Your Founding Fathers were commies.

reply to post by theovermensch

I am also interested in the fact that so little credit is given to France,Spain and the Dutch Republic who were all instrumental in the Americans gaining victory.

Credit?

Because it dispels the illusion and myth that Americans proudly rose up to oppose the British despots.

The truth is that it was used as an extension of a European war by nations that saw and exploited an opportunity to harm The British Empire and increase their own influence and control.
Nearly as many Americans supported Britain as opposed it at the time.

What I do respect them for is resisting the French, Spanish etc and maintaining their independace.

Now The Pilgrim Fathers?
That's a discussion for another thread but yet another story based on historical inaccuracies and outright lies.

The founding fathers favored a Maximum Wage limit.
How does the TEA party like that idea?

reply to post by Freeborn


Yeah,I love reading between the lines when looking at history. That period was so interesting.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
When they were done, they wrote a document that enshrined hteor own power, excluded the youth, excluded women, excluded the poor, excluded blacks and Indians, and basically created a government system that resists all change with hte utmost of its power by design.

I only take exception to this; can you point to the part in the Constitution that exclusively excluded the groups you stated above -- except of course the horrendous and black-spot of the 3/5th Compromise which dealt with freed slaves and Native Americans?

Reason I ask is because your claims of excluding youth, women and the poor were cultural and not enshrined in the Constitution. Except for the office of the Presidency, the word "person" is typically used in the document and speaks nothing to race, age (except for limitations on certain offices) or gender.

And please don't take this question as apologetic, for it isn't. I ask earnestly to understand where you are getting such an opinion from.

reply to post by theovermensch

Text regarding noob mistakes, tips, tools and generally good advice ... here's a couple really helpful links in case no one has led you there yet ... Freshman Forum Index of Important ATS links

Thanks hey. And I do agree that OWS wont be the solution,I hope it helps lead to the solution in some way though. In some ways I think the Tea Party made OWS possible. Maybe the next thing will be closer.

reply to post by theovermensch

you're quite welcome and i agree, i hope both movements lead to more.
i believe protesting should continue and i am hopeful that sooner rather later, some will be effective.

i don't believe violence is any answer but shouldn't be used as a deterrent either.
of the Americans i know personally, the more they are told 'NO, you can't', the more they aim to prove you wrong.

not really sure what happened to that good o'le spirit that got us here but i believe it's brewing somewhere deep in the souls of many.

Central banking is the illusion, everything and every branch stems from it's trunk of "currency" and it's never-ending lines of "credit".
abolish the illusion and the people stand a fighting chance without ne'er firing a bullet.

curious questions ... how much do you really know about the founding fathers and their "personal" lives?
do you realize very few of them were "aristocrats"?
many were outright poor but they were elected anyway.
are you familiar with the result of the last brazen attempt to implement marxist/communist government type policies in this country and which POTUS did so?
just wondering

reply to post by ownbestenemy

ok, for someone who understands the lack of gender distinction in the Constitution, where do you get this from?

except of course the horrendous and black-spot of the 3/5th Compromise which dealt with freed slaves and Native Americans?

i don't understand how you can claim such when it wasn't.
of the original states, more than 1/2 were slave states (legally) and it was decided to include representation of those humans otherwise considered property.

if there was no compromise, thousands of persons (of many races) would have had -0- consideration at all.
ppl should not dismiss the simple fact that the slavery industry (right or wrong) was legally practiced throughout the region at that time (and was not exclusive to any race).

there was much deliberation of the compromise and it should be seen as the success it was, not a "black-spot" as you claim. try not to forget, until after the Civil War, slavery was a legal practice.

and, in case you didn't know, the First Black Congressman of the people was elected in a SOUTHERN state ... Mississippi.

reply to post by Honor93

Text curious questions ... how much do you really know about the founding fathers and their "personal" lives? do you realize very few of them were "aristocrats"? many were outright poor but they were elected anyway. are you familiar with the result of the last brazen attempt to implement marxist/communist government type policies in this country and which POTUS did so? just wondering

I confess I dont know nearly enough about them. Send me a link if you have time hey. I think they are pretty interesting.

Originally posted by Honor93
i don't understand how you can claim such when it wasn't.
of the original states, more than 1/2 were slave states (legally) and it was decided to include representation of those humans otherwise considered property.

