Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Seems this keeps coming up again and again.

This should clear the air.

http://country-facts.findthedata.com/q/1/14298/What-type-of-government-does-United-States-have

The reason it is a federal republic is the following:

Federal republic - a state in which the powers of the central government are restricted and in which the component parts (states, colonies, or provinces) retain a degree of self-government; ultimate sovereign power rests with the voters who chose their governmental representatives.

Democracy is defined as a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but which is usually exercised indirectly through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed.

So in the end we have a Federal Republic that elects its leaders through a democratic process.

Source's: http://www.indexmundi.com/united_states/government_type.html

The term Federal exists from the Federal Republic.

The government was not labeled or set up as "Democratic Republic"

Glad we can put this to bed.

It doesn't matter what it was labelled at at foundation- that's an absurd measure to work from (the world is littered with nations that claim to be in name what they are not). What matters is what definition it matches. As you say, democracy covers all countries where people power is channelled through elected representatives- which matches the US entirely.

'Democracy' is a large umbrella term of which 'Republc' is a sub-type, generally used these days to refer to representative democracies without a monarch.

So, as a lot of people have tried to make clear, the US is both a democracy AND a republic. 'Republic' is the type of democracy it is. If you use a democratic process for power, you come under the heading of 'democracy'. That's how people use the word.

What democracy does NOT have to mean, as some people seem obsessed with, is direct rule by the people i.e. majority rule- such a fringe and tiny idea as to be effectively irrelevant to the word.

LOL@" it doesn't matter". As usual, you foreigners are showing your ignorance of anything American. It most certainly does matter. Your not American so your opinion is moot. I've shown plenty of proof in the other thread that we are a republic but I guess people like u don't even bother to read any of the links I posted. As far as I know, the pledge of allegiance hasn't been changed recently nor has the Constitution or Declaration of Independence been changed to include the word "democracy" in either document so yeah, sorry but you're wrong. We are a republic.

zIOPw0Ewj4Q

Originally posted by Star428
LOL@" it doesn't matter". As usual, you foreigners are showing your ignorance of anything American. It most certainly does matter. Your not American so your opinion is moot. I've shown plenty of proof in the other thread that we are a republic but I guess people like u don't even bother to read any of the links I posted. As far as I know, the pledge of allegiance hasn't been changed recently nor has the Constitution or Declaration of Independence been changed to include the word "democracy" in either document so yeah, sorry but you're wrong. We are a republic.

This is nonsensical garbage- and stop saying that non-American voices do not count. You have not shown any proof at all- simply a ludicrous internal bias that prevents you from seeing any other facts except those that conform to your absurdly narrow world-view. All of your 'proof' is rooted in a misconception of the meaning of democracy. I'll go for the OED for this one- the world's foremost authority on historical usage of the English language:

Government by the people; esp. a system of government in which all the people of a state or polity (or, esp. formerly, a subset of them meeting particular conditions) are involved in making decisions about its affairs, typically by voting to elect representatives to a parliament or similar assembly.

Does the term 'by the people' ring any bells?

The amount of things wrong with your posting here defies belief. First of all, your nationalistic-obsessed attempt to shut out non-American opinions. Secondly, your mantra-like droning on about how 'we are a republic', which does not even do the courtesy of reading other people's arguments, when they tell you that democracy and republic are not exclusive, showing you are not interested in joining in any sort of debate, merely ignorant posturing. Thirdly, your obsession with saying the "if the Declaration of Independence doesn't say we are a democracy, then we are not a democracy" line- a statement utterly lacking in context, historical analysis, the sense of what words mean and any comprehension of the power of names and labels that would make this any sort of relevant point to make at all. And finally, the hilarious echo chamber of your argument, which revolves entirely around an inaccurate definition of democracy which is only used by the small subset of people your views tend to represent, which takes 'preaching to the choir' to a whole new level. Democracy does not mean what you think it means. Basing the argument on an erroneous definition- often with the conscious objective of trying to call other people out on it- is in poor taste.

If you attempt to find ways the word 'democracy' is used in the modern day that do not match the US- and generally western- system of government, you will almost completely fail; you might find some vague semblance of direct democracy in Switzerland, but that's about it. In the overwhelming, vast majority use of the word, it means elected representative government.

