Posted on

"Founded By Slaveholders", A Non-thinker's Argument

Founded by Slaveholders!

There is a popular admonition floating around about our nation’s founding. It is intended to cause deep soul searching or inflict discomfort and shame in the American listener.

A reasonable listener could be excused, with reasonable provenance, for reaching a different conclusion about the admonition and the purveyors of it.

I would take this shallow scold less seriously if it were restricted to Facebook trolls wanting to make noise and FEEL intelligent. Sadly, it has been popular on college campuses and in otherwise respected books and publications.

The Admonition

In order to “shout down” a person who may seem to some as too nationalistic or patriotic, it is popular among liberals and those who think we should be more like Europe, for example, to remind us that “all but one” of the founding fathers were slave owners. A quick poison pill qualification often follows in the form of, “…and I don’t want to hear about the morals of the time. That has nothing to do with it!”

Firstly, the pronouncement is inaccurate and shows how we have come to venerate the centralization of power that the Revolution fought against. The qualification ignores the progress already being made at that time against slavery. The qualification also rings of “…don’t try to confuse me with facts. I’ve already made up my mind!”

Well, with all due respect to those who reject any thinking on the part of the listener, I will point out the following:

The Founding Fathers, we are more and more often told, consisted of seven people. Washington, Franklin, Adams, Jefferson, Jay (I am surprised he survives this modern myth), Hamilton and Madison.

As a young adult, and an avid reader of history, I discovered this elementary school list was far from complete. We remember their names because, unlike many of the others who risked death and ruin, they stayed around after the founding to take the reins of the very power they had created by expelling the Crown. We remember their names because it is a short list and it is easy to teach children about them.

One of the sillier results of this simple-minded notion of our founding is the beatification of the U.S. Government. Most people at that time knew this was not what people fought and died for from 1775-1781. Local governance remained as the proper locus of power. But the Civil War and popular myths surrounding these seven “fathers” fostered the concept of “The United States” vs “These United States.” It cemented, sadly, the idea that real government exists only in DC. State and local governments are just the junior league. There really is an amazing number of people who think our system of government was set up so that the federal government could do as much as possible, and the state governments should bat cleanup and fight for federal dollars.

Who will deny that the average American sees an election as a populist federal exercise? I would contend that less than 10% of all Americans know who is on a state or local ballot until they enter the voting booth.

Enough on the peripheral effect. Let’s deal with who “founded our nation” and the revisionist moralizing aimed at these founders.

There were more than seven!

I was reading a friend’s FB post the other day. It made the same point that I am arguing against here. He said of the founding fathers, all but one owned slaves. When I called him on it he, for some reason, changed the term to the “founding framers”.  An odd change, and further from the truth than the original claim.

Here’s that fact that muddies the waters. There were 56 founding fathers. 56 people pledged their property, lives and honor to US independence. 56 men traveled from all over the east to Philadelphia. 56 debated seriously, often passionately, about our allegiance to the Crown. Not all believed we should break with Britain. But they would, by 2 July 1776, agree to do so. They all took the same risks. 56 families and yes, even the slaves of those who held them, were put at risk as well.

We only know the big seven as near godlike because they would hold positions of power that long exceeded the Revolution and the creation of the US Constitution. It can be argued, and history supports this, that these seven spent those decades vying for that very power.

Of the 56 who actually did the work of creating this nation, 41 (73%) were slaveholders. Not all but one.

As for the “framers” (There is no accepted term “founding framer”. That’s a new one.), 27 (49%) of the representatives from the various states were slaveholders. So from 1776 until 1787 the trend among those who shaped the nation was drifting toward abolition already.

“…I Don’t Want To Hear About The Morals Of The Time!”

Well suck it up, buttercup. You can apply modern thinking to people of other times, but it doesn’t change what has already occurred. You can wish your own motivations into the hearts of those long dead. But criticizing the constitution because some of the framers were slaveholders is like saying Mickey Mantle knew nothing about baseball because he drank too much whiskey.  To remove the morals of the time from consideration is to discount your own credibility. And it is a form of pouting.

But take heart. As it turns out, modern ideas about slavery were already taking root in some quarters during these early years. The delegates to the Continental Congress AND the Constitutional Convention who argued against slavery were not expelled from the events. In fact, the anti-slave faction was able to at least get the Three-Fifths Compromise through to blunt the voting power the slave states were claiming. Slave states were insisting slaves counted against their census. It was a small victory, but a victory.

The economics of it all

Another canard criticized along with the “morals” dodge is the economics. I have heard it said that the economics argument for not charging ahead with abolition PROVES the founders were immoral. And again, the claim is at a minimum, naïve. At any rate, it is false.

