The Two Jerseys wrote:Simple: destroying the economies of half the states was a deal-breaker.
It would have led to the dissolution of the Union at a time when the federal government could not corral the states back together.
Advertisement
by Royal Frankia » Mon Oct 19, 2020 9:26 pm
The Two Jerseys wrote:Simple: destroying the economies of half the states was a deal-breaker.
by Parxland » Mon Oct 19, 2020 9:27 pm
Cannot think of a name wrote:Parxland wrote:The First post is half-assed and ill-thought. The poster should be ashamed to have demonstrate so little intelligence with their text. I strongly encourage the poster to strengthen their empathy before revisiting this subject, since they're liable to get punched in the face if they dare to air this 'opinion' in real life to the wrong party.
While I'm not eager to wade into the giddy hipness of someone who has taken their first college level history class and now feels like they're unlocking the truth to the masses (gosh golly, you're saying many of the founding fathers owned slaves and were shitty to women, non-land owners, indigenous people, poor people in general? You don't say...), not confronting issues 'because someone might punch you' is even more repugnant an idea.
by San Lumen » Mon Oct 19, 2020 9:28 pm
Royal Frankia wrote:Cordel One wrote:Hopefully this will contain my debate with San Lumen to one thread.
As much as Americans love to glorify the freedoms the Founding Fathers gave them with the Constitution, it's important to remember not everyone was free to enjoy these new liberties. Not only were women denied the right to vote, slavery remained a legal institution within the United States. Why did the founders allow slavery to remain? Was it apathy, was it the inability to do so, or was it white supremacy?
I believe they never intended to release the slaves. Less famous founders aside, Washington owned slaves (though he did free most) and had dentures of slave teeth, Jefferson raped one of his slaves, and very few founders even bothered to suggest such a thing.
Inability, for the most part, though the states in the South would not be fond of the idea of wrecking their cash crop industry. Slavery had largely been phased out in the North, where the clime permitted crops such as wheat or corn rather than say cotton or tobacco. Also you have to remember that Washington personally had to put down the Whiskey Rebellion, and I do imagine hostility would be much greater to say abolishing slavery at that time. The power of the individual states was also much, much greater, to the point where the Union was at risk of being dissolved multiple times before the Civil War.
Slavery existed in the States, though it was practiced in the Caribbean and Brazil at that time. Based on statistics, slaves in North America had a higher survival rate than say slaves that had gone to the other European colonies where cash crops like sugar were grown. In fact, the majority of slaves that went across the Atlantic were shipped to replace those that had perished from the harsh work and the diseases that circulated at that time.
The Founders were brought up in a different world, for the most part, and have been lionized greatly. You have to remember that they were not saints, but their sins were no greater than those of that time. As time progressed the abolitionist cause grew in strength, which led to patrols along the African coast to stamp out the slave trade in later generations.
by Kowani » Mon Oct 19, 2020 9:30 pm
Aclion wrote:more importantly it requires looking at how the slave revolt in Haiti went for the whitesKowani wrote:laughs in Benjamin Franklin
This is ironically, only half true. Slavery was only economically beneficial to the landed classes who owned slaves (and northern whites who made the clothes I guess). But poor southern whites? No, slavery was economically harmful to them-yet they were some of its most fervent supporters.
Reconciling this contradiction requires an understanding of the ideology of white supremacy that slavery espoused.
by Neanderthaland » Mon Oct 19, 2020 9:32 pm
by -Ra- » Mon Oct 19, 2020 9:37 pm
Your vote counts. Go vote
Links to register:
United Kingdom | United States
Canada | Australia | New Zealand
by Cannot think of a name » Mon Oct 19, 2020 9:40 pm
Rusozak wrote:Idolizing politicians is dumb anyways. Try to name one leader that was absolutely scandal free and benevolent to every life they affected. Go ahead. I'll wait.
by Neanderthaland » Mon Oct 19, 2020 9:43 pm
Cannot think of a name wrote:Rusozak wrote:Idolizing politicians is dumb anyways. Try to name one leader that was absolutely scandal free and benevolent to every life they affected. Go ahead. I'll wait.
Well, here's the rub and something that the skinny jean crowd tend not to understand. It's not an either/or proposition.
