CDZ Americans and our heritage of Revolutionary ideals

[there4eyeM]

I think the fact that Europeans grew up under feudalism.....and the different "castes" in their society affected how they percieve authority.....that is also why they see centralized government more favorably than Americans do.

Possibly, but I think monarchism, which has a long history in both Europe and Asia, had a greater influence on both European and Asian ideas of government whereas in America, our ancestors fled those ideas...mostly for religious reasons, but fled nonetheless.

FWIW, some were kicked out of their own country as dissidents and banished to the colonies.

Secession was made explicitly illegal after the Civil War. The 'Union' was 'Permanent', so it was implicitly illegal to try to unilaterally leave, as people knew at the time. Leaving would require approval by other states or a change to the Constitution, which was a continuation of the 'Union' formed under the Articles of Confederation.

 

[rightwinger]

The 3/5 clause unfairly strengthened slave owning states. It gave them credit in representation in Congress for people that were considered property in those states. You may as well have given credit for the numbers of horses and cows....they had the same rights

No...they wanted to count slaves as part of their population for the power of representation in the new congress....the 3/5s clause weakened that ability but still got them to join the new nation.....and freed slaves counted as free people......

It was a compromise that ended up kicking the can down the road and led to a war killing 600,000

True, but then it was President Lincoln who attacked the South precipitating the death of 2% of the US population.

Additionally, what was the alternative to the 3/5s clause? A 5-state United States with other 8 States remaining independent?

Actually, the South fired the first shot

I think the 3/5 ths clause and allowing slavery was a sellout for a nation created on "all men are created equal'
Yes, they should have drawn a line in the sand and saved us future grief

People you legally consider to be property do not count as people you represent

Correct, yet it was the North that attacked the South.

So, if I understand you correctly, you would have rather just let the 5 free states form the "United States" by ratifying the Constitution and let the other 8 slave states stand on their own. Thanks for your input.

BTW, yes, slavery is deplorable but we're talking about 1789, not 2017.

It would have made for some interesting alternative history

Industrialized north and agrarian south

How long would have slavery have lasted in the south without intervention? My guess is it would have existed in some form until the early 1900s

 

[Divine Wind]

I think the fact that Europeans grew up under feudalism.....and the different "castes" in their society affected how they percieve authority.....that is also why they see centralized government more favorably than Americans do.

Possibly, but I think monarchism, which has a long history in both Europe and Asia, had a greater influence on both European and Asian ideas of government whereas in America, our ancestors fled those ideas...mostly for religious reasons, but fled nonetheless.

FWIW, some were kicked out of their own country as dissidents and banished to the colonies.

Secession was made explicitly illegal after the Civil War. The 'Union' was 'Permanent', so it was implicitly illegal to try to unilaterally leave, as people knew at the time. Leaving would require approval by other states or a change to the Constitution, which was a continuation of the 'Union' formed under the Articles of Confederation.

A point of debate which we fought a war over. Moot at this point 150+ years later since clearly California cannot legally secede because they don't like President Trump.

 

[Divine Wind]

No...they wanted to count slaves as part of their population for the power of representation in the new congress....the 3/5s clause weakened that ability but still got them to join the new nation.....and freed slaves counted as free people......

It was a compromise that ended up kicking the can down the road and led to a war killing 600,000

True, but then it was President Lincoln who attacked the South precipitating the death of 2% of the US population.

Additionally, what was the alternative to the 3/5s clause? A 5-state United States with other 8 States remaining independent?

Actually, the South fired the first shot

I think the 3/5 ths clause and allowing slavery was a sellout for a nation created on "all men are created equal'
Yes, they should have drawn a line in the sand and saved us future grief

People you legally consider to be property do not count as people you represent

Correct, yet it was the North that attacked the South.

So, if I understand you correctly, you would have rather just let the 5 free states form the "United States" by ratifying the Constitution and let the other 8 slave states stand on their own. Thanks for your input.

BTW, yes, slavery is deplorable but we're talking about 1789, not 2017.

It would have made for some interesting alternative history

Industrialized north and agrarian south

How long would have slavery have lasted in the south without intervention? My guess is it would have existed in some form until the early 1900s

Possibly less especially since, without the slave states, there'd be no dispute of the "border states" like Kentucky, Missouri and Kansas. Either they were free and eligible to join the Union or not. I think the South would have withered on the vine and moved toward abolition as a matter of economics.

Still, all "alternative history" speculation. Let's not forget that Britain didn't ban slavery throughout their realm until 1833.