This was at the heart of the matter for people like Gouvernuer Morris and George Mason. They both expressed, quite eloquently, a fear of eternal damnation (if you go in for that sort of thing) at their holding of slaves. But they like everyone in both bodies, Continental Congress and Constitutional Convention, knew that you don’t simply declare the undoing of a massive institution, even one as onerous as slavery, at one go.

Let me give you a modern example.

There are many, I am among them, who see the Social Security system as a corrupt Ponzi scheme. It is also horribly administered and of precious little value overall. It, like Obamacare was a system destined to fail from the very start. Many of you, at or near retirement count on this program to be your lifeline in your old age. It isn’t. You will find yourself in poverty. You have no one but yourselves to blame.

It isn’t all of your own doing. The federal government has repeatedly told you it is intact and that to keep it going in the future will require only minimum adjustments. They have not stated emphatically enough that it will not provide you with the retirement income you will need to live well. They have not admitted that with each month they wait to actually fix it, there is a greater chance that those already dependent on the system will suffer. Your fault lies in having believed any of it.

All the said, you can’t take something as vast as Social Security and simply declare today that it won’t exist tomorrow. You can’t even repair it in that fashion. It takes time. The economic and social impact must be attenuated to absorb the impact. After a long hard slog of un-brainwashing people as to its value, the system must be gradually replaced by a more effective and sustainable free-market program.

Slavery was seen in the same light. Slaveholders like Jefferson and Mason knew two things. Slavery was immoral, and contract or employee work was far less expensive. They also knew that in order for the American economy to survive the end of slavery other slaveholders, at least a strong plurality, would have to see the logic of this. For an individual to simply give up his slaves in a market dominated by slaveholders would leave him at an insurmountable disadvantage. By the time everyone else might have caught on, that business may lay in ruin.

The result would be to reaffirm the need for slaves in the minds of those who were holding out.

If the government simply mandated an abrupt end to slavery across the board the economic and legal chaos would have ended the American experiment before it got started. Yes, in order for there to be an America in which we would one day end slavery, there had to be an early time in which slave state and free state would exist side-by-side.

Now, even though I am writing this paragraph, there will be people shrieking at my comparing slavery to Social Security. There is no comparison, they’ll cry. Morally, the comparison is one of degree. Certainly holding generations of Americans in forced labor, and beating them in some cases, is a far greater offense than taking their money under false pretense. But both concepts are wrong.

And I stand by the economic comparison without apology.

But Why The Silly Admonition To Begin With?

The complaint about the “Founding Fathers” holding slaves is a red herring tossed into many conversations when respect for the Constitution comes up. The fact is, if your original argument for an issue is strong enough, you can change the Constitution to reflect that.

But as I heard on Glenn Beck’s radio show a few weeks back, no one WANTS to wait that long for anything. On that particular day, Beck’s issue was tax reform. And the truth is, to have permanent and effective tax REFORM, you must REFORM tax law. Reducing taxes does very little. The government can jack taxes right back up on a whim.

The reform must take place in the way we collect taxes and how much the government is limited to collect. Beck mentioned changing the Constitution and he and the entire cast all agreed that we shouldn’t have to wait that long to get something done.

Beck is not alone. We have several generations in this country that think every notion and difficulty they have should be acted on and solved by the government NOW! And if you tell them to form an argument and see if it will pass muster and then change the constitution…

…Oh boy…

…That’s when it comes out. Having no argument or lacking the skill to make one, they simply say they shouldn’t have to follow the Constitution because it was written a long time ago by white men, or rich men, or old men, or slaveholders, or NOT WOMEN,…

The invalid arguments are endless. And they have been in play in our government since FDR. That is why we have lost so many rights and so much of our personal wealth over the last 70 years.

Through our ignorance about our Constitution the government has not only been able to whittle away what you need to succeed and protect yourself, but YOU have fallen prey to moronic arguments about the foibles and sins of the “founding fathers”, as if they invalidate our governing documents.

This, and the “poison pill” I referred to earlier, are called a fallacious argument. Look it up and learn something.

When I started to post regularly in 2012 I lamented the lack of political and social maturity in the United States. I now despair that thanks to the echo chambers of social media, things have gotten much worse.

I’d love to be proven wrong about that.

Matt Jordan is the author of Street Politics: It Ain’t Your Daddy’s GOP Anymore! Grab your copy here.

Kindle version here!

Or just start reading for free on Kindle Unlimited!

 

 

 

Posted on

The Convention of States Movement

Grab my RSS while you’re here —>

The Convention of States Movement is now gaining real traction.  I find this exciting for a few reasons, which I’ll discuss below.