The founding fathers were not remarkable because they were beings of pure light and intent that descended upon the colonies to Tinkerbell a perfect union into place. They were a bunch of lawyers and land owners and slave owners who had points of view that either didn't age well or were shitty no matter what the age. These waddling examples of imperfection whose lives and beliefs can be critiqued did form a sustainable framework for a self governed country at a time that such a thing wasn't common and put in the one caveat that has made all the difference: The idea that they might have fucked up. That whatever it is they think solved all the problems, it hasn't. People will change and the country will need to be able to change with it. They created an ideal that they never lived up to and the country they created never lived up to, but-often kicking and screaming-the country has been dragged closer and closer to that ideal. The framers didn't free the slaves. They didn't enfranchise poor laborers. They didn't give women the vote. But they created a mechanism for the country to do so, and in a way created a system that would force itself to do that.
It's not that great men did good things. It's regular ass shitty men created a system that could be better than those who created it. All you have to do is engage with it. That's why the status quo loves hipsters. Go ahead, get disenfranchised by the lives of people from 250 years ago. Squint your eyes enough that you can't tell the difference between political parties. Talk about the insurmountable power of industrial complexes. Take your hands off the wheel and let the devil drive. You get to pretend that you're not the sucker in this scenario.
by The Lone Alliance » Mon Oct 19, 2020 9:44 pm
by Cannot think of a name » Mon Oct 19, 2020 9:45 pm
Parxland wrote:Cannot think of a name wrote:While I'm not eager to wade into the giddy hipness of someone who has taken their first college level history class and now feels like they're unlocking the truth to the masses (gosh golly, you're saying many of the founding fathers owned slaves and were shitty to women, non-land owners, indigenous people, poor people in general? You don't say...), not confronting issues 'because someone might punch you' is even more repugnant an idea.
You get used to the idea when you figure out that not only are you powerless to affect anything beyond yourself, but the consequences can blow up in your face way more than you thought it would. It's not great, but.. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Parxland wrote:Refer to my first post. I'd say "know your shit" in your case before you commit.
by Aeritai » Mon Oct 19, 2020 9:50 pm
by The Lone Alliance » Mon Oct 19, 2020 10:25 pm
Aeritai wrote:Its possible to admire the achievements that the Founding Fathers did for our country while also condemning them for their slave practices.
by Infected Mushroom » Mon Oct 19, 2020 10:28 pm
by Picairn » Mon Oct 19, 2020 10:38 pm
Picairn wrote:If the Founding Fathers had tried to ban slavery or granted women suffrage then there would have been a civil war in 1789. And the rich, populous Southern slave states would have won.
The whole point of the Constitution is basically the FFs throwing up their arms in the sky and said: "Fuck it, enough with this endless arguing. Let's compromise and solve these problem later when the US has finally become a unified, strong nation". And solve those problems they did.
But I guess for some people, ideology matters more than effective governance. At least you can proclaim you have preserved your principles while the enemy's gun barrel points down at your throat, right? It won't matter if you are dead.
by Aeritai » Mon Oct 19, 2020 10:42 pm
The Lone Alliance wrote:Aeritai wrote:Its possible to admire the achievements that the Founding Fathers did for our country while also condemning them for their slave practices.
One thing that I've started to believe the more I read into the founding fathers is the paradox of Jefferson.
Jefferson supported the French Revolution where the aristocracy were executed and destroyed (Despite being an American Aristocrat), he pointed out that the tree of liberty needed watering with the blood of patriots and tryants and that the country itself might need a good revolt every few decades or so, and his ultimate dream for the United States was an entire nation of Free Farmers with enough land to grow their own food and enough material means to live in peace as an Agrarian classless society.
So does that mean Jefferson ultimately believed that the tyrants that needed removing included people like him?
