Of course, it was followed by a barrage of silly inflammatory remarks by self-described conservatives claiming Obama's not really a citizen, how the other 29% who disagree with them about the founding fathers should be deported, and most of all a lot of 'yeah this country needs to go back to the way it used to before it went down the drains these last hundred years' in more colorful words.
But here was my comment: They would probably be pretty pissed about the ending slavery and letting blacks and women vote types of things.
And the exchange that followed:
Mike wrote:Actually many of the same people who signed the Declaration of Independence wanted to eliminate slavery then and there, but knew the south wouldn't agree to it so they wanted to tackle it another time...you would be surprised to look back and to see how many of our founders were against slavery and for equal rights
Brian wrote:That is right.
Scott wrote:Name them please.
Brian wrote:Thomas Jefferson and James Madison...pg. 336-37 of "Original Meanings" by Jack N. Rakove (Pulitzer Prize winning book).
But you want northerners right. I'll have to find them. The fact is that what Mike said was true. Slavery was too much of a fireball for them to deal with at the time they ratified the Constitution. It would never have been ratified by the southern states had it been mentioned. One doesn't even need to study history to know this; it is common sense.
Scott wrote:Thomas Jefferson was a wealthy slaveowner. Throughout his life he owned about 600 slaves, human beings I mean. His child slaves started work at the age of 10. Madison was the largest landowner in Orange County. Madison also owned hundreds of slaves. He wrote: "The federal Constitution, therefore, decides with great propriety on the case of our slaves, when it views them in the mixed character of persons and of property. This is in fact their true character. " (FEDERALIST No. 54. The Apportionment of Members Among the States) You read that right; Madison believed black people's true nature was human property.
Sorry Tea Party, I don't want to go back to those days. And I don't heroify slaveowners, racists or sexists--nor massive hypocrites. And I don't really get the whole ideologically purporting these guys or what they represent as solid ideals and principles and then defending them on pragmatic political pandering and strategizing; isn't that the beef you got with those Republicans? Tea Party, what if your precious gun rights were "too much of a fireball" to be protected in political negotiations? But I suppose we can agree, in reverse perhaps, not enslaving black people and oppressing women is not comparable in importance to your frustration at a waiting period on those rifles.
What do you all think? Would the founding fathers be disappointed? And if so because of the reasons I speculate or because of what the tea party complains about? And please no simple yes or no, or bumber-sticker rhetoric; this is a philosophy forum, I want explanations, reasons, questions, evidence.