Unamerican people need to leave America

Have I just missed it somehow, or has not one person mentioned the Magna Carta?
It just seems odd to me that it would have been excluded from this discussion.

By "unamerican" do you mean the US government and the UN????
Because I believe they are the very definition of that...

The argument that Black People and Women were not considered equal at the time of the Founding of The United States of America, is a sweeping generalization of what some people thought at that time, and then used to condemn the validity of legal documents that in no way declare Blacks and Women as being unequal. There is the horrid three fifths compromise, which speaks to all that is wrong with compromise, but even this crafty piece of legislation conspicuously avoids naming any specific race or gender:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

It is, as it was, and will forever remain, a repugnant passage in the Constitution for the United States of America, but it speaks more to the craftiness of the priest class lawyer set, than it does to condemnation of Natural Rights. It is known as a compromise, precisely because that is what it was, a compromise between two sets of thought. On one side were those who regarded all People as free and equal under the law, and on the other side were slave holders who refused to accept that their basis of economy was counter-intuitive to a free nation rooted in Natural Rights.

The The Antebellum Period in The United States of America, was not a period where all Black People were slaves. There were Black People who were born free even before the American Revolution, and People such as Jame Forten, who fought in the Continental Navy as renowned seaman, and survived to become a wealthy business man. While some Black men who were slaves, fought alongside whites in this Revolution, many did so, just as did whites, to gain their freedom:

In his memoirs, U.S. Navy Commodore James Barron, who served as a captain in the Virginia navy during the war, recalled several black men among the "courageous patriots who... in justice to their merits should not be forgotten." He mentions four slaves: Harry, Cupid, Aberdeen (who subsequently befriended Patrick Henry and was freed by the Virginia General Assembly) and the "noble African" pilot known as "Captain" Mark Starlins.

www.pbs.org...

The list of Black Men who fought alongside Whites is not as long as the list of those who fought for the Crown of England, believing this to be their path to freedom:

And I hereby further declare all indented servants, Negroes, or others (appertaining to Rebels) free, that are able and willing to bear arms, they joining His Majesty's Troops, as soon as may be, for the more speedily reducing the Colony to a proper sense of their duty, to this Majesty's crown and dignity.

~ Lord Dunmore's Proclamation~

Many of those Black Men who did fight for the Crown of England, discovered their freedom was nothing more than an empty promise:

Many thousands of African Americans who aided the British lost their freedom anyway. Many of them ended up in slavery in the Caribbean. Others, when they attempted to leave with the British, in places like Charleston and Savannah, were prevented. And there are incredible letters written by southerners of Africans after the siege of Charleston, swimming out to boats, and the British hacking away at their arms with cutlasses to keep them from following them. So it was a very tragic situation. And of the many thousands of Africans who left the plantations, not many of them actually got their freedom.

~Margaret Washington, historian, on the evacuation of Charleston~

If it were not for the ambivalence of George Washington, it is likely many more Black Men would have fought on the side of the colonists, but Washington had barred the further recruitment of Blacks when taking command of the Continental Army in 1775. It should be noted Washington banned further recruitment, as there were all ready many Blacks who had enlisted and fought for the Continental Army. Great men such as Prince Hall, who was a prominent Boston citizen during the Revolutionary Period, gaining his freedom:

A month after the Boston Massacre, William Hall freed Prince; his certificate of manumission read that he was "no longer Reckoned a slave, but [had] always accounted as a free man."

Always believing to be a freeman, Hall later founded the:

African Lodge of the Honorable Society of Free and Accepted Masons of Boston, the world's first lodge of black Freemasonry and the first society in American history devoted to social, political, and economic improvement.

There was Crispus Attuck who was the first of five People killed in the Boston Massacre. There was Prince Easterbrooks who fought in nearly every major campaign of the Revolution. There was Peter Salem who may have been the man who shot and killed British Marine Major John Pitcairn, and even if it wasn't this man who clearly fought at Bunker Hill, it is a Black Man named Salem, listed as being the man who did so. There was Lemuel Haynes who joined the Revolutionary effort somewhat late, but was, as a free man, much like the many free Black People of that period, very vocal about the abolition of slavery, and his writings on this matter extensive, where he argued that slavery denied People their Natural Rights.

There was Agrippa Hull, Elizabeth Freeman, otherwise known as Mum Bett, and there were those who served humanity, not as soldiers in the American Revolution, but as scientists, such as Benjamin banneker, Rebecca Cole, Edward Alexander Bouchet, Daniel Hale Williams, and George Washington Carver, to name just a very few of some of the great Black People, who either born free, or by obtaining freedom, lived and contributed to humanity in the Antebellum Period of U.S. history.

