So, the Declaration of “Independence” was for whites only...

[progressive hunter]

Like obeying a speed limit.. Stopping at a red light.. Wearing a seat belt..

NOPE<,,wrong again,,,

speed limits and stop lights tell you what not to do and seatbelt laws violate my rights of life liberty and pursuit of happiness,,,

 

[Grumblenuts]

the electoral college is just fine,,no reason to kill it

It preserves the two-party system.

no it doesnt ,,it protects against it,,,
thats proven by new york,chicago and los angeles,,,

win those three cities and you win the election

So you're saying "Supporters of the Electoral College argue that it is fundamental to American federalism, that it requires candidates to appeal to voters outside large cities, increases the political influence of small states, preserves the two-party system, and makes the electoral outcome appear more legitimate than that of a nationwide popular vote." is self-contradictory? Are you in favor of requiring American candidates to appeal to voters outside of large cities? What happened to liberty, freedom?

 

[Marion Morrison]

This is the argument of the radical left, wanting to tear down every symbol and statue of the Founding Fathers and of our Independence. That, as CNN puts it, the Declaration of “Independence” (they put that in quotes now), didn’t apply to blacks or natives.

My question to you America hating BLM types is, why should had the white people from Europe built a free nation for Africans? Or for the Natives? Or for the Chinese for that matter? Most of the people in the colonies considered themselves English in heritage, if not nationality. They were after all building and expanding colonies for the British and the crown. They had their rights as citizens diminished and stripped, that’s all they really wanted at first, was their rights back and representation. People who weren’t ever British citizens to begin with, probably didn’t care much.

It’s stupid to think that these people of English and European descent would fight to make a free nation for Natives, Africans, or anyone else but themselves. A people and culture are defined by their language, values, and religion. It’s funny how BLM types like morons on this board feel that Africans were entitled to the benefits of these white people fighting a war for independence. Why couldn’t the Africans build their own free nation somewhere? Oh I know, they couldn’t build ships to sail to the Western Hemisphere to start any colonies. But they had the whole continent of Africa to make a new nation.

I find it interesting that the BLM idiots here think that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and every other early leader of our nation, should had been the White Saviors for Africans and Native peoples. Were the Natives and Africans too stupid to make their own free nation? They certainly had the numbers and the resources. So which is it, my BLM friends? Did blacks and natives need the white man to give them rights and freedom? Were they too stupid to accomplish this on their own? Why is it the white man’s responsibility to provide these things to “people of color”? Even today, the majority of blacks keep trusting in their white liberal savior, and they still remain the poorest, least educated, most violent group in America.

Actually the Declaration was wrote for wealthy white men, and no one else. They treated women like crap, along with the poor, blacks and Native Americans. Same with the Constitution.

I bet you and the rest of the leftist goobers here never heard of Crispus Attucks, huh?
At the time of the writing of The Declaration of Independence, there were free blacks and there were slave blacks, there were free whites and there were slave whites. At that time, there was no permanent slavery, slaves had a path to freedom all the time. After slavery was outlawed..what was it..30, no 40 years later in 1807 is when slaves started to become permanent for some.

Crispus Attucks | Revolutionary War, African American, Patriot

Crispus Attucks was an American hero, martyr of the Boston Massacre. Attucks’s life prior to the day of his death is still shrouded in mystery. Although nothing is known definitively about his ancestry, his father is thought to be Prince Yonger, a slave who was brought to America, while his mother

www.britannica.com

Slave, Free Black, and White Population, 1780-1830

userpages.umbc.edu

Home - The Abolition of The Slave Trade

abolition.nypl.org

 

[Grumblenuts]

Like obeying a speed limit.. Stopping at a red light.. Wearing a seat belt..

NOPE<,,wrong again,,,

speed limits and stop lights tell you what not to do and seatbelt laws violate my rights of life liberty and pursuit of happiness,,,

Ah, so "forcing" you to not do something is not like "forcing" you to do something.. I see!

 

[progressive hunter]

Like obeying a speed limit.. Stopping at a red light.. Wearing a seat belt..

NOPE<,,wrong again,,,

speed limits and stop lights tell you what not to do and seatbelt laws violate my rights of life liberty and pursuit of happiness,,,

Ah, so "forcing" you to not do something is not like "forcing" you to do something.. I see!

I dont answer stupid questions,,,

 

[Grumblenuts]

That wasn't a question.

 

[progressive hunter]

That wasn't a question.

that makes it worse,,,its a stupid comment that makes no sense,,,

 

[my2¢]

This is the first I've heard about such charges of racism directed at the document. So without hearing their argument I would only suspect it revolves around the limits applied to that part about, "the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them".

