Skip to comments.Op-Ed: Oh, say can you see?
Posted on 07/02/2014 10:52:09 AM PDT by Citizen Zed
When independence was finally won the political leaders of the victorious forces turned their attention to securing their hold on the institutions of government. Their human rights issues which had been promoted in the earlier Declaration of Colonial Rights and the notion of the equality of all men, fell by the wayside. The focus now shifted to protecting the interests of the slave owners, bankers, merchants and industrialists; making sure that political power remained in the hands of white men of means.
(Excerpt) Read more at digitaljournal.com ...
I have a feeling I don’t want to read the rest of that. lol
A wise decision.
Now on deck for the Olympic Hurling event ...
There was no industry so no industrialists. All the banks were private without governmental insurance so no powerful bankers. As to slavery the moderates compromised on that and kicked the can down the road which lead to a little affair we call the Civil War that sacrificed 600,000 soldiers and untold numbers of civilians to gain freedom and liberty for all.
Because the history of tyrants and socialism/communism is so dire, Lefists and fools have to make up a phoney dire American history to make their inferior selves feel superior!
Where is the barf alert?
Jackass traitors like this need to read VINDICATING THE FOUNDERS.
There was no “property requirement”, nor was there a requirement in the magnificent Constitution for voters to be white or male.
Things were left to the states, an idea that has become passé with these very traitors.
sorry....it’s now “Jose, can you see ?”
Can’t tell if this was written by Van Jones or Ron Paul.
Many on the Left have convinced themselves that if they profess their ignorance (if not outright lies) loudly enough and with passion, their lies simply must be true.
Yet ANOTHER angry ignoramus showing off how little he knows.
Maybe he’s auditioning for a post in government...
"Digital Journalist based in Fairfield, OH, United States. Joined on Jun 12, 2013 Expertise in Environment & green living, Government, Entertainment, Books, Charity & volunteer work, Politics, Education"
"I am a writer and social activist residing in Cincinnati, Ohio. I grew up primarily on the east coast of the U.S., in Philadelphia, Pa., Wilmington, De. and Washington, D.C.. I attended Lincoln University in Oxford, Pa., studying theatrical arts and political science. In the early 1970s, as a teenager, I became a member of the Black Panther Party and in the 1980s I was one of three co-chairs of the Delaware chapter of the Rainbow Coalition. I am currntly working as an assistant youth mentor for a local community agency."
Bold is mine, so as to highlight his claimed accomplishments.
The author graduated from Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow, with a graduate degree from WhatsaMattaU.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
The decision to give each state two Senate seats, irrespective of size or population, was not, as we've been told, based on the desire for checks and balances, or to protect 'minority' interests. It was more about a negotiated concession to the slavocracy, who were threatening to not participate in the Union.
LOL. The divide on this issue was not slave vs. free states, it was big vs. little states. The largest state, by far, was VA, a slave state. The smallest was RI, in the process of becoming a free state. In fact, at the time of the Constitution only MA was without slavery.
The slave states wanted to count all of their slaves as part of their political constituencies, despite the fact that the slaves were barred from voting. The infamous 'three fifths' Compromise, in which they were allowed to count the slaves as 'three fifths of a person', gave the slave owners an inordinate amount of political power.
Uhh, sorry, dude. This is in direct conflict with your claim that the two senators per state provision was intended to protect slaveowners. The 3/5 clause reduced the power of slaveowners, and was an anti-slavery compromise.
At the Constitutional Convention slavery was, by comparison to other issues, not a big one. The obsession with slavery is a modern thing.
Also, representation in the House was based on population, not on number of voters. In most states at the time, a great many white men, and all women and children did not vote, but were nevertheless counted when calculating a state's representation in the House.
With possible rare exceptions, the Founders had a consensus that slavery was a Bad Thing, but that getting rid of it immediately was Too Hard. They expected, however, that it would continue to become less and profitable, as it had been for some decades, and so would eventually disappear by itself.
They did not foresee the invention of the cotton gin and the creation of the Cotton Kingdom.
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.