7 Things You Didn’t Know About the Civil War: “There were over 3,000 BLACK slave owners who lived in the south”

[Bigun]

Including blacks and women?

Women and free blacks yes! Slaves no and I will not defend slavery! I will only say that destroying the constitution was not necessary to get rid of it!

[MACVSOG68]

In the present work, Kendall and Carey instead maintain that one must look to the founding era and its key documents in order to understand our indigenous political tradition. In so doing, one sees that the right of the people to govern themselves, rather than the concept of individual rights, is at the heart of the American political tradition.

It's more than interesting that conservatives have championed individual liberties, yet some here condemn such "heresy".  Conservatives have always questioned the legitimacy of the liberal concept of "democracy" or the "will of the majority".  Now suddenly, self-described conservatives no longer support the rights of the individual.  Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, the right to due process, the right to own property, to equal protection of the law and several others are individual rights, not the right of a majority however small or large. 

[MACVSOG68]

Women and free blacks yes! Slaves no and I will not defend slavery! I will only say that destroying the constitution was not necessary to get rid of it!

Women and free blacks during that period you look to were anything but free.  If you can't vote; if you can't inherit property, own property or even testify in a court proceeding, you are not free.  It's a case of where you sit is where you stand.  If you were a property owner (white Protestant male), it was a wonderful time other than a few wars.  If you were anything else, it wasn't so pretty.

BTW, no one appreciates the Constitution and its birth and development more than me.  But as most conservatives understand, our individual rights come from God and nature, not a government; not a majority.

[Bigun]

BTW, no one appreciates the Constitution and its birth and development more than me.  But as most conservatives understand, our individual rights come from God and nature, not a government; not a majority.

I have never argued otherwise!

HERE is what I'm talking about stated far more eloquently than I ever could!

"And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of the society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, and to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering.

Then begins, indeed, the bellum omnium in omnia, which some philosophers observing to be so general in this world, have mistaken it for the natural, instead of the abusive state of man.

And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression."

– Thomas Jefferson, letter to Sam Kercheval about reform of the Virginia Constitution, July 12, 1816; "The Writings of Thomas Jefferson," Definitive Edition, Albert Ellery Bergh, Editor, The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association (1905) Vol. XV, p. 40

He could not have been any more precedent!

[Bigun]

It's more than interesting that conservatives have championed individual liberties, yet some here condemn such "heresy".  Conservatives have always questioned the legitimacy of the liberal concept of "democracy" or the "will of the majority".  Now suddenly, self-described conservatives no longer support the rights of the individual.  Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, the right to due process, the right to own property, to equal protection of the law and several others are individual rights, not the right of a majority however small or large.

BS!!!

[Bigun]

"The supremacy of the Union in all those points that are thus transferred, and the
sovereignty of the state in all those which are not transferred, must therefore be
considered as two co-ordinate qualities, enabling us to decide on the true mode of giving
a construction to the constitution."

A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
United States of America.
BY WILLIAM RAWLE, LL.D.
SECOND EDITION.
PHILADELPHIA:
PHILIP H. NICKLIN, LAW BOOKSELLER,
NO. 175, CHESTNUT STREET.
1829.

[MACVSOG68]

I have never argued otherwise!

Perhaps I misunderstood why you quoted and underlined this:

In so doing, one sees that the right of the people to govern themselves, rather than the concept of individual rights, is at the heart of the American political tradition.

HERE is what I'm talking about stated far more eloquently than I ever could!

"And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of the society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, and to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering.

Then begins, indeed, the bellum omnium in omnia, which some philosophers observing to be so general in this world, have mistaken it for the natural, instead of the abusive state of man.

And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression."

– Thomas Jefferson, letter to Sam Kercheval about reform of the Virginia Constitution, July 12, 1816; "The Writings of Thomas Jefferson," Definitive Edition, Albert Ellery Bergh, Editor, The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association (1905) Vol. XV, p. 40

He could not have been any more precedent!

