• 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!

Was the Constitutional Convention about property rights?

Atheist 2020

Banned
Joined
Jul 22, 2018
Messages
1,802
Reaction score
290
Location
Tennessee
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
A few years ago a thoughtful history professor was talking about the constitutional convention was about property rights (1789); versus the American of the 1770's about the rights of liberty. I have to agree with her, the balk of the core of the constitution of 1789 is about property rights. Having a Congress, a President and the federal courts does protect property rights. Because it is a foolish idea to take away a persons property when you need the blessing of the Congress and the courts. I leave off the president of the United States of America with this issue, as the president has to follow the laws of Congress.

If I had property in the 1780's, I need a strong central government to defend my property rights. Nobody wanted another problem like South Carolina were Liverpool and London was selling the same property (1770's) and both parties were in debate. If they lost the land, they would go to debaters prison. With lands in the mid-west states claimed the same land as other states. The upside of a strong federal government, it can make deals with states to have western boarders, and sell the lands to the west to pay down the American War debate.
 
well, let's look at the participants of the constitutional convention ............... they were ..................

*English

*white

*male

put yourself in their shoes in that time; what would you want in a 'new world' being English & white & male?
 
well, let's look at the participants of the constitutional convention ............... they were ..................

*English

*white

*male

put yourself in their shoes in that time; what would you want in a 'new world' being English & white & male?

The Bill of Rights, had nothing to do with their race or their gender, but it did have a lot to do with their country of origin and their not wanting to repeat the government tyranny of English rule.
 
well, let's look at the participants of the constitutional convention ............... they were ..................

*English

*white

*male

put yourself in their shoes in that time; what would you want in a 'new world' being English & white & male?

FFS... Is it too much to ask that you put the GD race card down for 2 seconds and attempt an intelligent response to the op?

This kind of non-stop, race baiting, identity politics does nothing but fuel racial division and is slowly but surely destroying this country... And you couldn't care any less.

.
 
FFS... Is it too much to ask that you put the GD race card down for 2 seconds and attempt an intelligent response to the op?

This kind of non-stop, race baiting, identity politics does nothing but fuel racial division and is slowly but surely destroying this country... And you couldn't care any less.

.

the constitution from 1787 allowed *white* *male* property owners to vote.

At the time of the first Presidential election in 1789, only 6 percent of the population–white, male property owners were eligible to vote.
The Fifteenth Amendment extended the right to vote to former male slaves in 1870.
American Indians gained the vote under a law passed by Congress in 1924.

not about race; OK ................... next .........


what about women; when were they finally allowed to vote?
 
The Bill of Rights, had nothing to do with their race or their gender, but it did have a lot to do with their country of origin and their not wanting to repeat the government tyranny of English rule.

The Bill of Rights was passed by the first Congress, and it was for federal laws. My point is with the constitution was the body of the document without the Bill of Rights.
 
the constitution from 1787 allowed *white* *male* property owners to vote.

At the time of the first Presidential election in 1789, only 6 percent of the population–white, male property owners were eligible to vote.
The Fifteenth Amendment extended the right to vote to former male slaves in 1870.
American Indians gained the vote under a law passed by Congress in 1924.

not about race; OK ................... next .........


what about women; when were they finally allowed to vote?

Yes, for a number of states that only white males and property owners could vote. The constitution did not say (1789) about white males voting. The people voting to accept or reject was in a number of states, only white males with property ownership. How it was passed with them was accidental
 
The federal constitution leaves the definition of suffrage up to the state constitutions and state electoral law.
 
Sure the Constitution was about property, but not about real estate. Property meant anything that belonged to ones self, their Freedom, Liberty, fruits of their labor ect. The Constitution address these in the form that the central government can not infringe upon them. Unlike the European model to where everything was granted by the King. Don't confuse Property with Real Estate.
 
All I can say is that the first 100 years of our history was all about property rights. Every time a new state was formed, land speculators made fortunes. Washington, Jefferson and most of the crew had vast land holdings, immense pieces of land. Follow the money folks, follow the money.
 
Was the Constitutional Convention about property rights?
Of course it was! How could one think it wasn't? The main source of dissatisfaction the revolutionary Colonists had with King George III's government was that it was depriving them of property and giving them no say in the before, during or after of doing so.
 
All I can say is that the first 100 years of our history was all about property rights. Every time a new state was formed, land speculators made fortunes. Washington, Jefferson and most of the crew had vast land holdings, immense pieces of land. Follow the money folks, follow the money.

I think the entirety of our history has been about property and rights to and uses of it.

While we romanticize the religious freedom seekers who settled at Plymouth, the reality is the tenets of entrepreneurship borne of East India Company colonists and likeminded business owners is wherefrom America's legacy, economic and sociopolitical sensibilities come.
Quite simply, people came to the colonies mostly to get rich or richer than they could get in Europe. After all, it's not as though Europe's nobility boarded boats and sailed thousands of miles to the colonies. Why would they? They already enjoyed the "good life" right where they were. Unless they faced execution, incarceration or something similarly debilitating, the aristocracy had no reason to emigrate.
 