 

[rightwinger]

It was a compromise that ended up kicking the can down the road and led to a war killing 600,000

True, but then it was President Lincoln who attacked the South precipitating the death of 2% of the US population.

Additionally, what was the alternative to the 3/5s clause? A 5-state United States with other 8 States remaining independent?

Actually, the South fired the first shot

I think the 3/5 ths clause and allowing slavery was a sellout for a nation created on "all men are created equal'
Yes, they should have drawn a line in the sand and saved us future grief

People you legally consider to be property do not count as people you represent

Correct, yet it was the North that attacked the South.

So, if I understand you correctly, you would have rather just let the 5 free states form the "United States" by ratifying the Constitution and let the other 8 slave states stand on their own. Thanks for your input.

BTW, yes, slavery is deplorable but we're talking about 1789, not 2017.

It would have made for some interesting alternative history

Industrialized north and agrarian south

How long would have slavery have lasted in the south without intervention? My guess is it would have existed in some form until the early 1900s

Possibly less especially since, without the slave states, there'd be no dispute of the "border states" like Kentucky, Missouri and Kansas. Either they were free and eligible to join the Union or not. I think the South would have withered on the vine and moved toward abolition as a matter of economics.

Still, all "alternative history" speculation. Let's not forget that Britain didn't ban slavery throughout their realm until 1833.

Somehow, Britain managed to do it without resorting to a senseless war that killed 600,000

As it was, the south pushed a losing hand and ended up losing slavery in a matter of four years. If they had allowed the gradual dissolution of slavery, they would have received some compensation for their loss of "property" and would have seen slaves gradually earn their freedom with newborn blacks being born free

 

[2aguy]

I wonder if America practices a life style today, that 100 years from now, Americans will not really understand and wonder why our generation tolerated the wrong?

I would bet that would be abortion......especially as science progresses and we can keep babies alive at the earliest stages of life without the mother....

 

[2aguy]

True, but then it was President Lincoln who attacked the South precipitating the death of 2% of the US population.

Additionally, what was the alternative to the 3/5s clause? A 5-state United States with other 8 States remaining independent?

Actually, the South fired the first shot

I think the 3/5 ths clause and allowing slavery was a sellout for a nation created on "all men are created equal'
Yes, they should have drawn a line in the sand and saved us future grief

People you legally consider to be property do not count as people you represent

Correct, yet it was the North that attacked the South.

So, if I understand you correctly, you would have rather just let the 5 free states form the "United States" by ratifying the Constitution and let the other 8 slave states stand on their own. Thanks for your input.

BTW, yes, slavery is deplorable but we're talking about 1789, not 2017.

It would have made for some interesting alternative history

Industrialized north and agrarian south

How long would have slavery have lasted in the south without intervention? My guess is it would have existed in some form until the early 1900s

Possibly less especially since, without the slave states, there'd be no dispute of the "border states" like Kentucky, Missouri and Kansas. Either they were free and eligible to join the Union or not. I think the South would have withered on the vine and moved toward abolition as a matter of economics.

Still, all "alternative history" speculation. Let's not forget that Britain didn't ban slavery throughout their realm until 1833.

Somehow, Britain managed to do it without resorting to a senseless war that killed 600,000

As it was, the south pushed a losing hand and ended up losing slavery in a matter of four years. If they had allowed the gradual dissolution of slavery, they would have received some compensation for their loss of "property" and would have seen slaves gradually earn their freedom with newborn blacks being born free

The British did not actually have african slaves on the island...they just sold and transported them....completely different situation...

 

[Divine Wind]

Somehow, Britain managed to do it without resorting to a senseless war that killed 600,000....

They didn't have Abraham Lincoln.

 

[rightwinger]

Somehow, Britain managed to do it without resorting to a senseless war that killed 600,000....

They didn't have Abraham Lincoln.

Do tell

 

[Divine Wind]

Actually, the South fired the first shot

I think the 3/5 ths clause and allowing slavery was a sellout for a nation created on "all men are created equal'
Yes, they should have drawn a line in the sand and saved us future grief

People you legally consider to be property do not count as people you represent

Correct, yet it was the North that attacked the South.

So, if I understand you correctly, you would have rather just let the 5 free states form the "United States" by ratifying the Constitution and let the other 8 slave states stand on their own. Thanks for your input.

BTW, yes, slavery is deplorable but we're talking about 1789, not 2017.

