[quote]AynRandLuvr wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
AynRandLuvr wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
This country, and the world, was far more brutal back then, and don’t tell me that it was in any way better because the guys who wrote the Constitution believed in God, because that’s a bunch of horseshit.
The country got better, as in a more humane place to live, because the ‘guys who wrote the Constitution’ were the first ones to take the good parts of Christian ethic seriously. They set the tone and eventually the country followed the principles they established. The fact that it didn’t happen overnight is somehow an indictment of them?
That’s sugarcoating history and you’re full of shit. As much as I think the Constitution is one of the best documents ever written by human hands, let’s face the facts that it benefitted white land owning males only.
Did it allow for the potential for change? Absolutely. And that’s why it’s stood for so long. But everyone who wanted change paid for it in blood.
You really have no idea what you’re talking about.
With all due respect, expecting a radical new idea to simply change human hearts overnight is irrational. The idea that people should govern themselves was radical. The idea that all men are created equal was a radical idea. The Catholic church, for ex, held its power by saying for centuries that kings have a divine right to rule, hence nobility is ‘better’, and got support financially.
If the authors of the Constitution wanted a government that benefitted only land owning white males, why’d they say that all men have these inalienable rights? Why not set up an aristocracy? Why’d Washington refuse to become king?
[/quote]
It’s not that I don’t think that believed in the ideals they were writing- I think they did. I am also not much for attacking the authors of the constitution, because I do believe the men at that time were probably the greatest collection of philosophical minds that the world has seen outside of maybe the Romantic period in Europe (which was around the same time).
The point I’m trying to make, however, is that in the end, that’s what they were- they were men. If you’re telling me that every man who signed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution believed in rights for every man, then I’d say you were full of shit. For every visionary like Adams or Jefferson, there were others who thought the other way.
Besides this, the fact that Jefferson, Washington, and other members of the South’s elite (and remember- that’s what these people were- east coast, liberal elites) owned slaves complicates this tremendously. Though it pains me to say it, it make hypocrites of them, especially Jefferson. How do you reconcile your great ideas with the fact that you own other humans? How can you say these great things but not live the life you say God gave everyone? The man couldn’t even follow his own advice. It create a conundrum.
The Constitution did not have to set up an aristocracy- it was already there. Washington was one of the richest men in those colonies even before he married Martha. Aristocracy is not something to be set up or taken down- it’s going to be inherent in every society, even in communist ones whose main goal was the elimination of such things. So I’m not sure what more they could have done to “set it up”- they wrote the laws, wrote the documents, got wealthy, and became presidents. I’m not saying that they didn’t deserve it, or that there was anything wrong with it, I’m just saying that’s what they did.
The word “all” in the constitution is what created problems. Maybe it was Jefferson having some foresight, or maybe they thought “all” at the time simply meant “all white men”. Who knows. Certainly the question of slavery would came up during the debates on both the Declaration and the constitution. Again- why would he say that, then continue owning slaves? Doesn’t make sense to me, but then I don’t know what he was thinking when he wrote it. Regardless, it took a million lives and a hundred years to eliminate slavery. It took another hundred years and countless other lives to secure the right to vote for blacks. That was my point, intially- I understand what you’re saying, but you’re idealizing too much. The potential for change was there. The Constitution is allowed to be amended. However, anyone who wanted that change, who wanted the laws of the land more fair, paid for it in blood (and a whole lot of it.) If that’s what your “Christian” nation was built on (to get back to the original point), then I think many people for the last three hundred years needed to truly heed the word of Jesus and reread that Bible a couple of times.
And finally, I believe, after reading as much as I have on Washington, that he simply was not a power hungry man. He certainly had the credibility to be king, and had the option. Had a different man been there, I think you would have seen the American system be far more different than it is. FOr all his faults that historians find, slaves or no slaves, the man truly was sent from god to lead this country at that time. There is no doubt in my mind over that.
