Ask Me Help Desk - Those "Old" founders .

Those "Old" founders .

I've heard it repeated here that the founders were a bunch of "old" white guys. Well here is a refute to the "old" charge .
Here are some of the prominent founders and influential people of the Revolution.

Marquis de Lafayette was eighteen years old in 1776, when he was offered the rank of Major General in the American army.

Alexander Hamilton, at the age of twenty-one, received his commission as Captain of a New York artillery company. He went on to successfully lead his men through critical battles with the British in and around New York City. Hamilton’s military performance and writing skills so impressed George Washington that the General appointed young Hamilton as his personal aide, and promoted him to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. He served with distinction through the rest of the war.
As a teenager, Hamilton had already written essays arguing for American independence from Britain. His abilities in writing, law, and political theory were at least as great as his military prowess, and he went on after the war to co-author the famous Federalist Papers with James Madison and John Jay.

At the age of twenty-five, James Madison played a pivotal role by representing Virginia’s Orange County in the drafting of his state’s Constitution. Starting that same year, he continued to be a leader in the Virginia state legislature, where he was notable as an advocate for religious freedom.
While in college, he and some friends formed a political club for discussing oppressive British policy. After the war, he went on to serve as the youngest member of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, co-wrote the Federalist Papers with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, and served as President of the United States during the War of 1812.

John Jay was thirty years old when he served as a delegate to New York’s constitutional convention, where he had a formative influence on the creation of that major state’s new governing documents. From there he continued to be influential within the New York legal system. Jay had initially sought reconciliation with Britain, but in 1776 became an ardent American patriot and advocate for the ideal of liberty, including the liberty of African-American slaves.
He went on from the war to serve as ambassador to France and Spain, as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and as co-author of the Federalist Papers.

At the age of thirty-three, Jefferson, already then serving as a member of Virginia’s state legislature, was selected by his peers to draft the Declaration of Independence.
[Taken from Generation Opportunity web site .]
Happy 4th of July! - Generation Opportunity

This would put all of them in the Millennial generation today. As the site says : If those young Americans had just sat back and let older generations make decisions for them, the United States wouldn’t be the independent nation it is today.

Interesting to note that Jay was an abolitionist before such were in vogue. This gives the lie to the "white slave owners" myth as well. Anyone want to tackle the "rich white guys" meme?

But at what age did they (and people in general) die during those times? And how productive were they in their later years?

Hamilton was struck down when he was middle aged in the duel with Aaron Burr . Both John Adams and Jefferson died on July 4 1826 on the 50th Independence Day. Laffayette died in 1834. I did not check Jay or Madison . But as you see ,they lived to ripe old ages .

I think perhaps the statement that they were "old white guys" might have had two components one of which you have not addressed. Now I know it is hard to address the other component because of what the society was at the time, but the fact is they came from an essentially british society which enjoyed a great deal of privilige if for no other reason that it was a society based on slavery. Where is the representation from the very large slave class population who were for political purposes invisible, non-citizens? These men did not write laws for the benefit of that population

Quote:

I think perhaps the statement that they were "old white guys" might have had two components one of which you have not addressed. Now I know it is hard to address the other component because of what the society was at the time, but the fact is they came from an essentially british society which enjoyed a great deal of privilige if for no other reason that it was a society based on slavery. Where is the representation from the very large slave class population who were for political purposes invisible, non-citizens? These men did not write laws for the benefit of that population

There's that "white slave owners" meme I was talking about. It is gratifying to note that you mention our common parent society as the slaver, rather than the more common stereotype of Yankee traders inventing the concept.

Yes the british were essentially slave traders rather than slave owners, slavery wasn't endemic in the british isles but rather something they did in the colonies far from the sight of polite society, nor was it a particular british invention but nevertheless the rights of certain people were ignored by those most noble of founders who considered the trade something that later generations might form a different view on. Those in the colonies were happy to profit from slavery and continue the system beyond their newly won freedom. We are all aware of the outcome as the enlightment and its ideas came late to the americas in this respect. The american revolution may have been the catylist to change many ideas in in britain but in a reactionary sense

A look at the US Constitution will give us a glimpse of the political turmoil of the day. Then like now, there were people on both sides of the argument. Slavery was just one of the issues. We see that a compromise had to be made, for them to even accept the US Constitution. Section 9 Article 1

The compromise was that the Federal Government would not interfere till after 1808 on matters of slavery. It also allowed the Federal Government to interfere in any new state that would be formed, or in any US territory.
This compromise was won by General Pinckney who was representing slave owners from North and South Carolina and Georgia. It also in Article IV allowed for slaves to be returned, if they fled to another state. But also did not require if they escape to a territory or a new state.

This and other restrictions on Federal power, was one of the reasons, James Madison refused to sign the Constitution. Only 39 of the 50 delegates actually signed the Constitution. Some were absent, but some absent were gone due to protest of the document.

