This article highlights the enlightened, thoughtful, respectful discourse which at the basis of the creation of the great nation that is the United States. Things were by no means perfect then. But certainly we can learn from the words and actions of many outstanding characters of the time.
It was complicated. George Washington in discussions with Benjamin Franklin said to Franklin that he couldn't free the slaves because the unity of the United States was far more important. The British didn't give up trying to control the United States until Andrew Jackson destroyed them in a battle at New Orleans and the British came very close to succeeding.
"I rejoice in a belief that intellectual light will spring up in the dark corners of the earth; that freedom of enquiry will produce liberality of conduct; that mankind will reverse the absurd position that the many were, made for the few; and that they will not continue slaves in one part of the globe, when they can become freemen in another." -- Fro the first draft of George Washington's inaugural address.
George Washington and Thomas Jefferson had to deal with more pressing issues at the time and put off freeing slaves for a later generation.
Washington freed his slaves upon his death. Jefferson, who had children with slave girl(s), did not grant any freedom after his death. Him being near broke could be a reason, but let us not forget that the Children of an American president and most possibly Grand Children lived in slavery till civil war.
Jefferson did free all his slaves that were his children -- Sally Hemings children (I have never heard of any evidence that he slept with any other). Most likely he did not free the rest of his slaves because he was in a great deal of debt when he died and didn't want that debt to burden his children.
> They were absolutely outstanding men relative to their peers. Check your PC bullshit.
Honestly, setting aside anachronistic moral issues, I don't think they are any different than a random selection of modern US politicians.
Read through their letters and through contemporary news articles and you get the impression that in some ways they were even more fractious and petty. The vapid insults and conspiracy theories they published aimed at each other often make even Trump look good. (Probably the biggest misconception I had was that the 'Founding Fathers' got along pleasantly even if they had the occasional intellectual disagreement. Nope, not at all. And their political positions existed on a much, much broader scale than I had ever imagined.) They don't come across as remotely exemplary characters even compared to their peers.
Then you have things like the Alien and Sedition Acts, where even white men were arrested and prosecuted for criticizing the President, and you realize we've got it pretty good these days. Frankly it seems almost incredible that the early republic survived.
I think the real lesson to learn from the early days of America is that the right circumstances and processes can make a workable union out of even a hugely disparate population - but that there are still limits. Early America made it only because the shared sense of values and community was just enough.
> Just like we know that abortion and death penalty immoral.
Heh.
It's fairly clear that the justice system arrives at the wrong conclusion too often for it to be trusted to determine that a person is both irredeemable and needs to be killed.
Even a cursory search of relevant medical literature reveals that there are situations in which abortion of a pregnancy is the safest and most correct course of action. This topic is substantially less clear-cut.
I am not 100% against abortion, especially when it comes to the health of the mother. I still think it's barbaric but it's the best option we have with the technology and treatments available. However I am against unregulated abortions. If an abortion is to be done, it must be under the guidance and consultation of a medical doctor.
It's a pity that you're now outside of the edit window for your original comment. You could have taken a second stab at saying what you meant to say, rather than something pithy. :)
> However I am against unregulated abortions.
The sentiment "Abortions are immoral" is a significant driver of efforts to force all abortions to be illegal and -thus- unregulated. You might think about expressing your stance in a more nuanced fashion in the future.
Things are never perfect. The best we can hope for is that people work hard and are good to each other. The founding fathers had their fair share of flaws just like any leader today, and yet they managed to turn a rebellion into something great.
The real tragedy today is that there are many Americans who want a monopoly on American identity, instead of embracing the source of America's strength: our ability to assimilate people and ideas into something greater than the sum of its parts (and genocical imperialism and slave labor helped too)
Broadly, yes. But let's not mince words: the white and largely male-dominated subset of Americans see themselves as the vanguards of the true - and dying - standard of what it means to be American. Therefore, they would rather fight scorched-earth against alternative lifestyles and skin colors over the meaning of what makes up an American rather than work together to ensure national prosperity in a turbulent world order.
> This week I learned on this very forum the US opened up to non-EU immigrants only after 1965?
What?
