Political Views of the Founding Fathers

[francoHFW]

A third of them owned slaves, so a third would be Republicans.

I have never seen a comment through which someone as proudly demonstrates their ignorance. The Republicans, for which Lincoln was the first president, were formed for the specific purpose of ending slavery. The Democrats opposed and end to slavery.

The Republicans fought for the passage of the 15th Amendment giving blacks the right to vote. The Democrats opposed that Amendment. (Passage of the Fifteenth Amendment . U.S. Grant: Warrior . WGBH American Experience | PBS)

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was primarily opposed by Democrats. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was vehemently opposed by Democrats. Almost 40% of Democrats (compared to roughly 19% of Republicans) opposed the latter, while opposition by the Democrats in regards to the former was also about double that of Republican opposition. (King, Desmond (1995). Separate and Unequal: Black Americans and the US Federal Government. p. 311.)

I have to work. I will get to the rest later.

Well, I'm talking about the Pubs of TODAY. The Racists changed parties, to the Pubs, in 1968. See Nixon's Southern Strategy. Idiot.

 

[francoHFW]

A third of them owned slaves, so a third would be Republicans TODAY. But that was before slavery was reprehensible, so only a sixth would be Pubs TODAY...but now there's no frontier to develop, so we're going to grow up and take care of each other, so all the smart ones would be DEMOCRATS TODAY, and the stupid greedy reprehensible ones would be greedy reprehensible Pubs who use TV and radio to brainwash the ignorant fools who wouldn't have even been allowed to VOTE back then.

Blue, aren't you too smart to be a Neocon idiot? So you're Bill Scranton or AU H2O kinda guy ?

 

[BluePhantom]

-I clearly said in my post that a president cannot move troops for an extended period of time. I never discussed bombing-so I have no clue why you brought that up. But Republicans (as well as Democrats), have waged wars where US soldiers have been in foreign countries for years and years, without congressional approval. That's what I stated. Your post just now supports that-thanks.

BTW the War Powers Act is NOT a part of the constitution. And that act can be deemed unconstitutional at a later time (although I seriously doubt it ever will be).

Ok perhaps you are not getting this. You are confusing the authority to do something and the requirement to do something.

The president has the constitutional authority to commit troops as Commander in Chief. He has the option of asking for opinions prior to doing so but he is not required to do so and neither is he required to follow those opinions. He is not required to ask Congress for permission

Congress has the constitutional authority to declare war or refuse to allow the president to undertake military action if they elect to do so, but they are not required to intervene. They are completely within their constitutional rights to say "hey Mr. president, this one's all yours. We're staying out of it and refuse to take action one way or the other."

Thus the President has the constitutional authority to do whatever the hell he wants unless Congress chooses to invoke their constitutional right to intervene. Congress is not required to do so.

The War Powers Resolution is indeed a law, not a constitutional issue, which means if a President initiates military action for over 60 days and Congress chooses to do nothing, the president can be argued to have exceeded his legal authority but not his constitutional authority.

What you seem to be struggling with is that according to the Constitution, no one has to do a damned thing. They can if they wish, but they are not required to do so. As such the President can, as I said, do pretty much whatever the hell he wants. He may or may not be able to do it very successfully, depending on how Congress chooses to react, but he is well within his constitutional authority to do it.

I bring up bombing to head off the argument that someone (not necessarily you) is sure to make that extended bombing campaigns violate the War Powers Resolution.

But Republicans (as well as Democrats), have waged wars where US soldiers have been in foreign countries for years and years, without congressional approval.

Really? No shit? Well let's have a look at that claim.

Iraq and Afghanistan both have lasted "years" and involved troops but both of them had Congressional approval.

The Vietnam War lasted "years" and involved troops and did not have Congressional approval. BUT US troops first arrived in September, 1950 by order of Harry Truman (D) and maintained a non-combat role until the Battle of la Drang in 1965 during the Johnson (D) administration. Nixon (R) got us out in his first term. So yep there's one but that one is on the Democrats.