The same issues we have today, over power of the Federal Government, fear of the power of the Supreme Court, domestic and international affairs, were all issues then also...

Today, our Congress could not even come close to passing the US Constitution. It would be in committee for the next 20 years.

I intentionally tried to avoid slavery and the allegeded wealth of the founders in this op because I have addressed those in previous posts.

the founders interested me because ,unlike the youth of today with their noses buried in their i pods sexting and playing video games ,the founders self schooled themselves in the classics and the enlightenment theories. The link I provided is a call for the new generation to emulate the founders .

Quote:

Quote:

I intentionally tried to avoid slavery and the allegeded wealth of the founders in this op because I have addressed those in previous posts.

the founders interested me because ,unlike the youth of today with their noses buried in their i pods sexting and playing video games ,the founders self schooled themselves in the classics and the enlightenment theories. The link I provided is a call for the new generation to emulate the founders .

yes Tom only wanting to discuss what you want to discuss and not the disgusting views of those you hold in high esteem. if these men were flawed in that view they were flawed in others and today the society you have is teh result of those flaws. let me say it again Tom, flaws, and flaws you have sought to impose on others

All you are doing is using 21st century standards to judge 17th Century men ...You show an amazing lack of intellectual honesty . By all measures ;most of the founders were light years ahead of their time regarding human rights.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

I intentionally tried to avoid slavery and the allegeded wealth of the founders in this op because I have addressed those in previous posts.

the founders interested me because ,unlike the youth of today with their noses buried in their i pods sexting and playing video games ,the founders self schooled themselves in the classics and the enlightenment theories. The link I provided is a call for the new generation to emulate the founders .

Tom, The Founding Fathers were the intellectuals of their day. They were the educated elite of that society. You didn't often come across the butcher, the baker and the candle-stick maker discussing a comparison of Locke and Hobbes.

so the young adults of today do not have that ready made excuse for not being educated since public school education is mandatory .

Those founders did not ahve the diversions of today therefore lively debate was a part of their society

you are getting close to my point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

so the young adults of today do not have that ready made excuse for not being educated since public school education is mandatory .

My comment wasn't a criticism, it's just the way things were. With privilege came certain benefits, such as education.

there should be more youth with the intellectual curiosity and the activism today then there were at the time of the founding . Instead what we get is something like the Occupy movement ,a fad with a disjointed ,almost unintelligible philosophical premise . I've seen it demonstrated often enough that the kids of today spend their free time binge watching 'Orange is the New Black' ,and as I previously mentioned ;could not pass a basic citizens test given during the naturalization process.

Tom you want that, then you have to remove some modern benefits

Quote:

remove some modern benefits

Like State Laws?

USC doesnâ€™t want to teach the Constitution, despite state law | The Daily Caller

Are you kidding me? A student raising hell? Well why don't you see if he has a valid argument or is he blowing smoke to get attention. You do know they have a law curriculum at U of SC don't you?

I think someone is blowing a whole lot of smoke here

Quote:

blowing a whole lot of smoke

Yes, the University president.

Quote:

University of South Carolina president Harris Pastides is refusing to comply with a state law that requires all public universities to teach students about America’s founding documents, including the Constitution, calling it “archaic.” In a bit of irony that is apparently lost on Pastides, USC claims the state law is itself unconstitutional.

University President Calls Law Requiring Study of Constitution â€˜Archaicâ€™

Then the SC legislature has to make its case that he is NOT following the law (the way they want*). What do they want, a required course? That's a bit unclear from the source allegations from the conservative legislature.

*From your original link,

USC doesnâ€™t want to teach the Constitution, despite state law | The Daily Caller

Quote:

Broggi is running for president of The USC's student government, and stressed that he would press the administration to follow the law if elected to office http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png. It is important for students to have a rudimentary understanding of the U.S.'s founding laws so that they will know if their rights are being violated by the government, he said.

Is the issue formal classes promoting a conservative view of the constitution? Sure it is as both of your sources said so. We have this fight in Texas every few years also.

Tea Party Groups In Tennessee Demand Textbooks Overlook U.S. Founder's Slave-Owning History

Quote:

