Posted on 03/30/2006 1:30:33 PM PST by elc
The George Mason University basketball team's ascendance to the NCAA Final Four this weekend may well be remembered as the most improbable run in the college basketball tournament's history.
Only one other eleventh-seeded team has made the Final Four. And you'd be hard-pressed to find a school with so low a profile and from so small a conference to have made it through the tournament's first two weekends.
In addition to the great basketball the team has given us (the Connecticut game was in instant classic), it would also be nice to see the school's success inspire some discussion about its namesake. Few people know much about George Mason. In fact, even GMU point guard Tony Skinn, asked about Mason, told the Houston Chronicle, "I heard somebody say he was President, but I know that's not true. Did he sign the Constitution? I have no clue."
Mason was never president. Nor did he sign the Constitution. But he was enormously influential in helping craft it. In fact, George Mason was probably early America's most eloquent defender of individual liberty. Principled and uncompromising, Mason was a man who loathed politics but understood the urgency of the times in which he lived, and engaged in politics to help ensure his new country put a premium on freedom.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
No, that is principle.
Doesn't Walter Williams teach there?
The notion that he somehow refused to sign it because of slavery is patently dishonest, and vastly overlooks the true legacy he left us (namely, strict constructionism).
Gator Bait
IMO, I'd say they are both accurate descriptions of why he didn't sign it. I wouldn't make the argument that it was one reason over the other, but after disagreeing with the 3/5ths compromise, the lack of a Bill of Rights was the nail in the coffin for him.
Geaux Gators Geaux Tigers , I am sorry so say but the slipper is about to come off this story
Don't know actually. I go to the campus in Arlington, and if they don't teach in the School of Public Policy, I wouldn't know them.
I want George Mason to win just because I love Walter Williams so much. Yes, he is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason.
Oh it's great to be a Gator hater...
I don't follow basketball, but I'm definitely pulling for GMU here for 2 reasons:
1) I'm a part-time GMU grad student
2) I did my undergrad at FSU
Did you see how the most rabid fans stood there politely and applauded their team's efforts?
Bet ya don't see that every day.
And the fans themselves? You can't take a picture of a group of GMU basketball fans without also taking a picture of every major type of human being on the planet, or member of a major world religion.
GME is like Fairfax county ~ everybody is here ~ everybody! My little neighborhood of but 110 homes has residents from 35 nations.
We have a grade-school around here not too far away with kids whose parents hale from 112 nations, not counting tribal groups at all.
Same here. I've never followed college basketball much, but I began pulling for George Mason after reading the profile in National Review a few issues back (I'd link to the article but it's only in the print version).
Volume 5: MASON, GEORGE. ... Thinks that blacks should, in justice, be counted equally in proportioning representation, but will not insist on it, 302.
By that description alone, it doesn't sound like he's all that upset by it. Instead, he argues a lot over navigational rights, the establishment of courts, the proper jurisdiction of Federal laws, and the like, but he doesn't seem to advocate very strongly for the removal of the three-fifths compromise.
Thanks. I'll have a read over it tomorrow.
"recognized the absurdity of a country founded on individual rights giving a de facto imprimatur to slavery in its founding and governing document." Maybe not because of slavery specifically, but rather any one of a number of practices contrary to the original document being left legal in the US despite the document.
I'm gonna scour through the Virginia debates over the ratification of the Constitution as well—Geo. Mason was very vocal in the General Assembly on the rejection of the Constitution, as I recall, so hopefully his words there will shed more light on the topic. Perhaps I stand to be corrected on that evidence... we shall see.
Regards,
~dt~
One that I've seen is his insistance that the new Federal government not be a "Confederation," but rather assume the form of a "National" government. Perhaps this is one of those things he was concerned about being "left legal?"
Regards,
~dt~
Well I'll have to blame Walter Williams.
You might also want to check wikipedia before calling people patently dishonest.
Whoa there!
I'm not calling any FReepers "patently dishonest," and I am certainly not calling the honorable Walter Williams "patently dishonest." I am merely questioning the source for this bit of information, as it doesn't line up with any primary sources from the period that I've read. If you have seen the primary sources where this information came from (Wikipedia doesn't count—it's far too easy to add "assumed" knowledge as fact there), I am extremely interested in hearing it. (I will also, in fact, be searching other primary sources for information on the topic, to see where this alleged "fact" came from.)