"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."
by Washington Resistance Army » Mon Oct 19, 2020 10:46 pm
by Catsfern » Mon Oct 19, 2020 10:53 pm
by Torisakia » Mon Oct 19, 2020 11:02 pm
[TNN] A cargo ship belonging to Torisakia disappeared off the coast of Kostane late Wednesday evening. TBI suspects foul play. || Congress passes a T$10 billion aid package for the Democratic Populist rebels in Kostane. To include firearms, vehicles, and artillery.
by Borderlands of Rojava » Tue Oct 20, 2020 5:28 am
Rusozak wrote:Idolizing politicians is dumb anyways. Try to name one leader that was absolutely scandal free and benevolent to every life they affected. Go ahead. I'll wait.
by Punished UMN » Tue Oct 20, 2020 5:35 am
by Ethel mermania » Tue Oct 20, 2020 5:49 am
by Ifreann » Tue Oct 20, 2020 6:12 am
by West Leas Oros 2 » Tue Oct 20, 2020 6:21 am
Rusozak wrote:Idolizing politicians is dumb anyways. Try to name one leader that was absolutely scandal free and benevolent to every life they affected. Go ahead. I'll wait.
WLO Public News: Outdated Factbooks and other documents in process of major redesign! ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: <error:not found>
by Ethel mermania » Tue Oct 20, 2020 6:53 am
Neanderthaland wrote:Cannot think of a name wrote:Well, here's the rub and something that the skinny jean crowd tend not to understand. It's not an either/or proposition.
The founding fathers were not remarkable because they were beings of pure light and intent that descended upon the colonies to Tinkerbell a perfect union into place. They were a bunch of lawyers and land owners and slave owners who had points of view that either didn't age well or were shitty no matter what the age. These waddling examples of imperfection whose lives and beliefs can be critiqued did form a sustainable framework for a self governed country at a time that such a thing wasn't common and put in the one caveat that has made all the difference: The idea that they might have fucked up. That whatever it is they think solved all the problems, it hasn't. People will change and the country will need to be able to change with it. They created an ideal that they never lived up to and the country they created never lived up to, but-often kicking and screaming-the country has been dragged closer and closer to that ideal. The framers didn't free the slaves. They didn't enfranchise poor laborers. They didn't give women the vote. But they created a mechanism for the country to do so, and in a way created a system that would force itself to do that.
It's not that great men did good things. It's regular ass shitty men created a system that could be better than those who created it. All you have to do is engage with it. That's why the status quo loves hipsters. Go ahead, get disenfranchised by the lives of people from 250 years ago. Squint your eyes enough that you can't tell the difference between political parties. Talk about the insurmountable power of industrial complexes. Take your hands off the wheel and let the devil drive. You get to pretend that you're not the sucker in this scenario.
It's a shame there's no up-vote function.
by Picairn » Tue Oct 20, 2020 7:08 am
Cannot think of a name wrote:Well, here's the rub and something that the skinny jean crowd tend not to understand. It's not an either/or proposition.
The founding fathers were not remarkable because they were beings of pure light and intent that descended upon the colonies to Tinkerbell a perfect union into place. They were a bunch of lawyers and land owners and slave owners who had points of view that either didn't age well or were shitty no matter what the age. These waddling examples of imperfection whose lives and beliefs can be critiqued did form a sustainable framework for a self governed country at a time that such a thing wasn't common and put in the one caveat that has made all the difference: The idea that they might have fucked up. That whatever it is they think solved all the problems, it hasn't. People will change and the country will need to be able to change with it. They created an ideal that they never lived up to and the country they created never lived up to, but-often kicking and screaming-the country has been dragged closer and closer to that ideal. The framers didn't free the slaves. They didn't enfranchise poor laborers. They didn't give women the vote. But they created a mechanism for the country to do so, and in a way created a system that would force itself to do that.
It's not that great men did good things. It's regular ass shitty men created a system that could be better than those who created it. All you have to do is engage with it. That's why the status quo loves hipsters. Go ahead, get disenfranchised by the lives of people from 250 years ago. Squint your eyes enough that you can't tell the difference between political parties. Talk about the insurmountable power of industrial complexes. Take your hands off the wheel and let the devil drive. You get to pretend that you're not the sucker in this scenario.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: ARIsyan-, Eahland, Google [Bot], Kannap, Kostane, Neanderthaland, New Temecula, Oceanic Socialist Republics, Port Myreal, Rusza, Siluvia, South Neviersia, Statesburg, The Two Jerseys, Trollgaard, Verkhoyanska, Zantalio
Advertisement