The latest push comes a year after the Texas Board of Education approved revisions to its social studies curriculum that would put a conservative twist on history through revised textbooks and teaching standards.
The Texas revisions include the exploration of the positive aspects of American slavery, lifting the stature of Jefferson S. Davis to that of Abraham Lincoln, and amendments to teach the value of the separation of church and state were voted down by the conservative cadre. Among other controversial amendments that have been approved is the study of the "unintended consequences" of affirmative action.
The board approved more than 100 amendments affecting social studies, economics and history classes for Texas's 4.8 million students.
The influence of the amended textbooks will likely reach far beyond the state of Texas. The state is one of the largest purchasers of textbooks, and many other states adopt Texas's books and standards.
The curriculum changes were pushed through by a majority bloc of conservative Republicans on the Texas school board, who have said the changes were made to add balance to what they believe was a left-leaning and already-skewed reflection of American history.
"There is some method to the madness besides vindicating white privilege and making white students feel as though they are superior and privileged and that that it is the natural order of things," Gary Bledsoe, president of the Texas State NAACP, told The Crisis magazine last year about this time. "The agenda being pushed and the ultimate impact intended is to make young people automatically identify with one political party."
A number of groups, including the NAACP, the Texas League of United Latin American Citizens and the Texas Association of Black Personnel in Higher Education have joined forces to beat back the measures, which they said would have a negative impact on minority children... "They voted down a motion that requires students to be taught about the terrorism brought about by the Ku Klux Klan and what they did to ethnic and racial minorities, but they turn around and pass a provision that requires the teaching of the violence of the Black Panther Party."

The conservative bandwagon has reached SC.

What's wrong with the conservative bandwagon? Is it because we like our rights as envisioned by the founders and enumerated in the constitution?

Attachment 46245

I can get with your rights, but they aren't the only rights that's liked by the citizens nor is the conservative band wagon the only one that people want to get on. Conservatives aren't the only ones with rights you know. Nor is it the view of everyone.

Tal, we are not the ones denying your rights and creating new, special interest rights like free birth control. We are the ones PROTECTING your rights, not trying to silence speech you don’t like, spying on and intimidating the media, trying to take away your gun and your religious rights – all specifically enumerated. Your side is at war with those rights. You’re welcome for us standing up for them.

I think someone is still blowing a lot of smoke

Well said by the guys who stand up for enumerated rights and stand by and do nothing when innocents, and kids get slaughtered in their classroom, and a movie, or a pizza house, or a church. Thanks for defending everyone's rights to be victim of a loony with a gun.

but that is eveyone's right courtesy of the second amendment by which noone is safe, you don't have the right to safety becuase noone thought you needed it. Now Tom is going to tell us that if you think you need it all you have to do is amend the constitution

I googled it. Apparently the last amendment is the 27th. It took 202 years to ratify. I think Tom is pretty safe.

No tom is no more safe than anyoneelse, someone can stick a gun in his ear anyday

Quote:

Well said by the guys who stand up for enumerated rights and stand by and do nothing when innocents, and kids get slaughtered in their classroom, and a movie, or a pizza house, or a church. Thanks for defending everyone's rights to be victim of a loony with a gun.

Thank YOU so very much for supporting those who forced us to stand around unarmed in classrooms, movie theatres, pizza houses, and churches. Your defense of everyone's right to be a victim of Neo-feudalists' programs to drug students has been wildly successful. It wasn't a total success, or the body count would be higher.

Why are americans so angry and violent as to gun down people in classrooms, movie theatres, pizza houses, and churches?

NK, those are CRAZY people who can get their hand on guns easily, and LEGALLY, but some nuts get them because they are available to them. Crazy doesn't mean dumb, just potentially dangerous. Criminals get them easily, and don't care about the legal.

Then you have the gun NUTS who trust NO ONE and are so paranoid they sacrifice safety and common sense for THEIR rights. Then you have the 90% of Americans who have common sense but no clout or money to fight the right wing extremists who are paranoid... and LOUD.

Quote:

you don't have the right to safety

What Tom will say is that you have a right to self defense. What Tom often says is that when seconds count ;the police are minutes away.

Quote:

I googled it. Apparently the last amendment is the 27th. It took 202 years to ratify.

The 27th was ratified in 1992 and it addressed Congressional pay . Yeah it took some time to build momentum before passing . That just means it took time to build a consensus for the need . The 26th ;which changed the voting age ,took 4 months to pass from conception.

Les Racines de vie Montessori April 5 ,2003 ,York University March 6,2014 ,École Polytechnique Dec 6 ,1989 ,Concordia U Aug 24,1992 ....Why are canadians so angry and violent as to gun down people in classrooms ?

I agree fully with that statement Tom, but have a problem with a gun owner having the right to kill if he FEELS threatened. Too many loopholes for my sensibility, and who needs a 30 round clip for a semi automatic rifle? Hunters surely don't. Got no problems with the firing range though.

Blind people? You surely border on insanity with that one. As with a doctor verifying a potential dangerous situation when he prescribes certain medications.

Quote:

Why are americans so angry and violent as to gun down people in classrooms, movie theatres, pizza houses, and churches?

Those aren't Americans... those are Liberals that do that MOST of the time.

We aren't so scared that we need to arm the whole populace in order to protect ourselves. The number and scale of our events pale in comparison to yours which are now a weekly occurrence. Why are their so many "crazy" people with guns?