I think the entirety of our history has been about property and rights to and uses of it.

While we romanticize the religious freedom seekers who settled at Plymouth, the reality is the tenets of entrepreneurship borne of East India Company colonists and likeminded business owners is wherefrom America's legacy, economic and sociopolitical sensibilities come.
Quite simply, people came to the colonies mostly to get rich or richer than they could get in Europe. After all, it's not as though Europe's nobility boarded boats and sailed thousands of miles to the colonies. Why would they? They already enjoyed the "good life" right where they were. Unless they faced execution, incarceration or something similarly debilitating, the aristocracy had no reason to emigrate.

Correctamundo. In fact, the aristocracy had very little reason to move here at all, they could make money sitting in London a lot easier then slogging it out in the colonies. GB created a new economy out of the older feudal economy in the 1700s to 1800s. It was based upon the rule of law, separation of the courts from the King, the creation of corporations and credit. Companies became imperialists by using the investments of thousands to fund ventures abroad using the GB legal and economic umbrella to expand capitalism everywhere and anywhere they wanted to go. The King was ready to enforce their efforts through force if necessary. Our founders eventually wanted to do it themselves without getting skimmed by capitalists and monarchies hence the revolution. Yes along with it were ideas created by the great thinkers of the Enlightenment and Age of Reason, these were learned men who were deep thinkers but it was really about money, property rights, taxation and power.
 
Those who own the country ought to govern it.
-- William Jay, quoting his father, John Jay, Life of John Jay: with selections from his correspondence and miscellaneous papers


Our founders eventually wanted to do it themselves without getting skimmed by capitalists

Red:
The Founders were capitalists, through and through.
  • Franklin --> Publishing, chandlery
  • Jefferson --> Agriculture
  • Washington --> Agriculture
  • Adams --> Law, farming and cobblery
  • Hamilton --> Writing
  • Madison --> Agriculture
  • John Jay --> Law
  • John Hancock --> Merchant
Examine the lives of the 1st and 2nd Continental Congress, the signers of the Articles, Declaration or Constitution, the state legislators and executives. Every last one of them was a capitalist. They owned factors of production -- land, labor or capital -- and availed to profit their title thereunto.
Distinguishing a very small few from the rest is their "Horatio Algerism." Make no mistake; however, mostly the Founders inherited wealth, status and power and had the enviable task of not losing it.


Aside:
One would be remiss thinking the Founders sought to form a democracy. They did not. They sought a republic, as stated in Federalist 10.​

A communication and concert result from [democracy] itself; and there is nothing to check the [impetus] to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that...democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property...Theoretic politicians, who have patronized [democracy], have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect [political] equality, [mankind would simultaneously] be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and...passions.​

It clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy...is enjoyed by a large over a small republic, -- is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments.​

Madison could not have been clearer:


  • [*=1]Republic is better than democracy.
    [*=1]The "talented 10th" ought be who manage the state.
To them injustice meant "messing" with the power (all forms of it), riches, property and means of obtaining and retaining either by those who hold all three.

Madison was not unique in his disapprobation of the notion that the hoi polloi have saw in government.​
All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and well-born, the other the mass of the people… The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct permanent share in the government…
-- Alexander Hamilton
Succinctly: the Founders sought to replace the monarchical aristocratic plutocracy under which they lived with a republican geniocratic plutocracy.

I cannot count how often I see and hear folks -- here as well in the "general public" -- repeat the highly idealized Founding Fathers themes typical of texts read by, or at times to, elementary schoolers. The problem isn't that those narratives are wrong -- they're not -- it's that they're trivial, flagrantly incomplete.

The Founders, unlike "everyone else," thrived under monarchy, the culture to which they were born, for they were, like their Continental counterparts, among the most well read, well educated, well traveled and thoughtful people in Western Civilization. The Founders (those whose names we know and those we don't) had a problem with the monarch, from across a damn ocean, claiming as his own more of their property and wealth than they cared to part with. They also weren't keen on inserting himself into, not only their economic and financial affairs, but also into their local/colonial political lives. (The rural vs. urban political divide roiling us today is substantively the same animus that was extant between the Founders and their English governors, i.e., the King and Parliament.) Were George III less avaricious, we'd be Brits.​
 
At the time, capitalism was the creation of merchants and government in Great Britain or England. The colonists continued that model here as they became more successful. In this conversation, we are both right. Remember that during the time of the colonies, everything was controlled by the King and the wealthy back in England. Yes, one could rise up and become wealthy here but you were part of a system that was not in your control nor did you or any other colonist make the majority of the money being made by the expansion of England into the Americas. While monetary interests drove them to rebellion, the founders also dreamed of a new system that did not require a King hence they looked back to Greece and Rome when it was a republic and not an empire. Your comments here are historically accurate, folks should rid themselves of the legends we created to tell stories promoting the new nation and see for themselves what truly happened. Your post is very helpful in this struggle.
 
Back
Top Bottom