You are as completely and utterly wrong as you can get, and hanging onto such an ill-formed view with a vice-like grip makes you look foolish. Any nation where people power is channelled through elected representatives is a democracy. The UK, France, Spain, Germany, Sweden, Canada- all democracies. Not a single one exercises democracy in the weirdly pejorative term you want to apply to it. The US joins that list. As the US is a democracy that does not have an elected monarch, it fits the modern day use of 'Republic' as well. Those are the facts. You ignoring them is a conscious decision on your part to act the fool.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
This is nonsensical garbage- and stop saying that non-American voices do not count. You have not shown any proof at all- simply a ludicrous internal bias that prevents you from seeing any other facts except those that conform to your absurdly narrow world-view. All of your 'proof' is rooted in a misconception of the meaning of democracy. I'll go for the OED for this one- the world's foremost authority on historical usage of the English language:

Government by the people; esp. a system of government in which all the people of a state or polity (or, esp. formerly, a subset of them meeting particular conditions) are involved in making decisions about its affairs, typically by voting to elect representatives to a parliament or similar assembly.

Does the term 'by the people' ring any bells?

The amount of things wrong with your posting here defies belief. First of all, your nationalistic-obsessed attempt to shut out non-American opinions. Secondly, your mantra-like droning on about how 'we are a republic', which does not even do the courtesy of reading other people's arguments, when they tell you that democracy and republic are not exclusive, showing you are not interested in joining in any sort of debate, merely ignorant posturing. Thirdly, your obsession with saying the "if the Declaration of Independence doesn't say we are a democracy, then we are not a democracy" line- a statement utterly lacking in context, historical analysis, the sense of what words mean and any comprehension of the power of names and labels that would make this any sort of relevant point to make at all. And finally, the hilarious echo chamber of your argument, which revolves entirely around an inaccurate definition of democracy which is only used by the small subset of people your views tend to represent, which takes 'preaching to the choir' to a whole new level. Democracy does not mean what you think it means. Basing the argument on an erroneous definition- often with the conscious objective of trying to call other people out on it- is in poor taste.

If you attempt to find ways the word 'democracy' is used in the modern day that do not match the US- and generally western- system of government, you will almost completely fail; you might find some vague semblance of direct democracy in Switzerland, but that's about it. In the overwhelming, vast majority use of the word, it means elected representative government.

You are as completely and utterly wrong as you can get, and hanging onto such an ill-formed view with a vice-like grip makes you look foolish. Any nation where people power is channelled through elected representatives is a democracy. The UK, France, Spain, Germany, Sweden, Canada- all democracies. Not a single one exercises democracy in the weirdly pejorative term you want to apply to it. The US joins that list. As the US is a democracy that does not have an elected monarch, it fits the modern day use of 'Republic' as well. Those are the facts. You ignoring them is a conscious decision on your part to act the fool.
He doesn't just ignore facts, he ignores anyone who disagrees with him/continually disproves his nonsense.

It's a Federal Republic and a Democracy. Pretty similar to Germany actually, just with a shittier election process, and no separation of head of state and head of government.

Originally posted by Bardock42
and no separation of head of state and head of government.
I've never understood the point of having a head of state who actually runs things along with a ceremonial presidency as in Germany and (though this is changing with Erdogan) Turkey.

In addition to the ton of evidence I posted in the other thread and the two links in my sig here is more:


http://educatorssite.com/?p=411

Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.- John Adams


Democracy is the road to socialism- Karl Marx


http://www.spirituallysmart.com/Republic%20VS%20Democracy.html


A republic is representative government rule by law (the Constitution)... A democracy is direct government ruled by the majority (mob rule)...


Article IV Section 4, of the Constitution "guarantees to every state in this union a republican form of government." No mention of word "democracy".

The reason this is important is that the difference between a democracy and a republic is the difference between collectivism and individualism



I can understand foreigners mistakenly believing that we're a democracy but any American who thinks it should be ashamed of themselves.


And again, the pledge of allegiance makes no mention of the word "democracy" but only "republic".

Neither the US founding father, the federalist papers, nor the pledge of allegiance nor Karl Marx, have any influence on how words are used today. And the United States fits the definition of democracy that is commonly used and is, therefore, a democracy.

Even if the constitution would say that the United States is not a democracy, but rather a giant green ball of chewing gum, it wouldn't change the fact that the Unite States of America are a democracy under the current understanding of the term.

Oh, just to drive the point home, here are several agencies of your country defining democracy, calling the United States a democracy, and endorsing democracy:

http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/publication/2008/06/20080623194736eaifas0.658703.html#axzz3ayJtmb6I

http://www.state.gov/j/drl/democ/

http://www.gpo.gov/libraries/core_docs.htm

I don't understand what Star thinks a democracy is?