The Korean War lasted "years", involved troops, and didn't have congressional approval, but guess what? That was Democrat Harry Truman's baby. So far no Republicans that did it.

Before that was World War II when Roosevelt (D) asked for and received congressional approval. Nothing there either way.

Prior to that was World War I when Wilson (D) asked for and received congressional approval. Hmmmm....still no Republicans....in fact I am starting to see a lot of Ds after names when American wars are concerned.

There was the Spanish American War but that lasted less than a year, and had Congressional approval...in fact it's one of the rare circumstances where Congress (pressed hard by the Democrats) at the time actually took it upon themselves to officially authorize the use of military action when the President (William McKinley (R)) wasn't asking for it and opposed military intervention. Nothing there either way but an interesting point.

There were a lot of Indian Wars but they usually didn't last very long and those had begun before the United States had even declared independence.

There was the Civil War, but Lincoln (R) had congressional approval to deal with the insurgency of the southern Democratic states.

Prior to that there was no Republican party. Perhaps then you can explain where the Republicans have, as you said, "...waged wars where US soldiers have been in foreign countries for years and years, without congressional approval." I have yet to find one. In fact now that I look at it I am noticing a pattern of Democrats starting a hell of a lot more wars than us "war mongering Republicans". Hmmmm imagine that.

 

[BluePhantom]

A third of them owned slaves, so a third would be Republicans TODAY.

You're going to post the exact same statement that I blew out of the water a little while ago, huh? And you say I'm not too bright?

 

[BluePhantom]

Well, I'm talking about the Pubs of TODAY. The Racists changed parties, to the Pubs, in 1968. See Nixon's Southern Strategy. Idiot.

OH! So all Republicans are racist because 50 years ago a strong portion of racist Democrats in the southeast switched parties despite all the Republicans from the northeast, northwest, and southwest that fought for black civil rights? Gotcha. Jeez.

BTW a good portion of those racist southeastern Democrats stayed Democrats. At best one could say that racism exists as a minority opinion in both political parties. Jack ass

 

[BluePhantom]

BTW Franco. I am sure my father who was a Republican Freedom Rider will be interested to know that he's a racist because of what a portion of southeastern society did 50 years ago. Fucking genius.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The American Revolution was fought against monarchy...against the super wealthy.

So in you mind, men like Washington, Franklin and Jefferson were poor commoners fighting for Marxian righteousness?

It was a revolution of the common man against political and economic tyranny. Exactly what the OWS movement is fighting against.

Utter nonsense. The Revolution was a philosophical one based on the rights of man. You clearly have never read Paine, Jefferson, Franklin nor Washington. The hatred of the wealthy is a Marxist ploy that was not present for another hundred years.

The American revolution was one of unfettered rights without the yoke of nobility or monarchy, where each man was born with a clean slate, not the product of their social caste, but free to go as far as their wits would take them.

This is the polar opposite of the Shitters you so adore. The Shitters have no ideas, only the desire to have everything handed to them. They don't seek to be free from the nobility, quite the opposite, they want the lords of the federal government to care for them and make the decisions of life for them.

What you all fail to realize about the founding Fathers is that they were extreme revolutionaries - they had more in common with Mao Tes Tung than with today's Republicans or Democrats.

What ignorant bullshit you post.

Though by today standards their beliefs may be considered moderately conservative, for their day they were extreme radicals.

They stood for liberty, a concept you cannot grasp.

Their radicalism was so successful that it has become the moderate standard for today.

Sadly, that is not so. Many like you yearn for the yoke and riot for the privilege of again being a peasant to be ruled by a master who will care for you.

It would be hard to believe that they would be content main stream conformists in this day.

Jefferson would raise a rifle to demand liberty against tyrants like Obama.

 

[Bfgrn]

The American Revolution was fought against monarchy...against the super wealthy. It was a revolution of the common man against political and economic tyranny. Exactly what the OWS movement is fighting against.

