In 1789 the OP would have been goods, damaged goods sold at a discount. "People" like her were never meant to have a voice here, never. Even Ann Coulter, who she loves, said it was a mistake to give women the vote.
Based on what? The Constitution was written so it could be modified with enough support. Difficult but doable. Technology changed the role of women in the world.
The founder's vision was what it was; for titled property holding white males only.
As usual, your posts rife with lacunae (better look that up).
Usually, the ‘Founders’ refers to these six: Madison, Jefferson and Washington, Adams, Hamilton, and Franklin.
- The three non-Southerners worked tirelessly against slavery.
- While reading Ron Chernow’s book Alexander Hamilton, though, I found out that Hamilton was a strong advocate for the abolition of slavery. During the 1780s, Hamilton was one of the founders of the New York Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves, which was instrumental in the abolition of slavery in the state of New York. After reading about Alexander Hamilton’s work for the New York Manumission Society, I gained a greater appreciation of Alexander Hamiltonhttp://angelolopez.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/alexander-hamilton-and-the-new-york-manumission-society/
- Many of the other Founding Fathers were activists like Alexander Hamilton. In 1787Benjamin Franklin agree to serve as president of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, which set out to abolish slavery and set up programs to help freed slaves to become good citizens and improve the conditions of free African Americans. On February 12, 1790, Benjamin Franklin and the Pennsylvania Abolition Society presented a petition to the House of Representatives calling for the federal government to take steps for the gradual abolition of slavery and end the slave trade. As a young lawyer, Thomas Jefferson represented a slave in court attempting to be set free and during the 1770s and 1780s, Jefferson had many several attempts to pass legislation to gradually abolish slavery and end the slave trade. John Jay was the first president of the New York Manumission Society and was active in Society’s efforts to abolish slavery. Ibid.
2. An excellent read on the matter is a brilliant book called
Miracle in Philadelphia, by Catherine Drinker Bowen, which recounts the actual history and debates around the Constitutional Convention in 1787.
Slavery was a huge issue during that convention, and many of the Founding Fathers wanted it outlawed, but ran into an impasse after many hours of debate with the southern colonies whose agricultural productivity depended on it.
The Founders who wanted to set the stage for the abolition of slavery came up with a compromise involving the issue of apportionment.
The southern colonies that favored slavery wanted all residents of their states, slave and free, counted equally when it came to deciding how many seats they were going to receive in Congress. Some of the northern colonies, who mostly had few slaves and thus nothing to lose didn’t want slave residents counted at all.
The Founder’s compromise was to count each slave as 3/5 of a man for the purposes of apportionment, and when that passed after a great deal more debate and lobbying, legislators from the slave states were permanently limited to a minority. With that one stroke, the state was set for slavery’s eventual demise, and the proof of how effective it was came in 1804, when the slave states were powerless to stop Congress from outlawing the importation of slaves to the new nation.
The stage was set, even if it took 70 years and a bloody war.
Big Journalism Articles - Breitbart
Work hard to undo your indoctrination.
Hon, Breitbart versus indoctrination? Please.
"....Breitbart...."
Let's see if I can explain the difference between you and scholarship.
1. Short of outright
banning free speech.....certainly on the Left's agenda.....there are several attempts their Janissaries (better look that up, you dunce) use with metronomic regularity, to disqualify and delegitimize....as in your attempt of Breitbart.
2. First step in their playbook of 'delegitimization' is to
refuse to accept any statements of fact, or even strongly supported opinion, unless they come from a Leftist source....the NYTimes, HuffPost, the DNC, MSNBC or the like.
Get that?
Only accept an admission from your side.
Is that insane????
3. Frequently a post on the message board includes either a link, quote, or reference to Breitbart, World Net Daily, or Rupert Murdoch, or Ann Coulter, or some other right-thinker, and rather than admit that the item is dispositive (look it up, dope) for the thread or question under discussion, often the Leftist,totalitarians, with the alternate view:
a. refuse to address the issue, because the citation is on the opposite side (e.g., your post)
b. resort to an emoticon of laughter, or some sort of sign of disrespect, or the use of ‘lol.’
c. feel that some sort of “there you go again” response, rather than an actual refutation.
d. Attack the referred item with an Ad Hominem jab, pointing to an imagined physical or mental defect, or alter the name in some absurd manner.
In short....anything but an actual response.
4. What we have here is the kind of
defense against opposing ideas that is indolent at best, and intellectually cowardly at worst.
5. As an example, FrontPage, the online Internet magazine has received more than one billion ‘hits.’ It has interviewed leading intellectuals, politicians and human rights activists such as Bat Ye’or, Vladimir Bukovsky, Christopher Hitchens, Khaleel Mohammed, Daniel Pipes, Natan Sharanky and Andrew Sullivan. It has therefore had both left, liberal voices (Stanley Aronowitz, Susan Estrich, Michael Lerner) and right-wing voices (Tammy Bruce, Ann Coulter, James Woolsey).
6. To dismiss a source or author because they promulgate an alternative or even a hated perspective, without consideration of the truth of their premise lacks integrity....intellectual and moral.
I'm not optimistic of you learning from this.....but you'll be unable to deny it.