What is the Convention of States?

There is a process, championed by George Mason, inserted into the Constitution whereby citizens, can seek to directly make amendments.  This is done by persuading 3/4 of the states to call a Convention of States (CoS). 

Independence Hall, Philadelphia,blue sky, convention
Independence Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Site of the First Constitutional Convention. The signatories endeavored to correct flaws and abuses in The Articles of Confederation.

In the face of profligate spending and broad overreach by the federal government, a problem stretching back to FDR, the present battle for a Constitutional Convention has been joined.  We are on the cusp of success!  The framers of this movement have chosen wisely to limit the scope of the convention. 

Some people fear that when seated, the CoS will declare itself an open convention.  This is unlikely.  But this author, for one, wouldn’t be opposed to such a move.  While the CoS will move to make a few reductions in federal power, the sad fact is, we are in need of a major reset back to an adult adherence to the Constitution.

But the present CoS is not looking to upset the apple cart to that extent.

You Need to AT LEAST Look at the Project

This process is going to be an interesting one.  And you should be interested.  If a convention is seated it will have a profound impact on how business is done inside the Beltway.  By reigning in the power of the federal government, we will expand the power of your state and local governments.  This is a benefit few people appreciate, so dependent have we become on the big Mommy State.  Most importantly this convention, and the trend in thinking it will inspire, will be a windfall for your personal liberties.

But there is more to it than even that.  One of the most unseemly aspects of the American political scene is the level of ignorance that exists among citizens.  People have no idea even what conservative or liberal means anymore.  Many don’t know, or in some cases do know but don’t care, that their government has ruled over them illegitimately for generations.  

People actually think it is the job of the president of the United States to “run the country” or show “leadership” to congress.  This is the exact opposite of what the founders intended.  And we, as a nation, have bought off on these wrong-headed notions to our detriment.  

But with the CoS movement we have a chance to relearn what we used to know from elementary school Civics classes.   And the learning will be far more interesting than any political campaign; even more exciting than the bread and circus we experienced with the 2016 debacle. 

By just by paying attention to the issues being discussed you will find yourself drawn to the discussion.  Ideas that you might think boring will suddenly take on new meaning.  You will find out quickly where you truly stand on the political/philosophical spectrum in this country.  This is the kind of event that can inspire a renewed sense of true citizenship, far more than petty, partisan politics.

So even if you presently see yourself as disinterested in politics, give the movement a look.  I hope some of you will come back and thank me later.

This movement is for everyone, but I have a special note to conservatives.  We on the right do a lot of shouting about the way things ought to be.  And some did a lot of crowing after the’16 election. Some actually believe we achieved a conservative victory.  Well, if you consider yourself a conservative and a proponent of the Constitution and you don’t get your hands dirty with the CoS Project, you’re not really a conservative. At least not one who can hoot about making America great again, or about respect for our founding documents, in a substantive way.

If you haven’t visited the link to George Mason yet, please take a moment to do so now.  It is short and instructive. Mason.

There are discussions below directly from the CoS website.

Photo Credit: Independence Hall Sangre-La.com Flickr via Compfight cc

Kindle Version, STREET POLITICS: It Ain’t Your Daddy’s GOP Anymore! 50% of all author proceeds go to fighting Multiple Sclerosis!!

 

Grab my RSS while you’re here. Right side, below META.

Save

Save

Save

Save

Posted on

College Loses Bid for University Status

The Office of the Secretary for Higher Education reviewed and rejected a bid by a national college organization to become a university. The bid is controversial since the Secretary’s office said they never even looked into the educational credentials of the college it was reviewing.

“They’re just stupid,” said Melanie Feelings, a spokesperson for the office. “No one likes the college! It’s just a bunch of meanies being old fashioned!”16655857630_0b0c2c24f5_b

Tom Sharp, speaking on behalf of the Electoral College, said he was shocked by the way they were treated. “They told us we had no respect for mob rule and things that are trendy,” Sharp reported. “They told us we should be more open to pan flashes like Donald Trump, or popular criminals like Hillary Clinton.”

The Higher Education Secretary himself, Mr. Schlomo Selfie, released a statement today, excoriating the college. “This organization exists to keep alive the stupid notion that being a citizen of town or a state should actually mean something,” Selfie shouted.  “I suppose next they’ll be supporting the need for states to ratify amendments to the constitution! Everyone knows that Congress and the President should be able to do anything they want. I mean, the nerve!”