NO. The founding fathers were extremely rich. The founding fathers were "the 1%". They were not "the common man". These guys were the elite of society, wealthy, educated, cultured, social climbers, etc. They fought against an overpowering form of government. The last thing they wanted was a government that was overly powerful and got into people's lives. They wanted a government that protected the borders, protected commerce, allowed people to work for their own prosperity, and stayed the fuck out of people's business. That is not the modern liberal school of thought.

That's not how they governed.

Debate and argument over the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Federalist papers has been going on for over 200 years by and between citizens, scholars, theologians and polemics. It is nothing new, and our founder's true intent on many issues has not become any closer to being resolved.

So when we have an example of how those same men applied all those principles, beliefs and ideas to actual governing, it serves as the best example of how they put all those principles, beliefs and ideas to use. Their actions carry the most weight.

Our founding fathers believed in very strict regulation of corporations, even when the stockholders are fellow citizens. They would be much more restrictive on today's corporations with foreign investors and ownership who have interests that conflict with the interests of the American people.

We tried unregulated corporations in America. The closest experiment to total deregulation in this country occurred between the end of the Civil War and the beginning of the 19th century...it was called the Gilded Age; an era where America was as far from our founder's intent of a democratic society and closest to an aristocracy that our founder's were willing to lay down their lives to defeat.


"I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect, and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself." --Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:29

 

[francoHFW]

BTW Franco. I am sure my father who was a Republican Freedom Rider will be interested to know that he's a racist because of what a portion of southeastern society did 50 years ago. Fucking genius.

Listen moron, as I said the Pubs became the party of racists in 1968, with Nixon's Southern strategy. Three times now.

Do you know NOTHING of US history after 1967?


The founding fathers would have adapted to the end of the frontier, and to a population of 300 million. Time to grow up and have a modern country.

 

[BluePhantom]

I checked a bit of the KKK and it seems they backed both sides dependent on time, but that is hardly relevant given the KKK and the hatred they represent. I think I will leave them out as they do neither party nor America any good. Ku Klux Klan

But when 'suggestions' pretend to be history it is better to get some facts or leave that out as well.

Oh no I'm not going to let you off the hook that easily, brother. Here's what I will most certainly agree with. Any supremacy movement (be it the KKK, Black Panthers, Neo-Nazis, whatever) has the ultimate goal of advancing the rights of their own race and suppressing the rights of other races. To that end they will align themselves with whatever party is willing to help them advance their agenda.

I will concede that following the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 the Republican party was infiltrated by former southeastern Democrats who switched parties in retaliation against the Democrats for the passage of that piece of legislation. However, it is unfair and completely inaccurate to suggest that the entire Republican party became racist as a result. Republicans in the northeast, northwest, and southwest who championed the rights of blacks in America remained with the Republican party and there was also a strong segment of southeastern society that opposed the Civil Rights Act but remained with the Democratic party regardless. To this end the best I can offer is that we have reached a place in society where racism and racial supremacy exists in both parties, but as a small minority in the overall make-up of either one. Contrary to liberal belief we Republicans don't sit around smoking cigars, sipping brandy, and coming up with all new strategies on how to create dirty air, dirty water, and "stick it to the black man" (as Nancy Pelosi and other liberals have recently and repeatedly insisted).

But it is very historically accurate to make the statement that prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, racism was very much an element of political ideology, particularly in the southeast, where the Democratic party was responsible for all kinds of oppressive laws and social norms. This extends even back to the Civil War when all the states (except Maryland) who voted for Stephen Douglas (D) instead of Lincoln succeeded from the union and attacked United States federal forces. The only reason why Maryland didn't as well is because that's where the bulk of the union army was at the onset and so for them to go with the south was essentially a declaration of suicide.

I respectfully contend that there is nothing about this that is mere "supposition".


Now I am working my way back to your other post. bear with me. I am getting there.

 

[BluePhantom]

That's not how they governed.