Is he thinking of direct democracy? Of which there is like one or two in the world?

Why does he think that republic and democracy are mutually exclusive?

How do elections work in his mind?

Originally posted by krisblaze
I don't understand what Star thinks a democracy is?

Is he thinking of direct democracy? Of which there is like one or two in the world?

Why does he think that republic and democracy are mutually exclusive?

How do elections work in his mind?
The real question is what his endgame is. If the United States is a "Republic" rather than a "Democracy," what difference does it make? What's the implication he's trying to demonstrate? It seems like for Star this has just become some kind of obsession and he's compelled to "correct" others for pedantry's sake.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The United States of America is a Constitutional Democratic Federal Republic.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_q76.html



So is the thread done, now? That's about as specific as we can get about the government type.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's a Federal Republic and a Democracy. Pretty similar to Germany actually, just with a shittier election process, and no separation of head of state and head of government.

Yep

We are supposed to be a democracy. If you asked the president if we are a democratic society he would say "yes". You can certainly argue if the country behaves that way, but the government at least considers itself democratic.

Originally posted by krisblaze
I don't understand what Star thinks a democracy is?

Is he thinking of direct democracy? Of which there is like one or two in the world?

Why does he think that republic and democracy are mutually exclusive?

How do elections work in his mind?

He's mistaking democracy for ochlocracy. He is, as usual, gravely mistaken.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
The real question is what his endgame is. If the United States is a "Republic" rather than a "Democracy," what difference does it make? What's the implication he's trying to demonstrate? It seems like for Star this has just become some kind of obsession and he's compelled to "correct" others for pedantry's sake.

I suspect it's some kind of a roundabout way of discrediting the Democratic Party, while at the same time propping up the Republicans.

Originally posted by krisblaze
I don't understand what Star thinks a democracy is?

Is he thinking of direct democracy? Of which there is like one or two in the world?
?

This is pretty much it- every source he posts is suffering from the same irrelevant fallacy. It really is one of the most feeble displays I've seen.

Look at the first link he posted above- pretty much every single thing it says about democracy is simply and demonstrably untrue.

As for his endgame- there isn't one. Like I said, this is a giant echo chamber. People like this think they are proving a point but their terms of reference means they are only speaking to themselves. There's nothing to be won or lost in the debate because there's absolutely no engagement with any sort of rational discourse. The only result is that the speaker looks silly.

Star428- advice here for sensible rational discourse. Your links are terrible. There;s no point just finding people that match your own beliefs and quoting them- that does not magically enhance your argument. Your links have to be from a source that adds weight. I quoted from a dictionary whose entire job is to research historical and current usage- the largest effort in that direction in the world. Bardock quoted from your own government self-defining as democracy. These sources have weight. You keep quoting ranting, partisan sites that do not in turn source their basis and then you seem confused and angry when they don't convince anyone, but if you took time to think about that it should come as no surprise, because they are utterly unconvincing.

The other thing you have to try and bear in mind as any sense at all of context. John Adams was talking about direct democracy- that is not synonymous with the word 'democracy' itself, it is merely a type that does not apply to the way the word is used, particularly today. So, for the last time:

Countries where the public elects people to represent them in government are democracies. Your contention that 'democracy' means majority rule is wrong. Please reference the fuller definition I gave above.

To all the people who are claiming that we are both a democracy and a republic, you're wrong too. Just because we use a democratic process to elect our officials doesn't mean that our government type is democracy or even a democratic republic as some of u claim. We don't make laws or amend them using a democratic method but a republic one. We have 3 branches of government (checks and balances). They keep each other in check. It's a limited government ruled by the Constitution. In a republic, the Constitution grants inalienable rights to every individual that can never be taken away by a simple majority vote of either the general populace (pure democracy) or of any representative body (representative democracy). The fact that the Constitution protects the individual or minorities from the majority is the defining point of what makes this country a republic. Democracy doesn't come into it at all. When laws are finally passed it took a Hell of a lot more than a simple majority vote (which is all that a democracy would require) to pass them.




It was made quite clear that the founding fathers thought democracy was one of the worst government types and that the people of that period would accept no other form of government other than a republic. If the founding fathers knew about all the so-called "americans" of today who claim we're a democracy or even a democratic republic they' be turning over in their graves. Our form of government is a republic and nothing but a republic... Period.