It was a complete compromise only to lure in the Southern States that were against not having such language OR the ability to count said property for purposes of Congressional seats and taxes -- it was not for "representation". Both sides win hence a compromise but that compromise was on the backs of "other Persons".

On one hand you had the (Non-Slave) States that didn't want slaves to be counted towards enumeration of representation -- and the other -- the (Slave) States that wanted them to be counted; neither wanted representation to be given.

That is why I call it a black-spot, a blemish and one that I am glad has been stricken out via the Amendment process.

if there was no compromise, thousands of persons (of many races) would have had -0- consideration at all.
ppl should not dismiss the simple fact that the slavery industry (right or wrong) was legally practiced throughout the region at that time (and was not exclusive to any race).

I make no contention that the practice was not only legal but widespread. But the fact still remained -- the Enumeration Clause gave nothing to "other Persons" a.k.a. slaves; it merely was a vehicle to allow the Slave States count their "property" for enumeration of congressional seats purposes.

there was much deliberation of the compromise and it should be seen as the success it was, not a "black-spot" as you claim. try not to forget, until after the Civil War, slavery was a legal practice.

There was great deliberation but not for the reasons you think. That "black-spot" could be seen as a precursor to the reason we ended up in the inevitable spot of the Civil War.

My original post stands.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by Honor93
i don't understand how you can claim such when it wasn't.
of the original states, more than 1/2 were slave states (legally) and it was decided to include representation of those humans otherwise considered property.

It was a complete compromise only to lure in the Southern States that were against not having such language OR the ability to count said property for purposes of Congressional seats and taxes -- it was not for "representation". Both sides win hence a compromise but that compromise was on the backs of "other Persons".

On one hand you had the (Non-Slave) States that didn't want slaves to be counted towards enumeration of representation -- and the other -- the (Slave) States that wanted them to be counted; neither wanted representation to be given.

That is why I call it a black-spot, a blemish and one that I am glad has been stricken out via the Amendment process.

if there was no compromise, thousands of persons (of many races) would have had -0- consideration at all.
ppl should not dismiss the simple fact that the slavery industry (right or wrong) was legally practiced throughout the region at that time (and was not exclusive to any race).

I make no contention that the practice was not only legal but widespread. But the fact still remained -- the Enumeration Clause gave nothing to "other Persons" a.k.a. slaves; it merely was a vehicle to allow the Slave States count their "property" for enumeration of congressional seats purposes.

there was much deliberation of the compromise and it should be seen as the success it was, not a "black-spot" as you claim. try not to forget, until after the Civil War, slavery was a legal practice.

There was great deliberation but not for the reasons you think. That "black-spot" could be seen as a precursor to the reason we ended up in the inevitable spot of the Civil War.

My original post stands.

so, all the Southern states were slave states because ... you say so ???
interesting outlook.

just in case you didn't know ... when ppl refer to Kentucky or Florida for even being a Southern slave state, i know immediately just how clueless they are ... Southern Slave States although, i always did get a kick out of those Southen slave states named New York, New Jersey, Deleware, Maryland and Virginia ... yeppers, they sure are Southerners alright
[if you'll note, the map linked does include the time period we're discussing, all the way up to the start of the civil war in 1861 - so, no saying other states joined the party, that's just not so]

facts are that a majority of ALL states of that time were slave states so it was a "compromise" between the desires/practice of one side vs the desire/practices of another. it was NOT a north v south argument.

i never said anything about a compromise not slighting some groups on both sides
(where do you get that from?)
the compromise WAS to establish representation ... read the Federalist papers for yourself.

psssst ... taxes were already established by the crown ... taxation without representation was the big beef if i remember correctly

your own quote even says so ...

slaves to be counted towards enumeration of representation

just what do you think that phrase means?

i am glad slavery was made illegal but it has done NOTHING to stop the practice ... so, where did we go wrong?

it merely was a vehicle to allow the Slave States count their "property" for enumeration of congressional seats purposes.

so, you typed this and claim it has nothing to do with it ???
how's that working out for ya?

no offense intended, but you really should review your own understanding of the words YOU typed.

Originally posted by Honor93
so, all the Southern states were slave states because ... you say so ???
interesting outlook.

Forgive the one instance I did not catch in which labeled all Southern States as slave states. I tried to distinguish throughout the whole post but this is what you aimed for. Interesting considering.

just in case you didn't know ... when ppl refer to Kentucky or Florida for even being a Southern slave state, i know immediately just how clueless they are ...

I never referred to a particular State nor geographical location. I failed to catch my one instance when I painted a broad brush but that is what you want to cling to...okay.

But then again, I never referred to Florida, Kentucky or any other individual states.

although, i always did get a kick out of those Southen slave states named New York, New Jersey, Deleware, Maryland and Virginia ... yeppers, they sure are Southerners alright

[if you'll note, the map linked does include the time period we're discussing, all the way up to the start of the civil war in 1861 - so, no saying other states joined the party, that's just not so]

I am well aware, and again...I apologize for the broad generalization in one single sentence....but if you read all of my reply you will see I said "Slave states" and "non-Slave states". This is a bit disconcerting cause I thought from a different thread you were about presenting information and not attacking...live and let learn I suppose.

facts are that a majority of ALL states of that time were slave states so it was a "compromise" between the desires/practice of one side vs the desire/practices of another. it was NOT a north v south argument.

Care to cite this? You are correct that the terms "slave state" and "free state" were not around during the signing of the Constitution but the feeling and mood was well implanted within certain states in regards to the stances taken.

i never said anything about a compromise not slighting some groups on both sides
(where do you get that from?)
the compromise WAS to establish representation ... read the Federalist papers for yourself.

I am not sure what exactly you are getting at here. I never said you slighted any particular group (NOW where did you get that from?!)

The compromise was surely not to give representation. Where are you getting this from? I truly wish that were so, but it wasn't. Hence my claim that the Enumeration Clause was a black-mark on the Constitution. It was to placate the states that were holding out because of the enormous population of slave labor they held and the benefits it would bring come time to count Congressional seats.

i am glad slavery was made illegal but it has done NOTHING to stop the practice ... so, where did we go wrong?

Is there slavery out in the open?! Minus what people randomly call "slavery" are people placed into indentured servitude against their will and agreement en mass in the United States?

[quote[so, you typed this and claim it has nothing to do with it ???
how's that working out for ya?

no offense intended, but you really should review your own understanding of the words YOU typed.

I understand everything I typed and honestly I was cheering for you in defense (maybe not completely vocally) in the thread that was calling for direct democracy -- but right now, I am unsure what to think. First -- cute little emoticons are annoying and immature. Second the Enumeration Compromise wasn't pretty and was a black mark on not only the Constitution but the Declaration of Independence.

The "savior" of Individual Rights held slaves yet was telling us all that "all men were created equal". Go figure. Real champion there. Yet the person labeled as a puppet of the Crown and an aristocrat; John Adams spoke out vehemently and strongly against slave ownership and in fact never owned one. Go figure that Jefferson is held in high regard. Trust me, I am no straying from the topic.

------------------

Just so I know where you are coming from -- The Enumeration Clause (3/5 Compromise) was put into place so that slaves and everyone else was represented in Congress? Is this what you are saying?!

reply to post by ownbestenemy

3 whole posts in this thread and because i challenge your claim of ignorance (in each post), you have a problem with me? yeppers, interesting indeed.

well, since the OPs story is about KENTUCKY and you're referring to those "southern slave states", i guess that was a misinterpretation on my part, eh?

again, the story is about Kentucky, what other reference need be made ?
as for Florida, it's a personal attachment and i've heard that one, just one too many times.

since you fail to see your broad brush stroke, let me help you ... from your original (1st) post to WF ...

except of course the horrendous and black-spot of the 3/5th Compromise which dealt with freed slaves and Native Americans?

do tell, which part of that compromise dealt directly with Native Americans or freed slaves for that matter???
the compromise was regarding "possessed slaves", ie ... property, freed men already exercised voting rights in several states.
source

This is not to imply that all blacks were allowed to vote; free blacks could vote (except in South Carolina) but slaves were not permitted to vote in any State. Yet in many States this was not an issue, for many worked to end slavery during and after the American Revolution. Although Great Britain had prohibited the abolition of slavery in the Colonies before the Revolution, [15] as independent States they were free to end slavery – as occurred in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire, and New York. [16] Additionally, blacks in many early States not only had the right to vote but also the right to hold office.

i'm not sure how engaging you in a discussion becomes an "attack" in your mind but i don't post for any ego boost, i post to converse and learn and teach when appropriate.

however, for the benefit of all, understanding the propaganda of those times is much easier when you have the facts. blurring the obvious ("southern" slave states) is the epitome of propaganda, and you're pushing it.
if you choose to lose the "southern" part of your statements, i'd be happy to keep quiet but that's an awfully big button for ppl to randomly push whenever the "topic" suits them.

no, when the Constitution was developed/crafted, there were states, there were slaves and there were freed men ... is this confusing for you?
again, read the Federalist papers for yourself ... FP link

what i said ...

i never said anything about a compromise not slighting some groups on both sides
(where do you get that from?)
the compromise WAS to establish representation ... read the Federalist papers for yourself.

came from ...

but the feeling and mood was well implanted within certain states in regards to the stances taken

again, the 'mood' about slavery wasn't even a consideration during the crafting of the Constitution or the engagement of the CWar for that matter.
the EP was an afterthought, nothing more.

The LAW ruled slavery during that day, not the "mood" of anyone or anything.
and actually, that Law (regarding slavery) originated and was prohibited from removal directly from the Crown.

you say ...

The compromise was surely not to give representation.

and if you mean representation to the slaves themselves, well of course not.
it was to establish representation in the new Congress. Besides, freed slaves were counted toward representation and some even held office positions.

IF it was to "placate the hold-outs", as you claim, then i'm guessing since the majority of participants were established slave staes, the minority must have had something else with which to entice them.

hmmm, slavery in the US today ???
if you have to ask that question then i'd would suggest you brush up on current events ... however, if that's too much, what would you call (illegal) immigrant farm workers who fear for their lives, daily? or perhaps ALLLLL the young children who are snatched and sold into slavery world-wide ?? or how 'bout all the debtors being rounded up and tossed in jail/w penalties for not having a job ?? or maybe you think that's ok because the "mood" of the day fits.

opinions change and so have mine over the years.
i am not here to make friends or fans, have plenty of both thank you.
to share the knowledge i can is personally rewarding and in some cases, helpful to others.
if my opinions encourage you to think outside your own box, great ... if they force you to respond, even better.

dialogue begins with an opinion, right or wrong is irrelevant, the truth finds it own way.
in case you choose to not respond, thank you for the conversation.
cont'd cause i'm outta characters

reply to post by ownbestenemy

continued from previous post ... you said ...

I understand everything I typed and honestly I was cheering for you in defense (maybe not completely vocally) in the thread that was calling for direct democracy -- but right now, I am unsure what to think. First -- cute little emoticons are annoying and immature. Second the Enumeration Compromise wasn't pretty and was a black mark on not only the Constitution but the Declaration of Independence.

The "savior" of Individual Rights held slaves yet was telling us all that "all men were created equal". Go figure. Real champion there. Yet the person labeled as a puppet of the Crown and an aristocrat; John Adams spoke out vehemently and strongly against slave ownership and in fact never owned one. Go figure that Jefferson is held in high regard. Trust me, I am no straying from the topic.

------------------

Just so I know where you are coming from -- The Enumeration Clause (3/5 Compromise) was put into place so that slaves and everyone else was represented in Congress? Is this what you are saying?!

to answer this last question, first ... NO, that is not what i'm saying at all.
it was a numbers game, nothing more.
the non-slave states were more heavily populated with free men, hence giving them an "edge" in Congress, as it had been designed.

the slave states (although heavily populated by the slaves) were not as influential by their numbers of free men, hence, they fought for the slaves to be counted as an overall value. (which they eventually were)
does that make more sense ??

as for debating or discussing topics of interest, if i desired a win/loss ratio, i would debate live in front of a live audience, otherwise, tis just a discussion. no winners, no losers, only opinions and facts.

with that said, thank you for you comment about the other thread but please add your own 2 cents, that is what makes it all worthwhile.

ohhhh yeah, when you're my age, perhaps you'll agree that it's kinda nice to be considered annoying and immature occasionally ... well, at least the grandkids appreciate it.

you are welcome to your opinion but hopefully the facts will encourage you to re-evaluate it.
Jefferson and Adams ???
you pick the only 2 FFs who NEVER even signed the document ... interesting indeed.
[they were out of the country at the time the signing took place]

personally, i kinda fancy Hamilton and few others but something about his style makes me smile.
look, they all have good and bad aspects (they're human) but the simple fact that they and we have overcome some of our own limits should be ample hope for the future.

reply to post by ownbestenemy

ya know, i tend to take it for granted that most everyone knows this but far too often, i am proven wrong.
so, in the spirit of teaching ... are you aware the reason or cause of the CW was the desired secession of several states and Lincoln's refusal to allow the Union separation during his leadership?

any and all things having to do with the business of slavery at that time were consequential not causative.
an attempt at exercising the right of the States to remove themselves from the Union was the trigger.
source

Lincoln's election made South Carolina's secession from the Union a foregone conclusion. The state had long been waiting for an event that would unite the South against the antislavery forces. Once the election returns were certain, a special South Carolina convention declared "that the Union now subsisting between South Carolina and other states under the name of the "United States of America' is hereby dissolved." By February 1, 1861, six more Southern states had seceded. On February 7, the seven states adopted a provisional constitution for the Confederate States of America. The remaining southern states as yet remained in the Union.

Less than a month later, on March 4, 1861, Abraham Lincoln was sworn in as president of the United States. In his inaugural address, he refused to recognize the secession, considering it "legally void." His speech closed with a plea for restoration of the bonds of union. But the South turned deaf ears, and on April 12, guns opened fire on the federal troops stationed at Fort Sumter in the Charleston, South Carolina, harbor. A war had begun in which more Americans would die than in any other conflict before or since.

try to keep in mind, even in this passage, the "South" referenced is the leader of the movement, South Carolina ... who at the time were already planning their secession.
yes, over their right to participate in legal slavery but again, the trigger was their act to secede, to exercise the right of the State and the Fed refused with exceptional force.

edit to add: also, consider out of 13 states, 7 (a majority) submitted secession paperwork ... for Lincoln and the Federal government, this was a real problem.
it would be akin to Obama receiving same from every state west of the Mississippi (well, that might not be enough but i hope you get my point) even for him, that would be a real problem.
_________________

concerning the other thread ... and to start somewhere, read FP# 22, coincidentally authored by Hamilton and you'll begin to understand how my opinion and questions develop.

Originally posted by Honor93

Originally posted by theovermensch
reply to post by Honor93

 

I didnt compare the two at all. My point is that some of the most common arguments used against OWS by members of the Tea Party are invalid.

nah, this statement wouldn't allude to such a thing ...

I dont think OWS is the answer but I think it will lead to the answer.They are on the right track at least. You Tea Party Patriots have been duped.

nope, no comparison there at all

and for the record, the OWS is making movements toward creating a political party
(not just talking about it)
OWS forum

The time is more than ripe to start an OWS political party, have a national convention, and make an impact on local, state and national politics in 2012. Get in out of the cold and start organizing!

msm
Zucotti park speaker
previously discussed ATS link
now that the truth is out there, can we progress to a real conversation?
yes, the two movements are quite similar ... development, presentation, outcome ... one was a bit sloppier than the other but whatever, neither has the interests of the public at large even listed as a footnote on their agenda.

and, i cannot for the life of me figure out how you presume OWS is Anti-establishment ???
what are you reading or who are you talking to because you're being seriously misled.
OWS wants more government, not less. that is Pro-establishment

the TEA party ??? not much to comment on there either
to me, they're a bunch of sell-outs ... they started out well enough but then ... well, that's politics and their lack of concern for All Americans doesn't impress me one bit.

so, how exactly does any of this compare to the Founding Fathers or your mistaken perception that they "were communists" ?? please, expand on your ill informed opinion.