Oh I strongly disagree. Just as an example there was a famous exchange between John Adams and Abigail Adams after the Declaration of Independence was signed. Abigail asked John whether women would be given the same rights as men in the new government and argued strongly for that. Adams responded that they had "no intention of trading the tyranny of the monarchy for the tyranny of the petticoat." As you might imagine Abigail was less than impressed. But Adams explained that while he personally would not have an issue with such a thing it would open the door for extending rights and privileges to segments of society, such as drunks, people who did not own property, and the uneducated, that "no reasonable person would argue in favor of." This position was widely accepted and indeed voting rights in the individual states were almost exclusively restricted to property owners. The rest were simply subject to the political motivations of the upper and middle classes.

It' also important to note that the inalienable rights endowed by our Creator that are listed in the Declaration of Independence include "the pursuit of happiness", not the guarantee of it. In other words, all men were free to go out into society, climb the social ladders, start a business, make some money, and purchase some property...but only THEN would the right to influence society through voting and directing the course of government be provided to them. Everyone else was just something that individual states and towns had to deal with on their own accord.

I strongly (but respectfully) disagree with you on that point.

 

[BluePhantom]

BTW Franco. I am sure my father who was a Republican Freedom Rider will be interested to know that he's a racist because of what a portion of southeastern society did 50 years ago. Fucking genius.

Listen moron, as I said the Pubs became the party of racists in 1968, with Nixon's Southern strategy. Three times now.

Do you know NOTHING of US history after 1967?


The founding fathers would have adapted to the end of the frontier, and to a population of 300 million. Time to grow up and have a modern country.

Yeah and I already addressed it several times. Try reading what I wrote before you start popping off.

 

[BluePhantom]

Bfgrn, let me additionally point out that initially the Senate was not elected. Senators were appointed by the representatives of each state's congressional districts. The reason for this was summed up very strongly by Jefferson (and forgive me for not having the exact quote) who argued that the average person was too uneducated and too uninformed to be trusted with something as significant as a vote for a Senator.

Again, this is just another example that the FFs tended to be actually quite "elitist" in how they governed and structured the government.

 

[Steelplate]

You see dickhead. These men were revolutionaries because they were sick of government intrusion in their fucking lives and their fucking business. They were against taxation without representation but were equally against representation without taxation. That meant voting rights were out for anyone but property owners. They would have flipped a total fucking bitch about social security, welfare, Obamacare or anything that put the government in a position to control the lives of people, or let people get a free ride. And they would have dealt with OWS just like Washington did....ride in with troops ready to kill anyone who was getting pissy.

Now go educate yourself, you little pissant, instead of wailing on about Thomas Paine who was a significant player but FAR from one of the ringleaders of independence and founding the structure of government, and claiming that they were liberals. They were about as fucking liberal as Rand Paul. They would be completely horrified at the modern Democratic party.

Ahhh... but the difference is, is that back in their day... we Property tax was probably the only tax they had... so only landowners were paying taxes. Nowadays... everyone pays taxes.. be it FICA, FEDERAL INCOME TAX, GAS TAXES, SIN TAXES, STATE AND LOCAL TAXES, SALES TAXES and probably some that I didn't even think of.

So there really isn't all that much Representation without taxation these days.

EDIT: and by the way... I can think of nothing more similar in this country to "Taxation without Representation" at this point and time, than what is going on with the Middle and Working Class of this country. They have been virtually abandoned.... and most of your brethren are ALL FOR IT... even though it includes you. We pay our taxes, we write our representatives...and they follow their monetary masters rather than ALL of their Representatives. It's like we are all citizens... but there are citizens and then there are CITIZENS. Which is bullshit.. .One man/One vote Equal representation.

Hell, the ONLY Representation that a working stiff has is Unions... which you guys are continually trying to destroy. Hell, I know they're corrupt... but so are the Lawyers and Lobbyists from Corporate America.. Probably tenfold what the unions are. Once again... fighting against YOURSELVES.

 

[Mr.Nick]

I checked a bit of the KKK and it seems they backed both sides dependent on time, but that is hardly relevant given the KKK and the hatred they represent. I think I will leave them out as they do neither party nor America any good. Ku Klux Klan

But when 'suggestions' pretend to be history it is better to get some facts or leave that out as well.