Originally posted by Star428
To all the people who are claiming that we are both a democracy and a republic, you're wrong too. Just because we use a democratic process to elect our officials doesn't mean that our government type is democracy or even a democratic republic as some of u claim. We don't make laws or amend them using a democratic method but a republic one. We have 3 branches of government (checks and balances). They keep each other in check. It's a limited government ruled by the Constitution. In a republic, the Constitution grants inalienable rights to every individual that can never be taken away by a simple majority vote of either the general populace (pure democracy) or of any representative body (representative democracy). The fact that the Constitution protects the individual or minorities from the majority is the defining point of what makes this country a republic. Democracy doesn't come into it at all. When laws are finally passed it took a Hell of a lot more than a simple majority vote (which is all that a democracy would require) to pass them.



It was made quite clear that the founding fathers thought democracy was one of the worst government types and that the people of that period would accept no other form of government other than a republic. Our form of government is a republic and nothing but a republic... Period. There are state laws that are passed with a majority vote.

Originally posted by Star428
To all the people who are claiming that we are both a democracy and a republic, you're wrong too. Just because we use a democratic process to elect our officials doesn't mean that our government type is democracy or even a democratic republic as some of u claim. We don't make laws or amend them using a democratic method but a republic one. We have 3 branches of government (checks and balances). They keep each other in check. It's a limited government ruled by the Constitution. In a republic, the Constitution grants inalienable rights to every individual that can never be taken away by a simple majority vote of either the general populace (pure democracy) or of any representative body (representative democracy). The fact that the Constitution protects the individual or minorities from the majority is the defining point of what makes this country a republic. Democracy doesn't come into it at all. When laws are finally passed it took a Hell of a lot more than a simple majority vote (which is all that a democracy would require) to pass them.




It was made quite clear that the founding fathers thought democracy was one of the worst government types and that the people of that period would accept no other form of government other than a republic. If the founding fathers knew about all the so-called "americans" of today who claim we're a democracy or even a democratic republic they' be turning over in their graves. Our form of government is a republic and nothing but a republic... Period.


More lack of context and failure of understanding.


A. the Founding Fathers were only talking about direct democracy- as is evident, because the system they introduced wa a a democracy

B. This statement:

"Just because we use a democratic process to elect our officials doesn't mean that our government type is democracy"

... is in this context completely wrong, because that you democratically elect representatives of the people absolutely 100% makes the US a democracy

C. This statement:

"In a republic, the Constitution grants inalienable rights to every individual "

... is also wrong. There is nothing innate about a Republic which means it has to have a constitution. There are plenty of Republics which don't have much in the way of such legal protection. All you need to be a Republic in the modern day is a. elected government and b. not have a monarch. All your talk about checks and balances has nothing to do with being a Republic either, and plenty of non-Republics have similar measures.


The only thing in this thread that would make the Founding Fathers turn in their graves is your disgraceful ignorance and stubborn refusal to engage in any form of rationality in such matters. Your attitude is exactly what they would not have wanted.

By Stars definition Switzerland is the only democracy in the world

One more reason to hate the Swiss.

Even Switzerland generally governs via representation; it just has some direct elements in it. There is nowhere in the world that conducts its day to day affairs via direct democracy.

The Founding Fathers, frankly, also thought a lot of stupid things for all the good they did. At least some of them, anyways.

Though I remember seeing some kind of documentary or special where it said most of the Founders would hate America as it is today. Maybe hate is too strong a word, but they'd despise it. At least according to the special. Then again it was on History channel so who knows.

Yes, let's take the direct word of the slave owning founding fathers. Sure nothing bad will come of that

Originally posted by Surtur
The Founding Fathers, frankly, also thought a lot of stupid things for all the good they did. At least some of them, anyways.

Though I remember seeing some kind of documentary or special where it said most of the Founders would hate America as it is today. Maybe hate is too strong a word, but they'd despise it. At least according to the special. Then again it was on History channel so who knows.
Well they certainly wouldn't understand it.

I think the problem with the Founding Fathers in a modern context is that certain people will try to "claim" the Founding Fathers to support their own political positions.

Both parties do it, but Republicans seem to like it a lot more than Democrats, probably because their small-government worldview is more in line with the Founding Father's notion of government. It's a is-ought (or more appropriately a "was-ought" fallacy. Simply because the Founding Fathers held a belief--even what was a prudent belief--at one time doesn't mean that we should be automatically beholden to the same beliefs today.

