The Fouding Fathers (U.S.) Didn't Care about the Constitution

I will respond in the same numeration as Con. 1. "Racism yet Equality" theory: My opponent has yet to make this paradox anything less than a paradox. In his theory he admits the Founders were indeed racist, but that they supported equality (social, political etc.). The paradox is as follows: Being a racist requires the belief that one race is superior to another, that they are inherently unequal. If a man in power is racist and under the belief that a minority is inherently inferior, what logic does the racist use to deem the minority deserving of equal treatment? Why would a racist contradict himself by promoting equality? My opponent continues to conflate abolitionism with equality, every single quote is about slavery, there is no mention of wanting blacks to coexist, be citizens, run for office, or vote or any reference to true racial equality. As noted before, one can be an abolitionist and still be racist, Thomas Jefferson is a perfect example [12] Warning: VERY racist things are said. Racism (and the abuse that stems from) in the North was just as prominent as racism in the South [13], the only difference was the extreme of slavery. My opponent has yet to show that the Founders wanted true equality. The Founders may not have been directly responsible for the oppression, but the Founders agreed with the racist sentiment of inequality and knew that Constitution would not help blacks in their time given the racial attitudes of the day. Con may wonder "If the Founders were truly racist why would they want to free blacks in the first place?" There were many reasons at the time. The contradiction of liberty for all (except slaves), genuine distaste, fear of slave rebellions (which happened often [14]), slavery in general was an untenable economic system, and it was bad for foreign relations [15]. Con's interpretation of the American Colonization Society is off. The goal of the ACS, regardless of the motive, was to send blacks back to Africa. The goal was support by both slave holders and abolitionists. As shown in Round 3, many Founders were members of the ACS, this shows intent (and general feelings of racism). My opponent notes that the goal of the ACS was based on consensual deportation, this is true but irrelevant. Of course it had to be based on consent; it's obvious by the failure of the ACS that blacks did not want to return to Africa. Forcing a mass deportation would have triggered the rebellion and racial vengeance the Founders wanted to avoid in the first place. Con also criticizes the source because it only sites the racist beliefs of Finley, but he disregards the other motives of Finley (which can be said of all of the members, both good and bad) quote: "[Finley] saw colonization as a charitable work, one that would benefit American blacks and Africans alike through the spreading of Christianity to Africa. He also thought that it would prompt a gradual end to slavery. In keeping with the popular thought of the day, Finley saw the presence of blacks in America as a threat to the national well-being and the quality of life for whites. He said that free blacks were "unfavorable to our industry and morals" and that removing them would save Americans from difficulties such as interracial marriage and having to provide for poor blacks." Note the words "popular thought" this extends to the Founders too who were members and not. Some members of the ACS genuinely thought it would be better for blacks to go back; this reflects the common form of paternalistic racism "whites know what's best for blacks". It's obvious by the failure of their goal that whites did not know best. 2. Voting Rights: Con presents a good analysis on this part. The Constitution doesn't say who can and can't vote, they leave it up to the States. However as noted in part 1 the Founders knew the racial climate of the day and they knew their neutrality would continue white supremacy, the first black men in congress were elected in 1870 after the Civil War. However there is a false assumption "Obviously, if the Founding Fathers were strictly against the freedoms of certain people, they would state this in the terms of the document." This is untrue. Art 1 Sec 9 prohibits Bills of Attainder, which in short means the federal government can't pass a law the specifically targets and punishes a group of people. This clause can explain the neutrality of the Constitution. Even in the 3/5 clause is affected by this forced neutrality, as noted it does not mention race, but "those bound to service for a number of years". Even though there is neutral language the Founders knew it would not equate to equality. Art 1 Sec 10 prohibits the States from passing Bills of Attainder too, yet this language did not protect blacks during or after the Founding Era. As for our Founders being influenced by Rome, here is the evidence "The Founders' political ideas were largely informed by Roman republican and imperial ideas. They sought to create a mixed constitution that balanced monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. (This is why our nation is not technically a democracy.)" [16]. As for Founders quotes against Democracy the source is here [17]. I won't re-quote to save characters, so please look into the source. 3. The 3/5 Clause: Given that the Slave States had no legal right to count their property as population for electoral purposes (given that slaves had no political rights) the Compromise seems more of a capitulation. You keep mentioning how few of the Founders owned slaves (only 13 out of 55 if I recall); you didn't cite this claim in any round. Yet upon investigation it seems of the 55 delegates at the Constitutional Convention 49% owned slaves or directly supported slavery [18]! This throws your entire argument for a loop doesn't it, you know, the whole abolitionist intentions of the Founders and what not? You say the 3/5 clause helped slaves by limiting slaves states ability to pass pro-slavery laws in Congress, yet as noted in Round 1 congress passed the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 (a bill imposed on the Free North) and the slave owning Washington signed it! Furthermore the Institution of slavery dramatically expanded from almost 700,000 slaves in 1790 to almost 4 million slaves in 1860 [19]. Had the 3/5 clause been a detriment to slavery it sure didn't seem like one. Also this may be insignificant but had it truly been an equal compromise wouldn't it have been called the 1/2 Clause? Constitutional Violator: George Washington: Violated Art 6 "all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land" George Washington violated numerous peace treaties with Native Americans that he himself established. "President George Washington, while addressing the Seneca nation in 1790, publicly pledged to uphold their "just rights" and described the pre-Constitutional defrauding of the Indians out of their land as "evil" ... In March and April of 1792, Washington met with 50 tribal chiefs in Philadelphia ... including the Iroquois ... to discuss closer friendship between them and the United States. Later that same year, Washington stressed the need for building peace, trust, and commerce with America's Indian neighbors. ... In 1795, in his Seventh Message to Congress, Washington expressed that if the US government wanted peace with the Indians, then it must give peace to them, and that if the US wanted raids by Indians to stop, then raids by Whites must also stop" [20] "In 1779, George Washington instructed Major General John Sullivan to attack Iroquois people. Washington stated, "lay waste all the settlements around...that the country may not be merely overrun, but destroyed". In the course of the carnage and annihilation of Indian people, Washington also instructed his general not "listen to any overture of peace before the total ruin of their settlements is effected". (Stannard, David E. AMERICAN HOLOCAUST. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. pp. 118-121.) "In 1783, Washington's anti-Indian sentiments were apparent in his comparisons of Indians with wolves: "Both being beast of prey, tho' they differ in shape", he said. George Washington's policies of extermination were realized in his troops behaviors following a defeat. Troops would skin the bodies of Iroquois "from the hips downward to make boot tops or leggings". Indians who survived the attacks later re-named the nation's first president as "Town Destroyer". Approximately 28 of 30 Seneca towns had been destroyed within a five year period. (Ibid)" [21] Citation: [12] http://abagond.wordpress.com... [13] http://slavenorth.com... [14] http://www.pbs.org... [15] https://answers.yahoo.com... [16] http://hauensteincenter.org... [17] http://www.whatourforefathersthought.com... [18] http://www.quora.com... [19] http://www.dcte.udel.edu... [20] http://en.wikipedia.org... [21] http://www.greatdreams.com...