Oh no I'm not going to let you off the hook that easily, brother. Here's what I will most certainly agree with. Any supremacy movement (be it the KKK, Black Panthers, Neo-Nazis, whatever) has the ultimate goal of advancing the rights of their own race and suppressing the rights of other races. To that end they will align themselves with whatever party is willing to help them advance their agenda.

I will concede that following the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 the Republican party was infiltrated by former southeastern Democrats who switched parties in retaliation against the Democrats for the passage of that piece of legislation. However, it is unfair and completely inaccurate to suggest that the entire Republican party became racist as a result. Republicans in the northeast, northwest, and southwest who championed the rights of blacks in America remained with the Republican party and there was also a strong segment of southeastern society that opposed the Civil Rights Act but remained with the Democratic party regardless. To this end the best I can offer is that we have reached a place in society where racism and racial supremacy exists in both parties, but as a small minority in the overall make-up of either one. Contrary to liberal belief we Republicans don't sit around smoking cigars, sipping brandy, and coming up with all new strategies on how to create dirty air, dirty water, and "stick it to the black man" (as Nancy Pelosi and other liberals have recently and repeatedly insisted).

But it is very historically accurate to make the statement that prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, racism was very much an element of political ideology, particularly in the southeast, where the Democratic party was responsible for all kinds of oppressive laws and social norms. This extends even back to the Civil War when all the states (except Maryland) who voted for Stephen Douglas (D) instead of Lincoln succeeded from the union and attacked United States federal forces. The only reason why Maryland didn't as well is because that's where the bulk of the union army was at the onset and so for them to go with the south was essentially a declaration of suicide.

I respectfully contend that there is nothing about this that is mere "supposition".


Now I am working my way back to your other post. bear with me. I am getting there.

I agree with everything you said except for the fact that the modern left is still a party of racists ...

The ACLU, the Congressional Black Caucus, the Southern Poverty Law center, La Raza, the Nation of Islam just to name a few are 99.5% black or Mexican and they say some of the most racist things I have heard and democrats sit their with their little bobble heads and nod and accept that racism and some white democrats even promote those ideas and loathe themselves as the "horrible race."

Being from Chicago I get a full dose of it on a daily basis - assholes like Jesse Jackson Jr and Sr spewing racist garbage and radical preachers and other community activists spewing their white hate...

 

[BluePhantom]

Best advice when debating online, develop thick skin.

Finally, I get to it. Uh...trust me. My skin is quite thick. I have been doing this for a very long time, only recently at this particular forum.

I don't think we ever overcome our cultural, educational, and experience biases. We just need to recognize them.

I strongly agree with this statement.

People don't often get along where power and money are concerned, the founders were no different.

I agree that the South would have argued slavery was necessary but I doubt there would have been a consensus even then.

I agree about power and money. Nothing creates more division (or indeed such strange bedfellows) as the pursuit of wealth and authority. I think there would have been wide general consensus in the south that it was necessary, but I think there would certainly be strong debate as to whether it was moral on several different accounts:

1) It's not at all hyperbole to state that slaves were generally considered nothing more than livestock in the south at the time; akin to oxen, or draft horses.

2) People, even today, are masters of self-justification. We find ways to convince ourselves that what we are doing is "the right thing" even when everything in our body and soul knows it is not.

It's also worth pointing out that while the north was in favor of abolition, it's not like they were completely innocent. The north was highly industrialized compared to the south and they didn't hesitate one little bit to take advantage of the cheap raw materials that slavery provided in the south. I have said on many occasions that the north railed about a certain thing while lining their pockets as a result of it. Kind of like modern Democrats (that's just a good natured joke - don't go getting all pissy).

Calhoun's arguments are interesting if wrong.....

Calhoun was a very interesting guy and he made several statements about the hypocrisy of the north in regards to what I said above. While, like you, I certainly disagree with Calhoun's conclusions he was a very powerful debater. His constant jousting with Andrew Jackson is particularly entertaining if you ever get the chance to research it.