12260343885_1b82d0c919

Mr. Sharp is not ready to throw in the towel. “We think we’ll apply at a Western red state. They understand the significance of the Electoral College. They know it is the key to small or sparsely populated states maintaining a say in the makeup and direction of the federal government,” Sharp told Street Politics.

But seriously folks, with each presidential election it becomes increasingly popular, especially among the losing party, to decry our electoral system of government. This shows a lack of understanding of the protections built into our federal election laws or a willful desire to centralize power in heavily populated areas, in an effort to create a truly Orwellian society.

12274217_10153877576240809_6298490738344730827_n

It is unnerving how popular, and effective, being a public crybaby has become.   In the same election the voters elected one and tossed another aside.
B&W photo amseaman Flickr via Compfight cc
Color  Harald Groven Flickr via Compfight cc

Matt Jordan is a travel writer, host of streetpolitics.us and author of 16 20 24: A Path to Consistent Conservative Victory,  on Kindle as: Street Politics: It Ain’t Your Daddy’s GOP Anymore!

Kindle Version, STREET POLITICS: It Ain’t Your Daddy’s GOP Anymore! 50% of all author proceeds go to fighting Multiple Sclerosis!!

Find 16 20 24 on Amazon.

Find 16 20 24 at Barnes & Noble

 

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Posted on

Darrell Castle: Dull to the Dull-Witted.

We live in a world where the two leading candidates are a shallow criminal and an inarticulate populist. Neither is what they claim to be, but a credulous electorate is turning hand stands trying to believe them. Why? Because everybody else is doing it.  In such a world, Darrell Castle will appear dry and dull, like a book on your grandmother’s shelf you have no interest in. The sad fact is, such a book might be worth a look, may teach you a mind-blowing life lesson. But it’s dusty. It has no sexy picture on the front. It has no blurbs. Hell, it doesn’t even have a dust jacket. Boring!

Darrell Castle is running on the Constitution ticket. He is an intelligent, articulate, well-spoken lawyer. He has been a part of that party since it’s founding in the early 90’s.   Castle has been inaccurately portrayed as an isolationist. This is nonsense. He is a non-interventionalist to be sure. What clear-minded American isn’t. History from 1898 until the present day teaches us what a mess can be made by interfering in foreign affairs, especially with the military. We should endeavor to befriend all nations, trade with everyone and be prepared to defend our interests. Those interests shouldn’t include a sudden need to overthrow long-siting dictators or help for religious uprisings just because we can.

Scott Bradley, Castle’s running mate, strikes you as one of those earnest, hard-working people you see at town council meetings and other community events. That’s because he is exactly that. While pursuing his PhD and becoming a major player in the tech industry, Bradley has also involved himself the community and politics in a variety of ways. Wouldn’t it be nice to see someone like that in the White House? Bradley is also a veteran of the Utah National Guard.

If you are an Original Intent voter, if you are unabashedly conservative and want to dump Agenda 21 and the UN, this is the only ticket that can deliver what you want in a candidate. If you believe Trump will even consider any of these things, you are either hopelessly duped or you don’t understand the terms conservative or Constitution. Trump’s barely intelligible conservative claims are all less than three years old. Many are less than a year old.

Castle served in Vietnam as a Marine officer and trained under Oliver North for a time. He is an accomplished lawyer and has established law firms throughout the South and Midwest. In other words, he is not only intelligent, he knows how to make payroll by delivering a real service. That is something totally alien to Hillary Clinton. She knows only graft, spin and outright lying.

Note: That’s a ticket with two military vets on it. I wish I had a nickel for every guy I’ve heard say they believe only people who have worn the uniform should be president. I’m not sure I’ve ever heard a woman say it, but I am sure there are women who believe it. This comes most often from conservative vets. Well, guys, here’s your chance. Donald Trump spent his youth in a protected cocoon. Hillary has shown herself to be utterly disdainful of the military. So let’s see how many of those guys weren’t just blowing words out of your ass.

One last point, Castle infuses a lot of his political thinking with his Christianity. Trump pretends to by mangling scripture and just blurting out vague inanities about the Bible. It’s empty pandering, but people love it.  I have no connection to the spirit world and I do find it funny that someone who represents the constitution party pours so much religion into the mix. The Constitution stands mute on Christianity and only mentions religion as something the government is not to touch. Still, arguments about religion and matters of state are a debate I would gladly have with an honorable president versus a Trump or a Clinton.

What I am saying is that secular conservatives, like myself, who know that the religious freedom protections work both ways should not count Castle out just because he is a religious man. It becomes a single-issue or identity politics problem is you let it interfere with your thinking.

He’s is not a felon and he’s, for damn sure, not a clown.

“The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”  George Orwell