If your quote is a strike at public debt, we are in complete agreement.  But I'm not sure how that relates to the question of individual rights versus the "right" of people to govern themselves (rule of the majority).

[MACVSOG68]

BS!!!

Well...that's one way to argue your point...

[MACVSOG68]

"The supremacy of the Union in all those points that are thus transferred, and the
sovereignty of the state in all those which are not transferred, must therefore be
considered as two co-ordinate qualities, enabling us to decide on the true mode of giving
a construction to the constitution."

A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
United States of America.
BY WILLIAM RAWLE, LL.D.
SECOND EDITION.
PHILADELPHIA:
PHILIP H. NICKLIN, LAW BOOKSELLER,
NO. 175, CHESTNUT STREET.
1829.

Umm...okay.  Your point being...?

[Bigun]

Women and free blacks during that period you look to were anything but free.  If you can't vote; if you can't inherit property, own property or even testify in a court proceeding, you are not free.  It's a case of where you sit is where you stand.  If you were a property owner (white Protestant male), it was a wonderful time other than a few wars.  If you were anything else, it wasn't so pretty.

Would you be so kind as to point out where in the world you think women and free blacks were better off than in the U.S. during that same time period?

[Bigun]

Well...that's one way to argue your point...

I answered as I did because you and several others here are in the habit of attempting to put words they never said into the mouths of others.  I am aware of no one here disparaging any individual right! What actually HAS been said is that the right to govern themselves was more important to the founding than individual rights we already had. ( I think we both have agreed  that those individual rights, come from God and not any government in the first place.)

[MACVSOG68]

Would you be so kind as to point out where in the world you think women and free blacks were better off than in the U.S. during that same time period?

The goal posts are being moved.  We were discussing the freedom in [u[this[/u] Country during the time period you listed versus today.  Yes, they were pretty good for white male Protestant land owners, but I asked about the rest of the people?

[Bigun]

Perhaps I misunderstood why you quoted and underlined this:



If your quote is a strike at public debt, we are in complete agreement.  But I'm not sure how that relates to the question of individual rights versus the "right" of people to govern themselves (rule of the majority).

It was an attempt, perhaps not such a good one,  to illustrate my argument that straying from the Constitution in the first instance only led to more and more straying from it over the course of time. Which is, I believe, the exact reason we find ourselves where we are today!

[MACVSOG68]

I answered as I did because you and several others here are in the habit of attempting to put words they never said into the mouths of others.  I am aware of no one here disparaging any individual right! What actually HAS been said is that the right to govern themselves was more important to the founding than individual rights we already had. ( I think we both have agreed  that those individual rights, come from God and not any government in the first place.)

So then your underlining of the quote wasn't to show support for the quote?  I'm sure you can understand my confusion when you wrote:  In the present work, Kendall and Carey instead maintain that one must look to the founding era and its key documents in order to understand our indigenous political tradition. In so doing, one sees that the right of the people to govern themselves, rather than the concept of individual rights, is at the heart of the American political tradition.

If you don't support that quote, I'm not sure of the context in which you posted it.  But as you've told me before, I'm slow at understanding context...

[Bigun]

The goal posts are being moved.  We were discussing the freedom in [u[this[/u] Country during the time period you listed versus today.  Yes, they were pretty good for white male Protestant land owners, but I asked about the rest of the people?

There is no question but that the lives of all most everyone on this planet are better in some respects than they were then.  Still women and free blacks have always been FAR better off here than any other place on this planet!

I would point out also that many of those free blacks owned slaves. In fact a man by the name of Anthony Johnson (a black man) is the actual father of slavery in America.

[Bigun]

So then your underlining of the quote wasn't to show support for the quote?  I'm sure you can understand my confusion when you wrote:  In the present work, Kendall and Carey instead maintain that one must look to the founding era and its key documents in order to understand our indigenous political tradition. In so doing, one sees that the right of the people to govern themselves, rather than the concept of individual rights, is at the heart of the American political tradition.