Personal morals aside, the basic principle of government the Founding Fathers espoused was the balance of powers within government. They talked about that in the context and language of their day, and people who look at that without context misinterpret like crazy.

The principle of balance of powers still holds- but pretty much every single western nation holds to that principle, despite the efforts of many to say the principles have been lost. For that matter, the FFs hardly had a monopoly on the idea of power balance in government being a good idea.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Yes, let's take the direct word of the slave owning founding fathers. Sure nothing bad will come of that

Yes lets make this about slavery/racism now.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Yes lets make this about slavery/racism now.


I'm merely giving an example of how the founding fathers are not omniscient and thus their word can not be taken with absolute certainty.

Originally posted by Lestov16
I'm merely giving an example of how the founding fathers are not omniscient and thus their word can not be taken with absolute certainty.

Has nothing to do with each other. Europeans actually started slavery, which was common practice in those days. Actually most of the world has had some form of slavery. Jew's were slaves in Egypt, and massacred in WW2, but they still are not bitching about it. They pulled out of it, and are now the richest people in the world.

In no way does this mean "the Founding Fathers didn't know what they are doing" and you don't have to be omniscient to form a government.

Originally posted by Surtur
We are supposed to be a democracy. If you asked the president if we are a democratic society he would say "yes". You can certainly argue if the country behaves that way, but the government at least considers itself democratic.

After the signing of the Constitution, Benjamin Franklin was asked by a woman. "What have you given us, sir?"

He responded "A Republic, if you can keep it."

Jews not bitching about it.

lmfao.

Jews do nothing but ***** about holocaust.

Originally posted by krisblaze
Jews not bitching about it.

lmfao.

Jews do nothing but ***** about holocaust.
Real talk. There are four or five holocaust museums in New York alone, whereas there's only one official museum dedicated to the history of black slavery in America in all of the USA, and that was just opened this year.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Has nothing to do with each other.

I don't think it's completely irrelevant. If the Founding Fathers could be so completely wrong about something we now consider one of the most important issues in American history, then ignoring it would be to whitewash history.


Well, yeah, but there are lots of things that are "common practice" today that we shouldn't do and will likely be condemned by future societies for doing, such as governments spying on their own citizens, police officers killing unarmed suspects with impunity, putting high fructose corn syrup in literally every food, and lots of stupid agricultural/ecological practices. I agree it's worth considering that the Founding Fathers grew up in a slaveholding society and so were brought up with these wrongheaded values, but for people who are championed as being progressive (almost to a prophetic level in some people's eyes) thinkers and reformers, it's a bit embarrassing that the issue of slavery wasn't even a matter of serious debate for them.


Well I don't think Lestov, or anyone in this forum, would say that the FFs were completely clueless about everything. The Founding Fathers did what very few revolutionary groups in all of history have accomplished: forming a stable, prosperous, and free nation. I think you're misinterpreting the critique of the FFs on a Pedestal mindset. It isn't that we think the FFs were stupid or completely morally bankrupt, it's just that they were flawed humans who shouldn't be idolized or held as an unchanging standard of governance in perpetuity.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial

Jew's were slaves in Egypt, and massacred in WW2, but they still are not bitching about it.
Originally posted by krisblaze
Jews not bitching about it.

lmfao.

Jews do nothing but ***** about holocaust. Originally posted by Omega Vision
Real talk. There are four or five holocaust museums in New York alone, whereas there's only one official museum dedicated to the history of black slavery in America in all of the USA, and that was just opened this year.



Originally posted by Omega Vision
I don't think it's completely irrelevant. If the Founding Fathers could be so completely wrong about something we now consider one of the most important issues in American history, then ignoring it would be to whitewash history.


Well, yeah, but there are lots of things that are "common practice" today that we shouldn't do and will likely be condemned by future societies for doing, such as governments spying on their own citizens, police officers killing unarmed suspects with impunity, putting high fructose corn syrup in literally every food, and lots of stupid agricultural/ecological practices. I agree it's worth considering that the Founding Fathers grew up in a slaveholding society and so were brought up with these wrongheaded values, but for people who are championed as being progressive (almost to a prophetic level in some people's eyes) thinkers and reformers, it's a bit embarrassing that the issue of slavery wasn't even a matter of serious debate for them.


Well I don't think Lestov, or anyone in this forum, would say that the FFs were completely clueless about everything. The Founding Fathers did what very few revolutionary groups in all of history have accomplished: forming a stable, prosperous, and free nation. I think you're misinterpreting the critique of the FFs on a Pedestal mindset. It isn't that we think the FFs were stupid or completely morally bankrupt, it's just that they were flawed humans who shouldn't be idolized or held as an unchanging standard of governance in perpetuity.