It would have made for some interesting alternative history

Industrialized north and agrarian south

How long would have slavery have lasted in the south without intervention? My guess is it would have existed in some form until the early 1900s

Possibly less especially since, without the slave states, there'd be no dispute of the "border states" like Kentucky, Missouri and Kansas. Either they were free and eligible to join the Union or not. I think the South would have withered on the vine and moved toward abolition as a matter of economics.

Still, all "alternative history" speculation. Let's not forget that Britain didn't ban slavery throughout their realm until 1833.

Somehow, Britain managed to do it without resorting to a senseless war that killed 600,000

As it was, the south pushed a losing hand and ended up losing slavery in a matter of four years. If they had allowed the gradual dissolution of slavery, they would have received some compensation for their loss of "property" and would have seen slaves gradually earn their freedom with newborn blacks being born free

The British did not actually have african slaves on the island...they just sold and transported them....completely different situation...

Agreed. Let's not forget, too, that Britain was an empire and remained one until well into the 20th Century. Anyone who saw the movie "Ghandi" understands what British subjects of color in their own land suffered under British rule.

One instance is the Jallianwala Bagh massacre in 1919 where the British Army mowed down about 380 unarmed, peaceful protesters and wounded a 1000 more.

An upcoming BET 6-hour miniseries starring Laurence Fishburne as "Nelson Mandela", "Madiba" depicts the hardships and suffering South Africans experience under British rule a mere 50 years ago.

‘Madiba’: First Look At Laurence Fishburne As Nelson Mandela In BET Miniseries

 

[Fishlore]

An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States by Charles A. Beard argues that the structure of the Constitution of the United States was motivated primarily by the personal financial interests of the Founding Fathers; Beard contends that the authors of The Federalist Papers represented an interest group themselves.

The melting pot is another misleading myth. The dozen or so French, Dutch, Spanish and British sub-cultures which created the 13 original colonies have never melted any more than Scotland, England and Whales have melted into Great Britain -- less, in fact, as our sub-cultures are more diverse. The profound and unresolved regional antagonisms which are shredding our federal society are all rooted in vibrant and solid gemainschaften , each with its own historic and geographic boundaries.

 

[Divine Wind]

An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States by Charles A. Beard argues that the structure of the Constitution of the United States was motivated primarily by the personal financial interests of the Founding Fathers; Beard contends that the authors of The Federalist Papers represented an interest group themselves.

An interesting perspective even though I think it's not only over-generalizing, but seems more like a doctoral thesis than a factual account of why things happened.

The Founders didn't invent the human condition nor were they the first to seek to better themselves and provide for their own and their family's futures. IMHO, saying people look out for their own self-interests is simply stating the obvious. There are very, very few people in history who truly acted altruistically. Even war heroes who are lauded for their patriotism will quickly tell you they did it for their buddies on either side of them, not for "God and Country".
As a pilot, it's amusing to see some non-flying reporter talk about how a pilot died in a crash trying to avoid hitting a school: "The aircraft lost power, but the pilot, Sydney Schmuckatelli, bravely risked his life to avoid hitting Harpo Marx Elementary school." No shit he was avoiding the school because hitting a building in an aluminum can at 120MPH is a sure way to get killed! Human beings almost always act out of self-interest. When they don't, it's usually to save a loved one.

The melting pot is another misleading myth. The dozen or so French, Dutch, Spanish and British sub-cultures which created the 13 original colonies have never melted any more than Scotland, England and Whales have melted into Great Britain -- less, in fact, as our sub-cultures are more diverse. The profound and unresolved regional antagonisms which are shredding our federal society are all rooted in vibrant and solid gemainschaften , each with its own historic and geographic boundaries.

Disagreed on the melting pot. While Americans may talk about being Dutch, Scot, Italian, etc, most are American first, and a hyphenated American second. Not so with actual Scots, Welsh and Irish in their respective countries. Obviously there are those who are "hyphenated Americans", but they are a subcategory of Americana, not a primary one.

 

[Fishlore]

Scots and Welsh don't have countries of their own. They did once, but have been citizens of Great Britain since the 18th century. Similarly, citizens of Virginia and Massachusetts have in the years between 1783 and 1865 evolved from members of sovereign commonwealths to citizens of the United States of America.

Recent American history writers have been focused on these separate cultures, their origins and persistence up to today. If you don't know of these best sellers, you might find them interesting

Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America by David Fisher

American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America by Colin Woodard

 

[there4eyeM]

Somehow, Britain managed to do it without resorting to a senseless war that killed 600,000....

They didn't have Abraham Lincoln.

Compensation plans were worked out to pay slave owners.