If you don't support that quote, I'm not sure of the context in which you posted it.  But as you've told me before, I'm slow at understanding context...

Read what is in the quote box in you post again! I don't know that I can explain it any more clearly and I DO support the quote.

[MACVSOG68]

 

There is no question but that the lives of all most everyone on this planet are better in some respects than they were then.  Still women and free blacks have always been FAR better off here than any other place on this planet!

I would point out also that many of those free blacks owned slaves. In fact a man by the name of Anthony Johnson (a black man) is the actual father of slavery in America.

Well, we've move away from your time frame (1790-1850)  when Americans were better off than today.  And yes, blacks did own slaves, though I'm not sure what that has to do with freedom during that period.

[MACVSOG68]

Read what is in the quote box in you post again! I don't know that I can explain it any more clearly and I DO support the quote.

Then you agree with the ability of the people to govern themselves (majority) rather than individual rights, as they were in that period?  I don't want to put words into your mouth.  You underlined the quote and said you agreed with it.  I OTOH believe individual rights trump the majority.  We appear to disagree on this.

[Bigun]

Then you agree with the ability of the people to govern themselves (majority) rather than individual rights...

No sir! I agree with the ability of people (individuals) to govern themselves! That is the ULTIMATE individual right!  I'm for the LEAST amount of government possible in EVERY case!

[MACVSOG68]

No sir! I agree with the ability of people (individuals) to govern themselves! That is the ULTIMATE individual right!  I'm for the LEAST amount of government possible in EVERY case!

Well not to raise the term "anarchy" as the ultimate freedom where individuals govern themselves, but that seems to be where you are headed.  It wasn't what the authors were referring to.  They was simply saying that in the founding era, the concept of people determining their laws took precedence over individual rights.  And I agree, though I disagree that it is an ideal social order.   I'm with you and most here at least on attempting to reduce the size and effectiveness of the federal government.  But even the founders were at odds over federal versus state powers.

The solution some here have arrived at is to help end the GOP as a political force and come up with an entirely new party.  If conservatives can't even elect enough representatives and senators to turn the government around, how do they possibly think they can start a whole new party?  Take a look at the polls.  Like it or not, the Country is slowly moving to the left.  It's not what I want to see, but it is reality, and I would rather work to slow down this "progressiveness" at least in our government rather than try to eliminate the only political party capable of fighting back.   Besides the American Constitution Party already exists.   

[Bigun]

Well not to raise the term "anarchy" as the ultimate freedom where individuals govern themselves, but that seems to be where you are headed.  It wasn't what the authors were referring to.  They was simply saying that in the founding era, the concept of people determining their laws took precedence over individual rights.  And I agree, though I disagree that it is an ideal social order.   I'm with you and most here at least on attempting to reduce the size and effectiveness of the federal government.  But even the founders were at odds over federal versus state powers.

The solution some here have arrived at is to help end the GOP as a political force and come up with an entirely new party.  If conservatives can't even elect enough representatives and senators to turn the government around, how do they possibly think they can start a whole new party?  Take a look at the polls.  Like it or not, the Country is slowly moving to the left.  It's not what I want to see, but it is reality, and I would rather work to slow down this "progressiveness" at least in our government rather than try to eliminate the only political party capable of fighting back.   Besides the American Constitution Party already exists.   

The solution I have always advocated is to change the GOP from within and I have been actively engaged in that effort for many years now.  Dare say had some success at it!

The last time I looked there was still a tenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution. And a Ninth as well come to think of it!

 

[MACVSOG68]

The solution I have always advocated is to change the GOP from within and I have been actively engaged in that effort for many years now.  Dare say had some success at it!

Good for you!     OTOH, membership in the Republican Study Committee (conservative wing) has dwindled since 2010.  Partly I suspect in response to changing demographics and some social causes no longer supported by majorities in the Country.