole lot to southern slaves who's situation they profited off of? Probably not. It's the people who are interested in holding them up as idols that are incapable of honest assessment. In the end did their ideal form of government bring about the end to slavery before England? France? Spain? Netherlands?



I'll ask again. When was slavery abolished in the United States? America and the North continued to profit of the domestic slave trade and the products cultivated by slave labor right up to the civil the war.


Let me educate you on some simple math.

1/4 were slave owners and 3/4s were in business with slave owners.
Click to expand...
I'll ask again. When was slavery abolished in the United States? America and the North continued to profit of the domestic slave trade and the products cultivated by slave labor right up to the civil the war.
Click to expand...


I'll ask again
Click to expand...

Sure you do, You love to distract and have a 'Hard on' for slavery(LOL)

America and the North continued to profit of the domestic slave trade and the products cultivated by slave labor right up to the civil the war
Click to expand...

America was divided in Free states/territories and Slave states/territories(Rolling eyes)

Also no mention of the abolitionist- movement by you? Of course not(wink)?

America is EVIL to you and that is it!!!(LOL)


Abolitionist Movement - Goals, Timeline & Impact - HISTORY
 
Last edited:
Master Debator said:
That's also nonsense. During the constitutional convention it was northern states who wanted slaves counted as whole people after an amendment passed to determine taxation from states based on population. During the ratification process it was the southern states who wanted to count slaves in order to give them greater representation in the House. The 3/5s compromise allowed both sides to benefit. The south had to pay more in taxes but gained greater influence in national politics which helped to prolong slavery, not end it.



I'm not white, whether that was directed my way or not. Just to be clear. The Founders were just men. Some decent, some not and everything in between. Did that matter a whole lot to southern slaves who's situation they profited off of? Probably not. It's the people who are interested in holding them up as idols that are incapable of honest assessment. In the end did their ideal form of government bring about the end to slavery before England? France? Spain? Netherlands?



I'll ask again. When was slavery abolished in the United States? America and the North continued to profit of the domestic slave trade and the products cultivated by slave labor right up to the civil the war.


Let me educate you on some simple math.

1/4 were slave owners and 3/4s were in business with slave owners.
Click to expand...

3/4s were in business with slave owners.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, they had complete power over those who didn't think like them(LOL)
 
Master Debator said:
A majority of Democratic representatives voted to end segregation and protect the right of minorities to vote in 64' and 65' and they voted into law by a Democratic president 100 years after Lincoln. Today, a bunch of whie southern Republicans are trying to weaken the protections of the voting rights act and have succeeded in some instances. Coincidently it was white southerners who seceded and formed the confederacy, and white southerners who voted in astounding majority against ending segregation and providing voting rights to blacks in the 60's and its white southerners assaulting those protections today in 2019 but I'm sure that's all a coincidence. We should only focus on the late 1800's and early 1900's when white southerners voted Democrat. Derpy Republican logic. :thumbs:
Click to expand...
A majority of Democratic representatives voted to end segregation and protect the right of minorities to vote in 64' and 65'
Click to expand...

And how many years after, let say 1860? Wow!

We should only focus on the late 1800's and early 1900's when white southerners voted Democrat.
Click to expand...

And we understand to "Why" you would want to distract from it(wink)
 
Visbek said:
"The Founders" had a diversity of opinions about this so-called "threat."

E.g. Jefferson believed that the public at large could do no wrong. Adams was worried about an aristocratic oligarchy and the inequality they would perpetuate to their own advantage. Madison who was worried about the "tyranny of the majority," and that wasn't an abstract future concern. He was worried about it during his own time, as were some others. That's why Senators were not directly elected, why there was an Electoral College, and a handful of other anti-democratic features in the original Constitution.

And of course, those of us who have a basic understanding of American history know that populism has its occasional surges. There was a surge in the 1840s, for example, typified by the xenophobic "Know-Nothing" party; and another in the 1880s who objected to the dominance of the railroads, robber barons, and the gold standard. But I don't think the framers who were worried about the public had those movements in mind, rather a general concern about mass movements in general.
Click to expand...

E.g. Jefferson believed that the public at large could do no wrong.
Click to expand...

You sure?

“Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government”

Thomas Jefferson
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom