Printable View
So you're saying in some respects they had no idea what they were doing? Because they certainly didn't mean to abolish slavery, or to treat women on equal footing with men.
That would be contrary to your insistence that after much deliberation they came up with the perfect system which has been deteriorating ever since.
Deteriorating due to repeated mishandling by subsequent generations, especially during the 20th century, and continuing into the 21st.Quote:
Originally Posted by gugi
Honed right- I noticed you corrected Gugi's quote from inalienable to unalienable. This pedanticism surely means you have noticed the fact that the framers clearly wrote "all MEN are created equal"- leaving women completely out of it.
As to slavery- there is a clause in the constitution stating that there shall be a period of 20 years, then it would come to a vote in Congress. To me that seems like they didn't really care one way or another- if they had been so for the rights of blacks, why didn't they just outright ban it?
Finally, you claim that these unalienable rights were ordained by a higher power, yet the US government was one of the first SECULAR states in the world. The clause about "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and all that nonsense is a combination of the two philosophers, Locke and Rousseau, with a touch of social contract- no religion involved.
For the upteenth time- lets just amend the damn thing! If we refuse to consider the Constitution as possibly being wrong, then we are discounting amendments in general! Amendments correct the wrongs of the constitution! And in some case, the wrongs of previous amendments (notably, prohibition, anti-prohibition)
Anyone who is in anyway comfortatable with the government running his/her life in anyway, shape or form is a fool. Fools abound which explains the predicament we are presently confounded by. OOPS, I just ended a sentence with a preposition.
The bottom line is that a fairly large group of fools elected a celebrity to the White House. Again, fools abound.............
Here's an experiment for you. Compare your net income for 2009 to your net income for 2010. Let me know how you make out........ JERRY
A very large portion of our country died fighting for the rights of slaves in this country. practically no family went untouched in our civil war. White and black alike died for the cause of freedom. Have we all forgotten this?Quote:
Originally Posted by khaos
This conversation about our forefathers wanting to keep the black man a slave makes me sick. Who do you think instilled the ideals in the generation that fought for the rights of slaves.
The founding fathers put off abolishing slavery. The civil war was fought after the war for independance. And apparently, Lincoln even regretted having to abolish slavery. The soldiers in the civil war died because the North and South fought for dominance. Rights for slaves were not the cause, nor the main goal of that war.
The men of that time were not all upstanding gentleman who had nothing but the best interest of their fellow men at heart. They were just men, at heart no different from the men of today. The majority of white men at that time either supported slavery, or didn't care either way.
Is that why so many died in that bloody war Bruno?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
You'll have to give me something on your Lincoln statement.
By the way Bruno, are all Europeans so jaded and cynical? Is their any love or hope for whats right or is it a given among Europeans that all is for selfish and self serving purposes?
They sure as heel did not die TO abolish slavery.Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
I should have done my research myself when I first hear the quote. It is more nuanced than that. However:Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
Lincoln's Changing Views on Slavery
During the Lincoln-Douglas debate at Charleston on September 18, 1858, Lincoln stated:
I will say then that I am not, nor have I ever been in the favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races . . . There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I... am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race ...
"My paramount objective in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slaves, I would do it, if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it."
Lincoln fought to preserve the union. He admitted himself that he did not care about slavery as a main argument. His main concern was the union that was threatening to fall apart.Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
WW1 did NOT start because of the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria .
By the same token, operation 'Iraqi freedom' did not start because of freedom for the Iraqis, and we did not colonize congo to bring civilization there.
Yes, I am a realist. Unfortunately this also has me labeled as a cynic.
Wars don't start for good reasons (revolutions do, sometimes). The morality gets tacked on for justification.
"Realist" is just a nice sounding word that apparently means that one has no hope or belief that another can move out of the spirit of goodness.
Sorry, that is not true.Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
I believe that people sometimes do things out of the spirit of goodness. I have hope and belief.
Goodness, however, is not something that wars start over.