Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

BulletDog15 OP wrote (edited )

Reply to comment by ziq in What is anarchy? by BulletDog15

Your statement doesn't hold very much juice. I've heard many people make this argument about the Founding Fathers and it gets disproved every time. Now, idk if you'll even read this but, it needs to be said on a site like this:

The Founding Fathers did not create a state specifically to rule people. As a matter of fact, they never intended to create their own nation. People were actually living normal lives as colonists. What lead to the founding was unfair taxation. The UK had these colonies as a source of income. It was more people to collect tax from. The unfair and unregulated taxation is what made people mad. Ever heard of the Boston Tea Party? The American Revolution wasn't necessarily to create a new nation, it was to stand up to the unfair rule of the British (I'm surprised you guys aren't more on board with the American Revolution). So the argument that they "formed a state to rule people" (I'm quoting you) holds no real value.

To address your "uphold slavery" and "white supremacy" statements: I'm not so sure about white supremacy. In fact, many of the founding fathers, including the ones who owned slaves, struggled with the idea of slavery. The idea of slavery was never really a race issue until much later because people of all races at the time enslaved other people of all races, Americans used blacks as the slave trade between Europe and Africa existed.

Most of the founders wished to grant slaves freedom and citizenship, while some did not, those who did not didn't view slaves as a full person. So there was the 3/5 Compromise which made each slave 3/5 of a person. Many founding fathers freed their slaves upon their deaths, like George Washington. Thomas Jefferson, while being a slave owner, believed the US could be torn apart by slavery. So the Founding was never a "white supremacy" issue, it was a slavery issue. An issue that they let the future solve

Now to address the "patriarchy": Yes, the US was technically founded on a patriarchy where only men held rights. Now, that did not mean the Founders forgot about women. There is not a single line in the Constitution that says that women cannot have rights. Yes, it does say "men", but the Constitution was written in a way that the definition of "men" could be adjusted. When the Constitution says "man", they mean all of mankind. Mankind includes women, this new definition of "man" was then extended to blacks and any non-white person.

If you actually pay attention to the documents that founded the US you'll actually be surprised. Yes, the founding fathers lived in a extremely conservative and, at times, regressive, they did think of the future. If they were truly racist, sexist, tyrants, they would have reflected as such in the Constitution and the US would not be the power it is today. The Founding Fathers were not stupid.

Besides, your argument takes the superficial details of the Founders and capitalizes on it to push an idea that you want to spread (that's very capitalist of you), and completely ignores everything else. Yes these details existed, but everyone seems to forget that the Founding Fathers did not forget to address their own flaws. Like I said, the Founding Fathers, as flawed and imperfect as they were (I'm sorry people aren't perfect btw), were not stupid.

−3

OdiousOutlaw wrote

Ever heard of the Boston Tea Party? The American Revolution wasn't necessarily to create a new nation, it was to stand up to the unfair rule of the British (I'm surprised you guys aren't more on board with the American Revolution)

Beating back one nation to become a new nation doesn't win support here. Otherwise, we'd be praising a number of Communist nations such as Cuba (which we don't).

To address your "uphold slavery" and "white supremacy" statements: I'm not so sure about white supremacy. In fact, many of the founding fathers, including the ones who owned slaves, struggled with the idea of slavery. The idea of slavery was never really a race issue until much later because people of all races at the time enslaved other people of all races, Americans used blacks as the slave trade between Europe and Africa existed.

What race did slave owners in the US during the time of the founding fathers identify as? You know, the slave owners that are actually relevant to topic.

Most of the founders wished to grant slaves freedom and citizenship, while some did not, those who did not didn't view slaves as a full person. So there was the 3/5 Compromise which made each slave 3/5 of a person. Many founding fathers freed their slaves upon their deaths, like George Washington. Thomas Jefferson, while being a slave owner, believed the US could be torn apart by slavery. So the Founding was never a "white supremacy" issue, it was a slavery issue. An issue that they let the future solve

Yeah, they released their slaves once they literally could not use them anymore. Didn't stop them form literally owning people during their lives; the only time where they had actual agency. What a garbage talking point.

Yes, it does say "men", but the Constitution was written in a way that the definition of "men" could be adjusted. When the Constitution says "man", they mean all of mankind.

The fact that you outright admit that the definition of "man" changed over time actually undermines your argument. They either meant it that way to begin with or it changed.

Mankind includes women, this new definition of "man" was then extended to blacks and any non-white person.

Except back then social convention dictated that non-whites were sub-human and were happy in slavery (which is exactly why several slaves tried to escape slavery through running away or armed rebellion). "Man" had specific criteria back then that went through shifts to become what it is now; applying this "progressive" mindset to historical figures that were also influenced by these social conventions is the definition of ahistorical.

Are you even aware of the difference between stated values and actual values?

5

lettuceLeafer wrote

So there was the 3/5 Compromise which made each slave 3/5 of a person

That's not what the 3 fifths compromise was. It comes from an argument over if slaves should be determined as people for population counts to determine how many representatives sent to the house for each state. Slave owners wanted slaves to be counted as people why people who lived in states with few slaves wanted slaves to be considered not as people.

I'm not going to refute anything else you say bc you're not trying to argue froma place of truth. You idolize the founding fathers so it's impossible for you to view evidence of them being anything less than perfect. You really should learn how to respect things figured have done but not idolize them so you don't have to defend the fucked up shit they have done. It's both possible and good to aknowlege good things people do but not defend the anti freedom things they have done.

4