The stereotype of Asian laborers working (and dying) to build the great Western railroads is grounded in a fair bit of truth. Moreover, San Francisco's Chinatown acquired the Asian residents that lead to its name long before 1965.
It seems likely that there will always be at least one group of second-class citizens. The overall quality of life for humans appears to be increasing as the decades and centuries go by, but -frankly- I don't see our tendency to create outgroups going away for a very, very, very long time.
Not to be mean, but I'm having some difficulty understanding how your contributions to this subthread are related to the topic broached by rm_-rf_slash.
I expect that -if you make a close study of history-, you'll find that "[America's greatest strength is its ability to assimilate people and ideas into something greater than the sum of its parts as] long as [those people] are white and [those people and ideas are] christian..." is a statement that isn't supported by the facts.
Xenophobia and racism was and is real, yes. But, -culturally and ideologically- the US has been and remains substantially less homogenous and substantially more willing to accept immigrants into its borders than many other countries.
Here is a quote from George Washington sent to a Jewish congregation in Newport, RI while he and Thomas Jefferson were promoting what is now the 1st amendment. Although Rhode Island had ratified that amendment, "Virginia, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Georgia were still debating the amendments in August of 1790 when the President visited Newport."
"For happily the Government of the United States gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support." [1]
This is really a false argument. The way it works is this. In so far as Sharia law is compatible with county, state and federal laws, it can be practiced. In so far that is not, it cannot. It's that simple. Many small regions have their own local laws, e.g. suburbs, condos, Mormons, Amish, etc.
Ok. And portions of Sharia law are not compatible with country, state, and federal laws. There are people who believe that full Sharia law should apply to Muslims. And some who believe that full Sharia law should apply to non-Muslims as well. I would consider these stances to fall foul of "giving it on all occasions their effectual support".
Now on one hand everyone supports potential laws that are not laws. That's how new laws get passed. Something wasn't legal. The public said it should be. And it was. For example gay marriage.
On the other hand some people think it should be legal to murder an apostate. Codifying these differences in language is difficult. But that doesn't mean they aren't different and should not be treated as such.
Stop for a few minutes and try to distill your argument to its essence, then take some time writing an explanation of that argument as clearly as you are able to.
This is amusing. Apparently people took umbrage at an earnest suggestion that a fellow stop for a few minutes to collect his thoughts and phrase his argument in a way that makes it maximally effective. :D
About the same as when Jewish people support Beth Din in place of American law - it's fine so long as American law is also respected.
(There are problems with religious legal systems of women not being able to get divorces; of abused women not getting help and support; and of abused children not getting help and support and the abusers not facing justice).
That's a lot of dancing to avoid condemning hateful, repressive beliefs. We condemn hateful, racist bigots all the time. Rightfully so. Just because said hate is derived from religion does not excuse it from condemnation.
He also became the first U.S. president to deal with "Islamic terrorism":
> Jefferson and John Adams ... went to call on Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman. They asked him by what right he extorted money and took slaves in this way. As Jefferson later reported to Secretary of State John Jay, and to the Congress:
> The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.
Cool factoid: "The schooner Enterprise (commanded by Lieutenant Andrew Sterret) defeated the 14-gun Tripolitan corsair Tripoli after a one-sided battle on 1 August 1801."
In the US, Muslims have already got more rights than non-Muslims, for example Christian. When you criticize Islam/Muhammad you will be called islamophobe, bigot, racist. When you criticize Christianity/Jesus you will be called progressive.
46 comments
[ 202 ms ] story [ 2067 ms ] threadCome on, it's an anonymous troll account with an obvious goal of ridiculing pro-PC argument. Check your #{x}!
"I rejoice in a belief that intellectual light will spring up in the dark corners of the earth; that freedom of enquiry will produce liberality of conduct; that mankind will reverse the absurd position that the many were, made for the few; and that they will not continue slaves in one part of the globe, when they can become freemen in another." -- Fro the first draft of George Washington's inaugural address.
George Washington and Thomas Jefferson had to deal with more pressing issues at the time and put off freeing slaves for a later generation.