 

[Flopper]

One of the enduring American myths we cherish is the two-party system. We must have two parties! To have three parties or more is impossible; to have only one, unthinkable.

We have more that three parties today but they usually don't get many votes, Libertarian, Green, & Constitutional. Throughout history we have had 3rd parties and some were pretty significant in elections, such as Ross Perot's Independent Party which garnered 20 million votes, Theodore Roosevelt's Progressive Party, and the Dixiecrat Party that carried Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina in the 1948 presidential election.

 

[Flopper]

the electoral college is just fine,,no reason to kill it

It preserves the two-party system.

no it doesnt ,,it protects against it,,,
thats proven by new york,chicago and los angeles,,,

win those three cities and you win the election

So you're saying "Supporters of the Electoral College argue that it is fundamental to American federalism, that it requires candidates to appeal to voters outside large cities, increases the political influence of small states, preserves the two-party system, and makes the electoral outcome appear more legitimate than that of a nationwide popular vote." is self-contradictory? Are you in favor of requiring American candidates to appeal to voters outside of large cities? What happened to liberty, freedom?

Distributing the electoral vote evenly among each state’s residents suggests that individual votes from Wyoming carry 3.6 times more influence, or weight, than those from California. It's all about how electoral votes are awarded to each state. This of course varies by state but the low population states are much better represented in electoral college than the high population states.

The constitution specifies that each state will have electors in the electoral college equal to the number of representatives and senators. When the constitution was written, senators were generally appointed by state legislators or governors. Members of the House were chosen by the people of the state. However, how that was done was left up to each state.

The constitution leaves it up to states to determine how electors are selected. The constitution does not require that states hold presidential elections because the electors who select the president and vice president are selected by the state legislature. The constitution allows those electors to select whoever they want as president and vice president. State legislatures have past laws that punish electors that vote against the will of the people, how electors have the right to vote as they please in almost all states.

If you're getting the idea that our founding fathers didn't think much of the democratic process, you're right. They founded a republic and did all they could to make sure the people had as little voice as possible in selecting their leaders and running the country. However the unfairness of electoral college was not so bad at that time but it increased with time. When the first census was taking in 1790, the highest population state, Pennsylvania was only 5 times greater than the least populated state, Rhode Island. Today the most populated state California is 63 times greater than the least populated state, Wyoming.

 

[Grumblenuts]

One of the enduring American myths we cherish is the two-party system. We must have two parties! To have three parties or more is impossible; to have only one, unthinkable.

We have more that three parties today but they usually don't get many votes, Libertarian, Green, & Constitutional. Throughout history we have had 3rd parties and some were pretty significant in elections, such as Ross Perot's Independent Party which garnered 20 million votes, Theodore Roosevelt's Progressive Party, and the Dixiecrat Party that carried Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina in the 1948 presidential election.

Indeed, and yet on this and most other MBs, most of the messages stupidly presume an absolute "Left" vs "Right" / "Liberal" vs "Conservative" / "Democrat" vs "Republican" political dichotomy. This is built in and something the Founders tried to avoid, at least originally, being an aspect of the British system that they really hated.. Because, in the final analysis, creating such stark, artificial divisions can only serve the interests of the established elites.. Be anti-democratic and hopelessly corrupt, in other words.

Take the issue of slavery here lately. People mostly jumping up and down blaming the Democratic Party as though the Republicans were apt to do a significantly better job had they won. They wouldn't have. Everyone knows this. Yet it's just this kind of crap that captivates all of far too many's political time and energy. We can no longer afford such luxury. Serious decisions need to be made now. Lots of work that's needed doing for decades. High time to end this "Party" nonsense and elect the people one supports directly. Also, mandate political participation. Civic engagement. Civil service.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Only 6 or 7 of the original States did not hold elections for President. The rest had some form of election. And by 1824 all but a couple states had elections by 1830 Only South Carolina did not hold elections and did not have an election for President till 1860. The election process took root and grew to all but one State.

You don't like the electoral college you say? Then create an amendment pass it and change it, THAT is the ONLY LEGAL PROPER way to get rid of it. But you cowards never take the right way, you cowards try to use the courts and another body of UNELECTED people in robes to make changes. Grow a pair of balls and do it legally. The Courts will not help you subvert the Constitution anymore.