It should be noted that among the list of Black People mentioned, a few were women. Beyond Black women who knew freedom and were not considered as property, there is also Betsy Ross, who not only was not property, but acquired property on her own.

John was killed in January 1776 on militia duty when gunpowder exploded at the Philadelphia waterfront. Betsy acquired property and kept up the upholstery business, beginning to make flags for Pennsylvania as well.

Mary Katherine Goddard was an early American publisher, and quite possibly the first Woman publisher in America. There was Anne Catherine Hoof Green, who continued to run her husbands print shop after his death, Anne Parrish who established the House of Industry to supply employment to poor women in Philadelphia, Mary Dixon Kies who was the first Woman to obtain a patent in the U.S., Elizabeth Blackwell who became the first Woman in the U.S. to receive a medical degree, Rebecca Lee Crumpler, Lucy Hobbs, Arabella Mansfield, Victoria Calfin Woodhull who became the first Woman to run for President in the U.S., Ellen Swallow Richards, Belva Ann Lockwood, and Sarah E. Goode who became the first Black Woman in the U.S. to receive a patent, and went on, after obtaining freedom from slavery, to become a successful entrepreneur, and this is to name just a few Woman who either fought for their freedom and gained it, or lived free from birth and prospered, making great contributions to humanity.

It is the Woman's Suffrage movement, that all too often becomes equated with women not having rights, but this is patently false, and the attempt to equate the privilege of voting with Natural and Inalienable Rights is nothing short of absurd. Indeed, many today will insist that the benchmark of freedom is the ability to elect our leaders, but voting does not ensure freedom, and can often times diminish it. The attempt by those who wish to dismiss the validity of Natural and Inalienable Rights, by revising history to appear as if all Black People were slaves, and all Women considered to be property themselves, is just one of many lies told by this bunch, and whatever the true agenda is, it just isn't freedom, and the great disservice they do to both Black People and Women is unforgivable.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
The argument that Black People and Women were not considered equal at the time of the Founding of The United States of America, is a sweeping generalization of what some people thought at that time, and then used to condemn the validity of legal documents that in no way declare Blacks and Women as being unequal.

Pray tell, who has condemned the validity of the Constitution? Can you quote where exactly in this thread it has happened? Direct quotes please, not accusations. Just clear proof that anyone has said the Constitution is not valid today because of popular thought at the time of it's signing.

Originally posted by mryanbrown
I don't see where it says We the white males of the United States. It says WE THE PEOPLE. Are you suggesting black people and women are not people outside of the amendments?

That statement would be just as valid today for blacks and women IF the amendments were not passed

I know that your response was to another poster, so forgive me for jumping in. Here is what I believe a lot of people have a hard time understanding, conceptualizing and/or willfully ignoring.

During the late 18th century, as we all know from history books, society held different norms, different ethical standards and different views. It was the society of the time. It was the culture of the time. A lot of people think that the people that were living under British rule suddenly had an epiphany in regards to their culture and their norms as soon as they declared independence from Great Britain.

As you have correctly pointed out, and just as I have earlier when the question arose, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (except for the 3/5ths clause...more on that later) are written for 'The People'. It makes no reference to white males, business owners, plantation owners, blacks, Chinese, Jews, women or anything other than 'The People'.

Even in the framework of establishing the semantics of the Constitution, where the structure of the Legislative and Judiciary are laid out does not delinate between man or woman, black or white. The only use of the pronoun him or he is found in reference to the President.

Example: Note that Person is used, not man, etc.....

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen. -Article I, Section 2

Now, we can take in account the culture of the time and realize that it wrongly discriminated upon black people, slaves, and women in such that during their time, their society viewed it as such. This doesn't make it right, but makes the Constitution the most unique document ever written up to that point.

As the OP has been debating, the Constitution and a vast amount of Founding Documents drew upon Natural Law and as you have been saying, Common Law.

Are you saying if we repealed those amendments that overnight blacks and women wouldn't have the right to vote? That suddenly every white male in America would be like, "well that's it, you no longer have the right."

Very good analogy!

Now, I did say that I would get back to the 3/5ths clause that is in Article I, Section 2. I believe if they would have made an amendment that struck out that clause and stated all persons shall be counted equally, then the Constitution would have remained equal to all under the Law. As it is now, it points out, singles out and picks and chooses in the later amendments.