Not that I'm defending slavery but free workers in the hundreds when that's all you're brought up with is a tough thing to just turn down for an entire country.

What would even compare to that convenience in today's society? Cars?

Lol

Originally posted by Branlor Swift
Not that I'm defending slavery but free workers in the hundreds when that's all you're brought up with is a tough thing to just turn down for an entire country.

What would even compare to that convenience in today's society? Cars?

So human rights can be ignored out of pragmatism?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I don't think it's completely irrelevant. If the Founding Fathers could be so completely wrong about something we now consider one of the most important issues in American history, then ignoring it would be to whitewash history.


Well, yeah, but there are lots of things that are "common practice" today that we shouldn't do and will likely be condemned by future societies for doing, such as governments spying on their own citizens, police officers killing unarmed suspects with impunity, putting high fructose corn syrup in literally every food, and lots of stupid agricultural/ecological practices. I agree it's worth considering that the Founding Fathers grew up in a slaveholding society and so were brought up with these wrongheaded values, but for people who are championed as being progressive (almost to a prophetic level in some people's eyes) thinkers and reformers, it's a bit embarrassing that the issue of slavery wasn't even a matter of serious debate for them.


Well I don't think Lestov, or anyone in this forum, would say that the FFs were completely clueless about everything. The Founding Fathers did what very few revolutionary groups in all of history have accomplished: forming a stable, prosperous, and free nation. I think you're misinterpreting the critique of the FFs on a Pedestal mindset. It isn't that we think the FFs were stupid or completely morally bankrupt, it's just that they were flawed humans who shouldn't be idolized or held as an unchanging standard of governance in perpetuity.

Maybe they don't stop talking about it cause there are some groups who deny its existence. But this is not the first time the jews were enslaved. Happened in Egypt as well.

Originally posted by krisblaze
Jews not bitching about it.

lmfao.

Jews do nothing but ***** about holocaust.

There is no reason to be upset.

Originally posted by Lestov16
So human rights can be ignored out of pragmatism? I'm not talking about human rights (of which that wasn't exactly an issue in that society), I'm saying it was the easiest ride in the history of anything for pretty much any owner.

Even if they were against it we saw what happened when it was a threat to be taken away. Of which I'm sure they knew would be the consequence if they tried.

If you contrast it with todays society it'd be like taking away all horseless transportation for us or some other shit we hold dear. I'm not saying they were good people, but morals aside slavery was like winning the lottery for almost every white person that owned land.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Maybe they don't stop talking about it cause there are some groups who deny its existence.
The stated position of most Jews is that they remind the world continually about the Holocaust to prevent similar tragedies from occurring. The fear isn't that the Holocaust will be denied, but forgotten.

Originally posted by Branlor Swift
Not that I'm defending slavery but free workers in the hundreds when that's all you're brought up with is a tough thing to just turn down for an entire country.

What would even compare to that convenience in today's society? Cars?
I think the closest analogue would be a lot of current agricultural/food production practices that are detrimental to both human health and the environment but are continuing because they're profitable/easy.

And you can argue that the South actually hamstringed its own economic development by using slaves instead of creating a strong top-to-bottom economy. Slaves outcompeted poor whites in getting jobs (leading to unemployment), and because slaves were paid so little (if they were paid at all) they couldn't spend any money and so there was little consumer-driven economic growth.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I think the closest analogue would be a lot of current agricultural/food production practices that are detrimental to both human health and the environment but are continuing because they're profitable/easy.

And you can argue that the South actually hamstringed its own economic development by using slaves instead of creating a strong top-to-bottom economy. Slaves outcompeted poor whites in getting jobs (leading to unemployment), and because slaves were paid so little (if they were paid at all) they couldn't spend any money and so there was little consumer-driven economic growth. So basically the ease in which we get food?
Which is big. But you're talking direct analogue, I'm speaking of the most important thing we do or close to it. Which might still be that. Hmm.

There's a reason it wasn't priority one. Though it did get phased out relatively shortly after. That South though...

They just didn't want to give it up, which is understandable. The possible detriment to the economy wouldn't have been too important in the face of all that free labour though considering how many were slave owners. They were personally making money by doing almost nothing. That's pretty much the dream isn't it?