Each State has an equal voice in the Senate. And thus an equal voice from that source in the electoral college. The intent is still valid today why that is. No one or two States can dominate and dictate to the rest as you liberal shitstains want. No Matter how many people in 2 States vote for one person it does not out weigh the other 48 States. And I doubt it ever will. New York and California do not get to pick the President no matter how much they wish they could. The other 48 States have a say.

You dumb asses want popular vote? That disenfranchise 48 States. If it were so only big cities would see politicians running for President and the Majority of States would be IGNORED by the contenders. Now while a few solid States for one camp or another are pretty much ignored 2016 proved you can not win with just big cities and 2 States.

 

[beautress]

This is the argument of the radical left, wanting to tear down every symbol and statue of the Founding Fathers and of our Independence. That, as CNN puts it, the Declaration of “Independence” (they put that in quotes now), didn’t apply to blacks or natives.

My question to you America hating BLM types is, why should had the white people from Europe built a free nation for Africans? Or for the Natives? Or for the Chinese for that matter? Most of the people in the colonies considered themselves English in heritage, if not nationality. They were after all building and expanding colonies for the British and the crown. They had their rights as citizens diminished and stripped, that’s all they really wanted at first, was their rights back and representation. People who weren’t ever British citizens to begin with, probably didn’t care much.

It’s stupid to think that these people of English and European descent would fight to make a free nation for Natives, Africans, or anyone else but themselves. A people and culture are defined by their language, values, and religion. It’s funny how BLM types like morons on this board feel that Africans were entitled to the benefits of these white people fighting a war for independence. Why couldn’t the Africans build their own free nation somewhere? Oh I know, they couldn’t build ships to sail to the Western Hemisphere to start any colonies. But they had the whole continent of Africa to make a new nation.

I find it interesting that the BLM idiots here think that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and every other early leader of our nation, should had been the White Saviors for Africans and Native peoples. Were the Natives and Africans too stupid to make their own free nation? They certainly had the numbers and the resources. So which is it, my BLM friends? Did blacks and natives need the white man to give them rights and freedom? Were they too stupid to accomplish this on their own? Why is it the white man’s responsibility to provide these things to “people of color”? Even today, the majority of blacks keep trusting in their white liberal savior, and they still remain the poorest, least educated, most violent group in America.

According to my instructions on the founders who delivered to us the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, et al, there were bitter disputes over having slaves vote. Those who opposed denying voting privileges to minorities stood down to be sure the Southern States would not jump ship on the other founding states because their existing livelihood was built. There were several opposed to slavery back then, but I remember 2 of them-- Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin come to mind.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I am certain that some but not all whites did impute such racism into the Declaration of Independence.

Some whites were indentured servants or slaves themselves, and some blacks had better or worse situations of employment than others. Not all blacks were slaves: some had good jobs and some were in business for themselves and hired other blacks. Some blacks might even have been thought to "own" other blacks as slaves.

At the beginning, blacks had some what more opportunities because the race was not yet firmly connected to slavery. That was a deliberate strategy of the southern landowners who innacted laws to that effect.

when you say southern landowners you mean democrats right???

There was no democratic party at that time

"The Founders and the Vote

​

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed."​

​

But how would Americans consent to be governed? Who should vote? How should they vote? The founders wrestled with these questions. They wondered about the rights of minorities. In their day, that meant worrying if the rights of property owners would be overrun by the votes of those who did not own land. James Madison described the problem this way:​

The right of suffrage is a fundamental Article in Republican Constitutions. The regulation of it is, at the same time, a task of peculiar delicacy. Allow the right [to vote] exclusively to property [owners], and the rights of persons may be oppressed. Extend it equally to all, and the rights of property [owners] may be overruled by a majority without property....​

Eventually, the framers of the Constitution left details of voting to the states. In Article I Section 4, the Constitution says:​

​

The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations.​

Unfortunately, leaving election control to individual states led to unfair voting practices in the U.S. At first, white men with property were the only Americans routinely permitted to vote. President Andrew Jackson, champion of frontiersmen, helped advance the political rights of those who did not own property. By about 1860, most white men without property were enfranchised. But African Americans, women, Native Americans, non-English speakers, and citizens between the ages of 18 and 21 had to fight for the right to vote in this country."​

The Founders and the Vote - Elections - Classroom Presentation | Teacher Resources - Library of Congress​

​

Timeline

• 1789: The Constitution grants the states the power to set voting requirements. Generally, states limited this right to property-owning or tax-paying white males (about 6% of the population).[1]
• 1790: The Naturalization Act of 1790 allows free white persons born outside of the United States to become citizens. However, due to the Constitution granting the states the power to set voting requirements, this Act (and its successor Act of 1795) did not automatically grant the right to vote.[2]
  [insert]
• 1828: Democratic party founded
• 1792–1838: Free black males lose the right to vote in several Northern states including in Pennsylvania and in New Jersey.
  Timeline continued here: Timeline of voting rights in the United States - Wikipedia

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

My question to you America hating BLM types is, why should had the white people from Europe built a free nation for Africans? Or for the Natives? Or for the Chinese for that matter?