Honestly, setting aside anachronistic moral issues, I don't think they are any different than a random selection of modern US politicians.
Read through their letters and through contemporary news articles and you get the impression that in some ways they were even more fractious and petty. The vapid insults and conspiracy theories they published aimed at each other often make even Trump look good. (Probably the biggest misconception I had was that the 'Founding Fathers' got along pleasantly even if they had the occasional intellectual disagreement. Nope, not at all. And their political positions existed on a much, much broader scale than I had ever imagined.) They don't come across as remotely exemplary characters even compared to their peers.
Then you have things like the Alien and Sedition Acts, where even white men were arrested and prosecuted for criticizing the President, and you realize we've got it pretty good these days. Frankly it seems almost incredible that the early republic survived.
I think the real lesson to learn from the early days of America is that the right circumstances and processes can make a workable union out of even a hugely disparate population - but that there are still limits. Early America made it only because the shared sense of values and community was just enough.
I'm sure in 100+ years, people will look back on us and laugh at how "unenlightened" we are.
Heh.
It's fairly clear that the justice system arrives at the wrong conclusion too often for it to be trusted to determine that a person is both irredeemable and needs to be killed.
Even a cursory search of relevant medical literature reveals that there are situations in which abortion of a pregnancy is the safest and most correct course of action. This topic is substantially less clear-cut.
> However I am against unregulated abortions.
The sentiment "Abortions are immoral" is a significant driver of efforts to force all abortions to be illegal and -thus- unregulated. You might think about expressing your stance in a more nuanced fashion in the future.
You are referring to a tiny fraction of abortions.
Only a few abortion critics oppose abortions to save the mother's life.
Nope. See my conversation with Diamons to be enlightened.
The real tragedy today is that there are many Americans who want a monopoly on American identity, instead of embracing the source of America's strength: our ability to assimilate people and ideas into something greater than the sum of its parts (and genocical imperialism and slave labor helped too)
American identity is much more heterogeneous today than ever before, in no small part thanks to ecumenism.
That is what they are referring to, right?
What?
The stereotype of Asian laborers working (and dying) to build the great Western railroads is grounded in a fair bit of truth. Moreover, San Francisco's Chinatown acquired the Asian residents that lead to its name long before 1965.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_laws_concerning_imm...
Not to be mean, but I'm having some difficulty understanding how your contributions to this subthread are related to the topic broached by rm_-rf_slash.
I am trying to put this narrative into perspective.
I expect that -if you make a close study of history-, you'll find that "[America's greatest strength is its ability to assimilate people and ideas into something greater than the sum of its parts as] long as [those people] are white and [those people and ideas are] christian..." is a statement that isn't supported by the facts.
Xenophobia and racism was and is real, yes. But, -culturally and ideologically- the US has been and remains substantially less homogenous and substantially more willing to accept immigrants into its borders than many other countries.
"For happily the Government of the United States gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support." [1]
[1] http://www.tourosynagogue.org/history-learning/gw-letter
Now on one hand everyone supports potential laws that are not laws. That's how new laws get passed. Something wasn't legal. The public said it should be. And it was. For example gay marriage.
On the other hand some people think it should be legal to murder an apostate. Codifying these differences in language is difficult. But that doesn't mean they aren't different and should not be treated as such.
Stop for a few minutes and try to distill your argument to its essence, then take some time writing an explanation of that argument as clearly as you are able to.
(There are problems with religious legal systems of women not being able to get divorces; of abused women not getting help and support; and of abused children not getting help and support and the abusers not facing justice).
I guess I missed the dance party. All I see is the statement:
"Any US citizen may maintain their own practices just so long as those practices are compatible with US law."
Seems pretty simple and clear to me.
> Jefferson and John Adams ... went to call on Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman. They asked him by what right he extorted money and took slaves in this way. As Jefferson later reported to Secretary of State John Jay, and to the Congress:
> The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_wor...
It wouldn't be out of place for someone from ISIS to say the exact same thing today.
Cool factoid: "The schooner Enterprise (commanded by Lieutenant Andrew Sterret) defeated the 14-gun Tripolitan corsair Tripoli after a one-sided battle on 1 August 1801."