Though now that you mention it I am curious about there being details on non slave owners during that time. How poor they were and the economy and such and such. Not challenging you, just more for my reading.

Originally posted by Branlor Swift
So basically the ease in which we get food?
Which is big. But you're talking direct analogue, I'm speaking of the most important thing we do or close to it. Which might still be that. Hmm.

That would be an oversimplification. Not all time saving or cost saving food production measures are bad. Mechanical harvesting for instance saves time and labor and in most cases doesn't change the quality of the food harvested.

But I don't think slavery was "the most important thing" that people did in the FF's time. Maybe around 1850 when the abolition debate was issue #1 it took on a cultural significance in the South that would qualify as such, but not in 1789.


Yeah, the reason being that the Founding Fathers failed to appreciate the moral consequences of slaveowning.


Well that's another oversimplification. Slaveowning statistics show that the huge plantations as depicted in Django were the exception not the rule. Half of all slave owners in 1860 had fewer than five slaves, and the majority of the rest had no more than 20. You're not making money hand over fist with three or four people, no matter how industrious you are or how hard you drive them. It was a very small sliver of the population (something like 1% as it happens) who actually had a big economic stake in slavery. I don't think the benefits of slavery are what made people defend slavery--it was the belief that slaves were property, and personal property was sacred.

T
Just stumbled on this: https://books.google.com/books?id=-VMEAAAAMBAJ&l (go to page 110)


Fascinating really. The South was basically the same as it is today in some respects: filled with poor people complacent with or supporting institutions and forces that keep them poor.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
That would be an oversimplification. Not all time saving or cost saving food production measures are bad. Mechanical harvesting for instance saves time and labor and in most cases doesn't change the quality of the food harvested.

But I don't think slavery was "the most important thing" that people did in the FF's time. Maybe around 1850 when the abolition debate was issue #1 it took on a cultural significance in the South that would qualify as such, but not in 1789.


Yeah, the reason being that the Founding Fathers failed to appreciate the moral consequences of slaveowning.


Well that's another oversimplification. Slaveowning statistics show that the huge plantations as depicted in Django were the exception not the rule. Half of all slave owners in 1860 had fewer than five slaves, and the majority of the rest had no more than 20. You're not making money hand over fist with three or four people, no matter how industrious you are or how hard you drive them. It was a very small sliver of the population (something like 1% as it happens) who actually had a big economic stake in slavery. I don't think the benefits of slavery are what made people defend slavery--it was the belief that slaves were property, and personal property was sacred.

T
Just stumbled on this: https://books.google.com/books?id=-VMEAAAAMBAJ&l (go to page 110)


Fascinating really. The South was basically the same as it is today in some respects: filled with poor people complacent with or supporting institutions and forces that keep them poor. If you contrast it to today I don't see why we'd allow combines and sprayers and stuff like that. It should be just as hard no?

It was like 1/5th of the population back then.
That seems pretty significant to me. That's quite a high fraction of essentially free workers. Just because it got bigger later on doesn't mean it wasn't huge to begin with.

I'm not speaking of morals. Though there was a difference back then. I'm speaking of a large number of people doing absolutely shitty work for basically nothing. Which morals or not is a tough thing to simply stop. It's actually astounding to me they'd even try and stop this considering how ingrained it was.

I'm not speaking of huge plantations. Everything I'm saying is coming from a labourer who (when he worked I guess) did some hard shitty work. Any sort of worker you can get is a huge benefit, even moreso when you don't have to pay.
It doesn't matter if you have 1, 2, or 100 slaves. Every single one is huge. Every single one is someone who you can pay whatever you want. Someone who you can force to work beyond their limits. It's work most people don't want to do anyway but they have to.
Maybe not everyone got a free ride, but the people who owned slaves had life a lot easier than if they didn't.

And property and benefits aren't mutually exclusive. Had they lost slaves that was just another worker they had to pay to compensate or slow the process had they not matched what they lost, either way that's direct money they're losing. Was personal property sacred because it was yours or was it sacred because it served a huge benefit? Maybe a little of both, but you can't tell me they didn't see the benefits of them when that's the purpose of them in the first place.


I'm not saying slavery was good, or the founding fathers weren't morally corrupt. I'm just saying that slavery was really retardedly beneficial, and it's understandable why this was not the first thing given up.
I don't really care on the prior discussion of how their opinions matter, just weighing in on slavery. They could have all been child rapists for all it matters to me.