Because that Declaration dared to claim that “All men are created equal “ and that God himself had given them a right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”

It seems to have only applied to white males.

white land owning males

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Well, historically, yes...it was for whites. White males. There was no Independence freedom for black slaves. Blacks have fought for and helped build this country. What a stupid thread Given how violently black rebellions were squashed and how often treaties with native Americans were broken, and they were slaughtered and subjugated under superior military force...Manifest Destiny.

It is all part of our national heritage: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Can’t change history.

Blacks sold blacks into slavery and indigenous tribes completely wiped out preceding tribes.
Looks like white people introduced civilization to both.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

This is the argument of the radical left, wanting to tear down every symbol and statue of the Founding Fathers and of our Independence. That, as CNN puts it, the Declaration of “Independence” (they put that in quotes now), didn’t apply to blacks or natives.

My question to you America hating BLM types is, why should had the white people from Europe built a free nation for Africans? Or for the Natives? Or for the Chinese for that matter? Most of the people in the colonies considered themselves English in heritage, if not nationality. They were after all building and expanding colonies for the British and the crown. They had their rights as citizens diminished and stripped, that’s all they really wanted at first, was their rights back and representation. People who weren’t ever British citizens to begin with, probably didn’t care much.

It’s stupid to think that these people of English and European descent would fight to make a free nation for Natives, Africans, or anyone else but themselves. A people and culture are defined by their language, values, and religion. It’s funny how BLM types like morons on this board feel that Africans were entitled to the benefits of these white people fighting a war for independence. Why couldn’t the Africans build their own free nation somewhere? Oh I know, they couldn’t build ships to sail to the Western Hemisphere to start any colonies. But they had the whole continent of Africa to make a new nation.

I find it interesting that the BLM idiots here think that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and every other early leader of our nation, should had been the White Saviors for Africans and Native peoples. Were the Natives and Africans too stupid to make their own free nation? They certainly had the numbers and the resources. So which is it, my BLM friends? Did blacks and natives need the white man to give them rights and freedom? Were they too stupid to accomplish this on their own? Why is it the white man’s responsibility to provide these things to “people of color”? Even today, the majority of blacks keep trusting in their white liberal savior, and they still remain the poorest, least educated, most violent group in America.

According to my instructions on the founders who delivered to us the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, et al, there were bitter disputes over having slaves vote. Those who opposed denying voting privileges to minorities stood down to be sure the Southern States would not jump ship on the other founding states because their existing livelihood was built. There were several opposed to slavery back then, but I remember 2 of them-- Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin come to mind.

That's why they settled on the 3/5th compromise

"Three-Fifths Compromise​

​

The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise reached among state delegates during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention. Whether and, if so, how slaves would be counted when determining a state's total population for legislative representation and taxing purposes was important, as this population number would then be used to determine the number of seats that the state would have in the United States House of Representatives for the next ten years. The compromise solution was to count three out of every five slaves as people for this purpose. Its effect was to give the Southern states a third more seats in Congress and a third more electoral votes than if slaves had been ignored, but fewer than if slaves and free people had been counted equally. The compromise was proposed by delegate James Wilson and seconded by Charles Pinckney on June 11, 1787.[1]"​

Three-Fifths Compromise - Wikipedia​

 

[Grumblenuts]

You don't like the electoral college you say? Then create an amendment pass it and change it

Calm down, already been done, sparky. And no one said anything about changing the number of Senators from each State.

 

[ding]

Frederick Douglas believed that the 3/5th clause is an anti-slavery clause. Not a pro-slavery clause. Frederick Douglas believed that the Constitution was an anti-slavery document.

(1860) Frederick Douglass, "The Constitution of the United States: Is It Pro-Slavery or Anti-slavery?" •

What Did Frederick Douglass Believe About the U.S. Constitution? | Synonym

The Constitution Did Not Condone Slavery

 

[Grumblenuts]

But how would Americans consent to be governed? Who should vote? How should they vote? The founders wrestled with these questions. They wondered about the rights of minorities. In their day, that meant worrying if the rights of property owners would be overrun by the votes of those who did not own land.

Exactly. Times have changed. Time to grow up and just let all vote as equals.