Republicans did the same to Clinton, they fought him with big money and they did the same to Carter. Bush Jr brought on the wrath of his own party he was so bad, so please don't tell me the dems crucified him. Obama has had no partisan support, again look at the policies that have come out of the republicans as an indicator of their uselessness for the nation as a whole.

Ok here's where I am going to take you to task. You are not going to seriously sit there and with a straight face tell me that the Republicans were so vicious to Clinton and Obama, but the liberals approached Bush 43, Bush 41, or even Reagan in a fair and evenhanded manner are you? Certainly, you are not going to try and make that argument stick.

As far as what has come out of the Republican side since January of this year (no prior year under Obama's term mattered as they had no power to pass anything) I would say yes absolutely the Republicans have passed a budget, passed upwards of 20 bills that specifically address the economy and job creation that are significant, effective, and useful. Those bills have been stalled in the Senate by the Democratic party (Harry Reid in particular) who refuses to even let them come up for debate let alone a vote.

My history of republican ideology has beginning and endings if you noticed, and bailouts have too often followed their governance. When government is the problem and big business is the primary client, what do you expect.

Well I concede that there must be balance. For example, I am not opposed to unions. History is quite clear that without protection for the average worker business will rape the worker to every degree possible. The workers need protection. However, there also comes a time when that protection begins to exceed its purpose and begins to interfere with the businesses ability to make profit and remain and economically viable entity.

I am not opposed to regulation of industry. History has been quite clear, as another poster pointed out, that the Gilded Age is a reminded that an unregulated industry leads to catastrophe. However, when regulations become so severe and exceed their mandate to such a degree that the business can no longer operate in a fiscally sound manner, it becomes equally as catastrophic.

The point is that the pendulum does not have to swing completely to one side or the other. Balance can be maintained in such a way that workers can have protections but business does not go broke providing it. The public can have clean water, clean air, etc and business can still operate at a profitable margin. It's when those protections and those regulations go beyond their base purpose that business and therefore the economy suffers.

Anyhow I finally got to you. It was a good post and I wanted to make sure I addressed it.

 

[BluePhantom]

Ok I am done for the night. My wife is fuming pissed as it is. Nick, Steelplate. I will get to you tomorrow.

 

[BluePhantom]

Last thing before I take off for the night. I do want to give credit to midcan5, ladyliberty, and a couple others who have provided some very intelligent, thought provoking, and well-reasoned arguments. While I mostly disagree with your conclusions, I feel compelled to recognize that you have come with some strong stuff. Franco and a select few others would do well to view and adopt your approach to discussion/debate.

 

[francoHFW]

You certainly are a great and longwinded typist...

 

[Photonic]

The American Revolution was fought against monarchy...against the super wealthy.

So in you mind, men like Washington, Franklin and Jefferson were poor commoners fighting for Marxian righteousness?

It was a revolution of the common man against political and economic tyranny. Exactly what the OWS movement is fighting against.

Utter nonsense. The Revolution was a philosophical one based on the rights of man. You clearly have never read Paine, Jefferson, Franklin nor Washington. The hatred of the wealthy is a Marxist ploy that was not present for another hundred years.

The American revolution was one of unfettered rights without the yoke of nobility or monarchy, where each man was born with a clean slate, not the product of their social caste, but free to go as far as their wits would take them.

This is the polar opposite of the Shitters you so adore. The Shitters have no ideas, only the desire to have everything handed to them. They don't seek to be free from the nobility, quite the opposite, they want the lords of the federal government to care for them and make the decisions of life for them.



What ignorant bullshit you post.



They stood for liberty, a concept you cannot grasp.

Their radicalism was so successful that it has become the moderate standard for today.

Sadly, that is not so. Many like you yearn for the yoke and riot for the privilege of again being a peasant to be ruled by a master who will care for you.

It would be hard to believe that they would be content main stream conformists in this day.

Jefferson would raise a rifle to demand liberty against tyrants like Obama.

Too bad that caste system is pretty much in place again.