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

Dear Pro, I will now create a rebuttal for each of your arguments. First, however, I must remind the voters to read my previous argument if they have not done so already. Voting without doing so would be unfair, as you would lack important information on both myself and my opponent's opinions. 1. My opponent falsely asserts that racists cannot accept equal rights among those they are opposed to. However, this is far from the truth. Let us use a modern-day example of 'tolerance' as evidence. In today's society, a large percentage of Americans are anti-gay (Source 1). However, these Americans still allow homosexuals to vote, hold jobs, and have the same Constitutional rights as others. The same concept applies with those of different races. Though a few of the Founding Fathers may have been racist against non-whites, they still encouraged the rights and freedoms of those of other races (Source 2), as they believed that all Americans were endowed to the same freedoms. As I have stated in my previous argument, almost all Founders were for the abolition of slavery (Source 3). I had provided quotes from many of the Founders to defend their intentions on creating equality between the races (Source 2). As I have stated, 42 out of the 55 Founders who attended the Constitutional Convention were not slave owners (Source 3). An even larger number opposed slavery, and supported equal rights for all. Once more, we must realize that one does not have to support a certain group in order to accept their rights and freedoms. As with the LGBT conflict today, almost 100% of our Founders supported the abolitionist movement, regardless of whether they were 'racist' or not. This debate revolves around whether the Founders valued the Constitution - it is not thoughts, but actions, that matter the most. What the Founders thought about non-whites is irrelevant, rather, their actions supporting equal rights are what truly show whether they valued the Constitution. My opponent himself later admits that 'one can be an abolitionist and still be racist'. The Founders who my opponent calls 'racist' were against slavery and for equal rights, irregardless. The Founding Fathers did want 'true equality' - as seen in the quotes from my previous argument, the Founders were not just against slavery, but also for absolute equal rights for all Americans, regardless of race. A few of my favorite quotes showing that the Founding Fathers supported absolute equal rights and freedoms for all Americans include (Source 2): Samuel Adams: "But to the eye of reason, what can be more clear than that all men have an equal right to happiness?" John Witherspoon: "[I]t is certainly unlawful to make inroads upon others . . . and take away their liberty by no better means than superior power." These founders both show that non-whites should not just be free from slavery, but also have the absolute same rights and freedoms as whites. Witherspoon advocates for the full liberty of blacks, while Adams states that all men (at the time, the term 'men' also referred to women (Source 4)) should 'have an equal right to happiness'. Obviously, my opponent's assertion that the Founders did not want whites and non-whites to access the same liberties is nothing but a blatant lie. My opponent next argues that all members the ACS (Source 5) did not believe that blacks had a place in the United States. As stated in my previous argument, not all ACS members were racist, in fact, a majority were not. Many ACS members, most likely including the Founding Fathers, wanted to give blacks the option to go to Africa, as they were (Source 5) 'genuine allies of free blacks, and were concerned for their welfare'. The Founders realized that blacks would most likely not be able to enjoy the same rights as whites in the near future due to anti-abolitionist activists, and wanted to give them the option to live a better life in Africa. Of course, relocation to an African colony was strictly optional, as my opponent admits. Many members of the ACS wanted the best for the African-Americans, and so let them choose whether to relocate or not, depending on where they thought they would have a better lifestyle. Once more, my opponent solely quotes Rob Finely, an individual member of the ACS who (a) was not a Founding Father and (b) did not agree with many ACS members on the true intention of the organization. Notice that the source my opponent used about the ACS also states that many members of the organization were genuinely concerned for the welfare of blacks and wanted to relocate them to Africa only because they would most likely face persecution from anti-abolitionists if they stayed in the US (Source 6). 2. My opponent seems to be working against himself in this part of the debate. He first agrees that I have presented a 'good analysis' on the manifestation of the Founders' true Constitutional intentions, and later sites Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution (Source 7), which states that 'No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.' Notice that this section bans laws that discriminate against certain groups of people (Source 8). My opponent admits that the Founders did not want blacks, or any minority group, discriminated against, as provided in the terms of the document. My opponent also establishes the neutrality of the Constitution. The Founders did this solely to prevent conflict. The Founders realized that many Americans would revolt if the document contained terms they disagreed with, and so maintained neutrality in order to maintain peace. My opponent next compares the Founding Fathers' intentions to those of Rome (Sources 9 and 10). Please note that the sources that my opponent uses compare Rome to America only in terms of geography, nicknames of the Founders, and economic systems. His sources say nothing whatsoever about the Founders encouraging slavery/limiting the right to vote because of Roman principles. The Founders did not want to be like Rome in terms of equality, rather, they looked to Rome for economic guidance. In fact, the sources of my opponent admit that the Founders strayed away from Roman ideas of freedom in that 'empires can injure freedom if there are few checks and balances' (Source 9). 3. You accuse me of not using sources when stating that only 13 out of 55 Constitution signers owned slaves AT THE TIME OF THE CONVENTION - I did, every time. In fact, I will cite the source for this claim again (Source 3). My source specifically states that 12 of the Constitution signers had slave plantations, with one more owning a personal slave. Notice that at the time of the Constitutional Convention, only 13 Founders owned slaves, while more could have owned slaves previously. However, many previous slave owners, who had owned slaves while children on their parents' plantations or as young adults, had recognized the wrong in their ways and freed their slaves. At the time of the Convention, 42 had realized that slavery was wrong (a clear majority). This debate focuses on those who signed the Constitution, and at the time of the signing, much less than 49% of the Founders had slaves. Even if 49% were slave owners, we are looking for a majority, and 49% is not one. A clear majority of the Founders opposed slavery (Source 3), showing that a majority also supported equal rights. Furthermore, my opponent's source for his argument is unreliable, as it comes from a question-answer site that anyone can edit (Source 11). As I have stated earlier, the 3/5 Clause was made to hurt slave owning states and help those who opposed slavery (Source 12). Slave-owning states had to pay more direct taxes because of their slave population, while they got less representation in Congress (Source 12). 4. My opponent seems to want to only criticize four Founders - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison. Apparently, he can find no wrong in the actions of any other Founding Fathers. Notice that 55 Founders attended the Constitutional Convention, while my opponent can find evidence to criticize only two. My opponent, who supposedly has the BoP, would need to provide evidence against a majority of those who signed the Constitution in order to win the debate. He has only managed to find evidence against four, two of which did not even sign the document. Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison are not a majority of the Founders, rather, they are a minuscule percentage, not nearly enough to prove that a majority of the Founders didn't value the Constitution. Overall, my opponent has failed to provide evidence against a majority of the Founders, instead citing only four who he thinks were against ideas of liberty and equality. Finally, I will provide valid reasons for voters to vote for me (feel free to check the validity of my claims): Sources - I provided 25 sources. My opponent provided 21. Spelling - My opponent fails to capitalize many proper nouns and makes various spelling mistakes (above). Conduct - My opponent calls me 'dishonest', 'without merit', etc. I treat him with respect throughout. Arguments - I provide rebuttals for each of my opponent's claims, he does not do so. Thanks (I've run out of characters)! 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://econfaculty.gmu.edu... 3. http://www.archives.gov... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. http://www.pbs.org... 6. http://en.wikipedia.org... 7. http://www.law.cornell.edu... 8. http://en.wikipedia.org... 9. http://hauensteincenter.org... 10. http://www.whatourforefathersthought.com... 11. http://www.quora.com... 12. http://wiseconservatism.com...