Honor I think your 100% correct on everything you said. Except that I believe the Tea Party was "hijacked" by the the right wing side of the "coin" and twisted even more by the MSM. The OWS isn't for more government really either they are for less banks, meaning less banks influencing government ie: negating the federal reserve.

reply to post by Quetzalcoatl12


Thanks for reading the thread. And dont side track the guy. He's rollin. Ive been doing some reading on the Three Fifths Compromise. Dont know a spec about this stuff compared to these guys. Im learning alot.

reply to post by Honor93


This is what our education system teaches us Honor, half truths and stories to make our younger citizens believe in only one side of the story. Never ever the full picture. Is that why they changed His-story to Social Studies in most schools??

reply to post by Quetzalcoatl12

Except that I believe the Tea Party was "hijacked" by the the right wing side of the "coin" and twisted even more by the MSM. The OWS isn't for more government really either they are for less banks, meaning less banks influencing government ie: negating the federal reserve.

in this, we also agree. i was soooooo disappointed to see the TP high-jacked like it was but i'm even more disillusioned to see it happening with OWS.

i've been keeping an eye on OWS and yes, in certain regions i would agree with you, but ... when you pay attention to what is coming out of "Central Command" so to speak, i still have grave doubts as to their objective.

i am all for abolishing the Federal Reserve, have been for years but even the small amount in OWS who agree are not nearly enough to push forward with a resolve.

Besides, ppl need to learn the language of the Act (and subsequent additions/subtractions) if they are going to attempt to repeal it
(which, i'm not verbally skilled enough to be sure) but i think it's written in such a manner as to prevent its repeal and i'm not sure such a thing is possible but i've read it and i think i'm comprehending it and if it's so, there has to be another way ... the greater minds need to design and define the plan rather argue about it.

edit to add: yes, i'm aware the teachings are poor, however, it is up to you to learn ... i am more dismayed at the success of the schools to diminish the desire to learn.
Especially history, we are who we are but that doesn't mean we need to deny who we were.
then again, if you intertwine the ongoing propaganda mission, it all makes perfect sense.
__________________________

reply to post by theovermensch

thank you for being inspired to learn more
please don't take my word for it, your brain works, exercise it ... the truth is out there.

reply to post by Honor93


Okay -- our squabble was fun and lets put that aside.

It is clear that we both have a differing view on the Enumeration Clause (3/5th Compromise) and we can see that in Federalist Paper No. 54 (Hamilton -- but that is not confirmed) that the decision was for representation enumeration and direct tax purposes. The prevailing view and question of the day was how do they classify persons held as slaves: Property or People.

In Federalist Paper 54, Publius (Hamilton or Madison) are saying exactly what I have been.

THE next view which I shall take of the House of Representatives relates to the appointment of its members to the several States which is to be determined by the same rule with that of direct taxes.

The writer than continues on and explores the pros and cons of how to strike a compromise that will appease everyone and unite the colonies in strength -- and then deal with it later.

The answer was to say that 3/5s of them were people and the other 2/5s were property. This satisfied everyone. States with a sizable slave population were not given the upper hand in counting said population towards enumeration of their congressional seats and that they wouldn't be heavily taxed because of their large "property" holdings.

States that had little slave population benefit because they aren't beholden to states that could continue to import and increase their slave population to bolster their representation enumeration and thus sway the effects of the Federal Government.

When I referenced that the Compromise eventually led to the Civil War -- it is because it did. Either the separation was going to happen during the Constitutional Convention or at a later point when the issue was dealt with. That was the problem with the compromise in my opinion.


------

On another note -- While John Adams holds a special place in my life and has shaped many of my views, it is Madison who I have come to study with great interest over the past couple of years.

Originally posted by theovermensch
reply to post by Quetzalcoatl12

 

Thanks for reading the thread. And dont side track the guy. He's rollin.

Ive been doing some reading on the Three Fifths Compromise. Dont know a spec about this stuff compared to these guys. Im learning alot.

edit on 2-12-2011 by theovermensch because: typo

I am with Honor here -- while he (excuse the presumption of gender) and I have differing opinions of the exact purpose of the 3/5's Compromise -- it leads to more knowledge and eventually better understanding for all of us.

Personally I am in the minority here on ATS when it comes to discussion and debate -- I am not a hardliner unless it is something that I vehemently oppose -- but even then, with enough logic I could be swayed.

This Forum (U.S. Political Madness) is one of my mainstays and enjoy the good conversations that take place and tolerate the inane.