Posted on 03/21/2012 7:21:07 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
By definition, "Founding Fathers" were those who wrote and then voted to ratify the new Constitution.
Those who voted against the Constitution were not Founding Fathers.
They were instead, as their political name accurately describes: "anti-Federalists".
Anti-Federalists had their say, they lost the vote, and a new "more perfect Union" was ratified to replace the old "perpetual" Articles of Confederation.
“By definition, “Founding Fathers” were those who wrote and then voted to ratify the new Constitution.
Those who voted against the Constitution were not Founding Fathers.”
Oh? So what are you, the world’s authority on the subject?
Well, sadly you’re not. In fact it’s evident you’re not even much of a student of the subject.
Here’s a definition a bit more impartial than your self-serving attempt at ‘begging the question’, a logical fallacy attractive to sloppy thinkers; note the use of “or” in the following definition, and if you don’t know why “or” is significant find someone to explain it to you:
“The Founding Fathers of the United States of America were political leaders and statesmen who participated in the American Revolution by creating the United States Declaration of Independence, taking part in the American Revolutionary War, establishing the United States Constitution, or by some other key contribution. “
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States
In that article is a list of Founding Fathers. And, surprise surprise, the list includes George Mason, Patrick Henry, and Richard Henry Lee.
Now run along and find some thread where they like to indulge in make-believe, your material will at least fit in there.
Fits me perfectly? Hardly, I don’t subscribe to the Marx and Engel’s interpretation of the American Civil War.
I brought up Marx and Engels because they wrote extensively on the American Civil War, and their account is significant because it is virtually identical to the interpretation of Civil War history that many South-haters use today.
It’s an interesting question where South-haters get their interpretation. Maybe they stumble upon it all by themselves. More likely they absorb Marx and Engels as it filters through other historians. It’s not like the American Historical Association has had a shortage of marxists. Eric Foner being a classic example of one who writes on the Civil War.
The United States would have been far better served by holding every surviving Confederate officer accountable in the federal courts or military tribunals in the states of the rebellion, with punishment imposed according to the standards of the time.
The mistake of Reconstruction was in giving “The Lost Cause” any seeds or fertile soil in which to sprout. We'd be a far different and better nation now if the traitors had been dealt with properly.
Up yours troll, start crap somewhere else jerk.
Not to mention, one of its (three) posts claims Obama was born in Hawaii.
Right.
For later
Could this be FR’s favorite retread? Anti-birther and hates the Confederacy... Made 3 comments so far only.
We would be a far better nation if the Confederacy had kicked the ever loving sh*t out of the union. How’s this hopey changey thing working for you?
Retread? The zotted Non-Sequitur aka zotted Drennan Whyte aka zotted Kstater aka zotted SOJOCO????
FR will be a far better place when you are dealt with according to the standards of FR. I see lighting in your future.
It seems only natural that a school called Dixie College would call itself the Rebels. You seem to find that name objectionable. Why?
You are obviously a very well read man. I don’t dispute anything you have written. Accept I am not a Southern apologist. I do not need lectured on the facts of slavery, the CSA constitution, or the economic value of slave chattel. There are no converts to make or hostile’s to humble in me.
Feel vindicated. Thanks for the practice.
Freeing the slaves first is a rhetorical construct to illustrate that all the good that could have come from the war was lost because of slavery.
Had an assembly of states brought Washington DC to heel over the punitive anti-sectional tariffs and affirmed the ultimate natural right of self determination, we would not now face an overwhelmingly large Federal government hostile to liberty.
And because of the CW, this same Federal government has the precedent to freely use force against its own people.
The tiny slave owning elite of the cotton south, even though they lost the war and are now long dead and judged, screwed this country royal.
As a consequence, to use one of your phrases Cheburashka, and not a fictional Mr. Longstreet’s, it is we as freemen who “.....are on the wrong side of history.”
Those flipping evil slavers and that darn CSA Constitution.
I don’t care for president Obama and didn’t vote for him during his election. I do think we have a better chance of replacing him by focusing on the economy and likely further rationing of healthcare, rather than by chasing a story about his birth status that might prove equally detrimental to someone we may support in the future.
Were that the case, we would have at least two separate nations in the space now occupied by our United States.
Armed insurrection against the government is always treason. It’s only successful revolutionaries who get to avoid that label, and that’s not what happened to the CSA.
I made no such claim, nor do I support Obama. I do believe we would be more successful in limiting him to one term in office by focusing on topics such as Obamacare and our struggling economy, rather than carrying on a doomed effort to attack his eligibility by birth.
We don’t have different goals, but it appears we will have to disagree on the best way to achieve them.
Not sure what you mean by “lighting in your future,” but FR is a conservative forum. A true conservative would never endorse armed treason against their own government. That’s where you and I must part ways.
He/she probably meant “Lightning” in your future - a reference to banning people suspected of being trolls or retreads. There are some forks here who are downright incontinent about silencing dissenting opinion.
Thanks.
“Armed insurrection against the government is always treason.”
That’s what King George III said about George Washington and the American rebels of 1776.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.