Don't get me wrong, something needed to change to show that when we declared that all men are created equal, that we mean, all men are created equal. I personally just think that the Constitution went from being a neutral document that was for all, to being pieced out to groups we have as a society neglected in the past....

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
During the late 18th century, as we all know from history books, society held different norms, different ethical standards and different views. It was the society of the time. It was the culture of the time. A lot of people think that the people that were living under British rule suddenly had an epiphany in regards to their culture and their norms as soon as they declared independence from Great Britain.

[...]

Now, we can take in account the culture of the time and realize that it wrongly discriminated upon black people, slaves, and women in such that during their time, their society viewed it as such.

That has been the point I have been trying to get across while being unfairly accused of wanting to remove the right to vote from blacks and women. You put it into words better than I did, I think, so thank you for that.

reply to post by Jenna


You are welcome, but you only quoted the portions I believe you felt supported your point while ignoring the complete context of what I was saying.

I gave a background to point out that the Constitution is highly neutral and would stand today, without the 13th, 15th and 19th amendments. As our culture changed and was beginning to catch up to the true nature into what it was supposed to be.

Funny how the 15th and 19th amendment refers to the 'right to vote' when there is no such right ever granted nor protected by the United States Constitution.

Via the 10th Amendment, the States should have and constitutionally could have been the ones to apply such amendments into their constitutions or fear a mass exodus and/or civil unrest if they didn't. Alas, that is a conversation for another day into how the Imperialistic Central Government has won the battle of State v. Federal control......

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Oh for heavens sake. I edited out some of it because otherwise a mod would come along and delete the whole quote anyway and I'd get a warning for excessive quoting. Not everything is a conspiracy or cherry-picking.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


I love how you managed to convey what I was trying to, without my *wonderful* personality. lol

reply to post by mryanbrown


I love how he said the exact same thing I've been saying, though admittedly worded better than I had managed, and suddenly it's the point you've been trying to prove instead of someone trying to remove the rights of blacks and women to vote.

reply to post by Jenna



Then you haven't been reading mryanbrown's posts...rather because of some reason you have already made up your mind on the mater of the subject in regards to what they say.

I see no where the claims you levy in his writings. He (see...another point about the pronoun he, where we generally use it as a place holder until either corrected in the correct pronoun or chastised in using gender specific English....just as the Constitution uses it in regards to the President...) has been making the same points in a different way, but because you liked the way I put it, you agree with me.

Even my post, just as I suspected earlier you didn't fully read it, states that the 13,15 and 19th Amendments are unnecessary in the context of the Constitution and our culture of today. Striking those amendments would not place women into a position where they could possibly be denied by the state their ability to cast a vote nor would it place people into involuntary servitude again en mass.

I am beginning to think you have highly selective reading....

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
I see no where the claims you levy in his writings.

Then you haven't been reading his posts.

Originally posted by mryanbrown
Are you suggesting black people and women are not people outside of the amendments?

[...]

I'm more apologetic that you WOULD DENY basic human rights to people solely due to the fact that slavery existed after the Constitution was founded.

[...]

You're racist, and sexist to honestly sit here and try to argue that two amendments were required to get blacks and women recognized as equals.

Selective reading indeed.


edit:

Even my post, just as I suspected earlier you didn't fully read it, states that the 13,15 and 19th Amendments are unnecessary in the context of the Constitution and our culture of today. Striking those amendments would not place women into a position where they could possibly be denied by the state their ability to cast a vote nor would it place people into involuntary servitude again en mass.

I never claimed that striking those amendments would remove the right to vote from blacks or women. I pointed out that at the time the Constitution was written, blacks and women were not seen as equals to white men. The very same thing you pointed out in your post, you just thought to add that it was because of the culture and societal norms of the time.

[edit on 6-5-2010 by Jenna]

reply to post by Jenna

Originally posted by mryanbrown
I'm more apologetic that you WOULD DENY basic human rights to people solely due to the fact that slavery existed after the Constitution was founded.

[...]

You're racist, and sexist to honestly sit here and try to argue that two amendments were required to get blacks and women recognized as equals.

This is becoming off-topic but I will respond nonetheless as it is principle.

Where in the above does it say and/or call for blacks to be in slavery or women be denied a vote? Rather it states that the amendments were unnecessary because the Constitution already covered those areas, it was just abused by all people, not just white males....hence the 'racist and sexist' remark at the end of the quote.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


I'm accused of being a racist and a sexist for pointing out that before the amendments were added to the Constitution, only white men had the right to vote and your response is this?