Also
"He could not beat drums or blow horns"

I don't know why that made me laugh. What a terrible place

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Has nothing to do with each other. Europeans actually started slavery, which was common practice in those days. Actually most of the world has had some form of slavery. Jew's were slaves in Egypt, and massacred in WW2, but they still are not bitching about it. They pulled out of it, and are now the richest people in the world.

In no way does this mean "the Founding Fathers didn't know what they are doing" and you don't have to be omniscient to form a government.



He also seems to be forgetting or perhaps he's ignorant of the fact that it is his black African ancestors who sold us those slaves and that it was a republican (Abraham Lincoln) who freed them.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
After the signing of the Constitution, Benjamin Franklin was asked by a woman. "What have you given us, sir?"

He responded "A Republic, if you can keep it."



Exactly. That's the problem: keeping it. The dumbing down of America has made too many people apathetic and ignorant of their rights granted to them by our republican form of government. They don't realize that the government is the servant of "We, the people" and that the power is in the people's hands. How could they? They're constantly bombarded by lies from everyone (the media, the movies, forums like this one, even the POTUS himself) that we are a democracy. They have been made ignorant of this country's roots. Many don't even think it was founded on Christianity when the evidence is overwhelming that it was. The government wants people to stay ignorant of their roots. It's not a coincidence that the pledge of allegiance and praying were both removed from school classrooms long ago. Both of those are strong connections to our nation's roots. The pledge clearly states that the flag stands for a republic and that we are "One nation, under God".

Originally posted by Star428
He also seems to be forgetting or perhaps he's ignorant of the fact that it is his black African ancestors who sold us those slaves and that it was a republican (Abraham Lincoln) who freed them. This is going to turn out well

Originally posted by Star428
He also seems to be forgetting or perhaps he's ignorant of the fact that it is his black African ancestors who sold us those slaves and that it was a republican (Abraham Lincoln) who freed them.





Exactly. That's the problem: keeping it. The dumbing down of America has made too many people apathetic and ignorant of their rights granted to them by our republican form of government. They don't realize that the government is the servant of "We, the people" and that the power is in the people's hands. How could they? They're constantly bombarded by lies from everyone (the media, the movies, forums like this one, even the POTUS himself) that we are a democracy. They have been made ignorant of this country's roots. Many don't even think it was founded on Christianity when the evidence is overwhelming that it was. The government wants people to stay ignorant of their roots. It's not a coincidence that the pledge of allegiance and praying were both removed from school classrooms long ago. Both of those are strong connections to our nation's roots. The pledge clearly states that the flag stands for a republic and that we are "One nation, under God".

The pledge of allegiance is not connected to your nations roots, it was composed over a hundred years after the United States was founded. The words "under God", that you seem to treasure so much, were only added 60 years ago, it has absolutely nothing to do with the founding fathers or the roots of the nation.


Additionally, you keep conflating indentured servitude to the chattel slavery, which are not at all similar. To make this false comparison, minimizes the dehumanising atrocity of chattel slavery, most famously perpetrated by the United States. Additionally the idea that Africans sold their own people also shows a misunderstanding of regional politics at the time, tribes in Africa at the time did not consider themselves African, and they didn't sell their own people, they sold captives of enemy tribes.

Originally posted by Star428
He also seems to be forgetting or perhaps he's ignorant of the fact that it is his black African ancestors who sold us those slaves and that it was a republican (Abraham Lincoln) who freed them.





Exactly. That's the problem: keeping it. The dumbing down of America has made too many people apathetic and ignorant of their rights granted to them by our republican form of government. They don't realize that the government is the servant of "We, the people" and that the power is in the people's hands. How could they? They're constantly bombarded by lies from everyone (the media, the movies, forums like this one, even the POTUS himself) that we are a democracy. They have been made ignorant of this country's roots. Many don't even think it was founded on Christianity when the evidence is overwhelming that it was. The government wants people to stay ignorant of their roots. It's not a coincidence that the pledge of allegiance and praying were both removed from school classrooms long ago. Both of those are strong connections to our nation's roots. The pledge clearly states that the flag stands for a republic and that we are "One nation, under God".


Also, it's a miracle that "In God We Trust" has not been removed from our currency yet.

Originally posted by Star428
Also, it's a miracle that "In God We Trust" has not been removed from our currency yet.

That's would be tragic, it has such a long and respectful 60 year old history....

Originally posted by Star428
Also, it's a miracle that "In God We Trust" has not been removed from our currency yet.
This is what happens when you ignore everyone--you end up talking to yourself.