If finding out what the truth is is not an honorable pursuit for someone at FreeRepublic, then feel free to stop me, and I'll stop questioning the "assumed" knowledge.
I mean no disrespect in the least, so please don't take offense at my remarks.
Warmest regards,
~dt~
Totally routing for GMU.
It's rather lengthy, so rather than post it here, I'll let you go read it if you're interested, and will post the bullet points here. According to Geo. Mason, the problems with the Constitution (as of the time this particular letter was written—the debates were still going on) were as follows:
NONE of these reasons have anything whatsoever to do with the three-fifths clause. I will, however, continue to search. Perhaps it's listed elsewhere.
Until such time as I'm able to return, I remain,
Your humble servant,
~dt~
The state legislatures are restrained from laying export duties on their own produce; the general legislature is restrained from prohibiting the further importation of slaves for twenty-odd years, though such importations render the United States weaker, more vulnerable, and less capable of defence.Thus Mason says Slavery is a sickness -- imho.
Mr. GEORGE MASON. Mr. Chairman, this is a fatal section, which has created more dangers than any other. The first clause allows the importation of slaves for twenty years. Under the royal government, this evil was looked upon as a great oppression, and many attempts were made to prevent it; but the interest of the African merchants prevented its prohibition. No sooner did the revolution take place, than it was thought of. It was one of the great causes of our separation from Great Britain. Its exclusion has been a principal object of this state, and most of the states in the Union. The augmentation of slaves weakens the states; and such a trade is diabolical in itself, and disgraceful to mankind; yet, by this Constitution, it is continued for twenty years. As much as I value a union of all the states, I would not admit the Southern States into the Union unless they agree to the discontinuance of this disgraceful trade, because it would bring weakness, and not strength, to the Union. And, though this infamous traffic be continued, we have no security for the property of that kind [namely, "slaves"] which we have already. There is no clause in this Constitution to secure it; for they may lay such a tax as will amount to manumission. And should the government be amended, still this detestable kind of commerce cannot be discontinued till after the expiration of twenty years; for the 5th article, which provides for amendments, expressly excepts this clause. I have ever looked upon this as a most disgraceful thing to America. I cannot express my detestation of it. Yet they have not secured us the property of the slaves we have already. So that "they have done what they ought not to have done, and have left undone what they ought to have done."
As you can see, his argument is not with the three-fifths count, but rather that (a) the further importation of slaves weakens the nation, and (b) the Constitution, while prohibiting the Congress [or ANY amendment] from stopping the importation of slaves, does nothing to protect the so-called rights of slaveowners in their so-called property.
This still wouldn't qualify as his biggest reason for rejecting the Constitution, though. And he certainly does not come across to me as an abolitionist. How does it sound to you? Perhaps I'm reading it through different ears, and am missing that part.
Regards,
~dt~
And as I said, while his objection to slavery (NOT to the "three-fifths" count, by the way) would certainly qualify as a reason for rejecting the Constitution, it is clear from his own writing that it is not the main reason for doing so—thus, to claim that George Mason didn't sign the Constitution solely because he objected to slavery is unsupported by the facts, and thus is merely a propagandistic statement made to cause a group of people ("liberals") to "feel good" about themselves.
I'll still continue to dig in other sources than Elliot's as I am able. This is quite an interesting topic!
I remain, steadfastly,
~dt~
(Oh, also—I didn't mean to gloss over that he openly stated that the importation of slaves is an anathema: if you look at my second citation, I believe from Volume III, you'll find that I highlighted that exact statement. Hope that helps to clarify my position. Most respectfully, ~dt~)
Mason said "weaken", not expose to insurrection and direct danger. You may have other support for your contention, but this statement of Mason's reads out as being against slavery for national moral reasons.
Nevertheless, have I done enough to prove my supposition that (a) objection to the three-fifths count never entered into Mason's arguments, and (b) while he did object to defects in the Constitution on the subject of slavery, this was not his primary motivation for rejecting the document? (Recall that he practically invented the modern bill of rights, in the Constitution of Virginia, so it would be natural for him to see a lack thereof in any other document as a defect, would it not?) I remain, with the utmost humility,
Respectfully,
~dt~
for a supposedly conservative school, their cheerleaders dress very immodestly.
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.