Where in the above does it say and/or call for blacks to be in slavery or women be denied a vote?

Talk about selective reading... He was accusing me of saying it. How difficult is that to understand?

reply to post by Jenna


Jenna...then how is yours, his and my argument any different? Him and I are stating that those amendments, while served a purpose, were redundant to the Constitution itself. Understanding the true nature of the Constitution, one realizes it speaks to all people, regardless of race, color, creed or gender.

Now you and I have argued, along with mryan that the culture of the time allowed such abuse to go unchecked and unchallenged.

Originally posted by Jenna
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

I'm accused of being a racist and a sexist for pointing out that before the amendments were added to the Constitution, only white men had the right to vote and your response is this?

Because they already had the right. Like you agreed that repealing those amendments today, wouldn't change their legal standing. Because the Constitution granted them equality under the law. Society just didn't accept it en mass.

reply to post by mryanbrown

Because they already had the right. Like you agreed that repealing those amendments today, wouldn't change their legal standing. Because the Constitution granted them equality under the law. Society just didn't accept it en mass.

It should be further noted that the privilege of voting is only protected under the Natural Right of equal protection under the law, and voting is not a Natural Right in and of itself, and certainly while non-citizens have the same rights as anyone else, they can't expect to vote in a country or state that they are not citizens of. The issue of voting being used to dismiss the Natural and Inalienable rights of People is merely misdirection. Those who are ignorant of Natural Rights, may ooooh and ahhhhh at the magic of semantics, but those who know better simply see a bad magician.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


This is absolutely amazing... I can't believe I'm having to explain this to you when you're the one accusing me of selective reading.

Originally posted by mryanbrown
They were already free and equal. They already had the right. They needed to fight to get the right recognized by society. Once recognized, the provision making them equal under law is already present. The scope of it has just broadened.

You didn't need additional amendments.

Originally posted by Jenna
When the Constitution and Declaration were written, Jefferson was in the minority with his thoughts on equality. If the right to be seen as equals already belonged to women and black men of the time and was a true unalienable right, it would not have mattered what society thought. Society would have been incapable of taking that away. That is the very definition of an unalienable right.

That is the difference. His argument is that blacks and women already had the same rights as white men and were equals when the Constitution was written. My argument is that at that point in time they did not have the same rights and were not seen as equals or there would have been no need for Amendments granting us the right to vote.

And with that, I'm bowing out of this thread. Enough being double-teamed while you pretend not to understand what my posts say for me.

[edit on 7-5-2010 by Jenna]

I get what you're saying.

That in 1776. Slavery was still socially accepted, because the Constitution didn't free them.

So the 13th Amendment made slavery illegal, and forced people to accept it. (Blacks still weren't equals under the law despite this law being passed).

Fast forward, yay black president. So your premise is that it required an Amendment to make the black man free.

-------

I say the Constitution freed black men. But just like after the 13th Amendment passed. Society didn't regard them as equals despite being equal under the law. Society used the open ended language of the law to do everything they could to not apply it to black people.

So the 13th Amendment happened. Still not equal.

Fast forward, yay black president.

Repeal the 13th amendment. Keep societies mentality.

Suddenly OMGOSH LOOK!

They're still free and equal citizens because the constitution as is freed them. It recognized them as equals. And now so does society. (minus the obvious way in which we describe them as being seperate from us, like this sentence)

So we say. The amendments were never needed, the Constitution already granted/reiterated*** those rights. Society just didn't accept it.

EDIT: ^^
Yay propoganda popping through my conscience.
----------------

And just because you have an unalienable right. Doesn't mean people can't prevent you from exercising it.

Take the last decade.

Patriot Act
Stripping Citizens of their Citizenship
Probable Cause
Resonable suspicion
etc, etc

These violate EVEN the "white mans" rights in the Constitution. Everyone's rights. Despite the Constitution being in play.

It's the mentality of society which directly influences which portions of it are enforced, and how.

[edit on 7-5-2010 by mryanbrown]

[edit on 7-5-2010 by mryanbrown]

reply to post by mryanbrown

It's the mentality of society which directly influences which portions of it are enforced, and how.

Which is why it remains ever so important for each individual to jealously guard and zealously assert their Natural and Inalienable Rights at every instance. The job of government is to protect those Rights, but it is necessary to understand the nature of government, which much like the scorpion that stings the frog while crossing the river, will sting the People without even thinking twice about it.