Stupid or subversive?

Southern Man said:
'Oh but those books are old and dusty.' :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

How do you find original intent in books that were either not widely circulated (Madison's Notes and the Convention's Journal) or support opposite interpretations of the Constitution (Federalist Papers and Antifederalist Papers)?
 
flaja said:
You've only lived in the region for 12 years and you think you understand the South? I am a native of the region with ancestry on both sides of my family going back to Jamestown. And I have studied the issue in a formal setting.
Click to expand...
Big deal you don't get knowledge from your blood.
 
flaja said:
How do you find original intent in books that were either not widely circulated (Madison's Notes and the Convention's Journal) or support opposite interpretations of the Constitution (Federalist Papers and Antifederalist Papers)?
Click to expand...
The volume of circulation does not matter. Perhaps you can link to something in the papers you cite that says the opposite of what I quoted from Federalist 41. *shrug*
 
Southern Man said:
The volume of circulation does not matter. Perhaps you can link to something in the papers you cite that says the opposite of what I quoted from Federalist 41. *shrug*
Click to expand...

If there was such a thing as original intent each and every one of these 3,000,000 Americans had a right to know what it was and to be protected by it. If only a few of these 3,000,000 Americans had access to Madison's Notes or the Convention Journal or the Federalist Papers, then none of these 3,000,000 Americans had the benefit of original intent. Therefore original intent did not exist.
 
flaja said:
If there was such a thing as original intent each and every one of these 3,000,000 Americans had a right to know what it was and to be protected by it. If only a few of these 3,000,000 Americans had access to Madison's Notes or the Convention Journal or the Federalist Papers, then none of these 3,000,000 Americans had the benefit of original intent. Therefore original intent did not exist.
Click to expand...

you would be wrong. the prints that were made were read and then disseminated amongst numerous people who then went to each of the states and explained what was discussed and agreed upon. Before each state would ratify the new constitution, it was voted on by the citizens of the states.
 
flaja said:
You get it from a lifetime of experience- which your 12 years residency does not entitle you to claim.
Click to expand...
Actually, since I grew up in the North I was very curious about Southern Culture and history and thus educated myself about same. Since I have experienced both perspectives it gives me a depth of knowledge that I would not otherwise had. *shrug*
 
Southern Man said:
Actually, since I grew up in the North I was very curious about Southern Culture and history and thus educated myself about same. Since I have experienced both perspectives it gives me a depth of knowledge that I would not otherwise had. *shrug*
Click to expand...

And the extent of your education is a limited period of residence and a few museum visits? You shouldn’t presume to have anything close to an in depth understanding of this part of the country any more than a native of this part of the country should presume to ever have such an understanding of yours. It doesn’t take an in depth understanding to understand the basic socio-economic and political power structure of the South, but the depth of your understanding is so shallow that you needed correction on a few basic facts.

BTW: I consider myself to be an American, not a Southerner. The South has a history of slavery, rebellion against legitimate government authority and racial bigotry- all things I find unconscionable and all things I refuse to associate myself with.
 
flaja said:
And the extent of your education is a limited period of residence and a few museum visits? You shouldn’t presume to have anything close to an in depth understanding of this part of the country any more than a native of this part of the country should presume to ever have such an understanding of yours. It doesn’t take an in depth understanding to understand the basic socio-economic and political power structure of the South, but the depth of your understanding is so shallow that you needed correction on a few basic facts.

BTW: I consider myself to be an American, not a Southerner. The South has a history of slavery, rebellion against legitimate government authority and racial bigotry- all things I find unconscionable and all things I refuse to associate myself with.
Click to expand...
Nice straw man of my stated positions and so obvious that I need not address that portion of your post further.

If you knew the true history of The South you'd understand what I've been saying all along; that during the colonial through post antebellum periods was split into regions along both geographical and ancestral lines and that the Piedmont and mountain counties were anti-slavery and in fact were instrumental in defeat of the Confederacy.

Perhaps you should spend some time in the different regions and educate yourself.
 
Southern Man said:
Nice straw man of my stated positions and so obvious that I need not address that portion of your post further.

If you knew the true history of The South you'd understand what I've been saying all along; that during the colonial through post antebellum periods was split into regions along both geographical and ancestral lines
Click to expand...

I haven't said otherwise. What you know from the history you found in books I know from the history of my own family.

and that the Piedmont and mountain counties were anti-slavery and in fact were instrumental in defeat of the Confederacy.
Click to expand...

These regions were anti-slavery to a fairly large extent, but the people that lived there, despite their moral objection to the Confederacy, actively supported the Confederacy to an extent that you either ignore or are unaware of. Part of my ancestry goes through Rowan County and surrounding regions of North Carolina. Rowan County voted against secession when it came time to choose delegates to North Carolina's secession convention. But despite the voters' opposition to secession the delegates voted for secession anyway because they wanted to go along with the crowd. And then once secession came my ancestors and their neighbors (mostly cousins) had no qualms about joining the Confederate armies. I know of at least 5 direct ancestors from NC that served in the Army of Northern Virginia.

Perhaps you should spend some time in the different regions and educate yourself.
Click to expand...

What would my spending time outside of the South have to do with our collective understanding of the history of the South?
 
flaja said:
I haven't said otherwise. What you know from the history you found in books I know from the history of my own family.



These regions were anti-slavery to a fairly large extent, but the people that lived there, despite their moral objection to the Confederacy, actively supported the Confederacy to an extent that you either ignore or are unaware of. Part of my ancestry goes through Rowan County and surrounding regions of North Carolina. Rowan County voted against secession when it came time to choose delegates to North Carolina's secession convention. But despite the voters' opposition to secession the delegates voted for secession anyway because they wanted to go along with the crowd. And then once secession came my ancestors and their neighbors (mostly cousins) had no qualms about joining the Confederate armies. I know of at least 5 direct ancestors from NC that served in the Army of Northern Virginia.



What would my spending time outside of the South have to do with our collective understanding of the history of the South?
Click to expand...

Again, if you get the historical perspective of a different region, you get a better overall understanding. *shrug*
 
SmarterThanYou said:
you would be wrong. the prints that were made were read and then disseminated amongst numerous people who then went to each of the states and explained what was discussed and agreed upon. Before each state would ratify the new constitution, it was voted on by the citizens of the states.
Click to expand...

You mean it was voted on by the white men of the states.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
is it your position then, that since women and minorities weren't allowed voting rights at that time, that the constitution that was written is worthless and we should let the government and the courts invent a new one?
Click to expand...

Not at all. My position is that the Constitution should change to accommodate the growth and circumstances of the country. I don't think the original intent of the Constitution was diminished by its amendments, or case law.
 
christiefan915 said:
Not at all. My position is that the Constitution should change to accommodate the growth and circumstances of the country. I don't think the original intent of the Constitution was diminished by its amendments, or case law.
Click to expand...

so you think that despite that there is already a process to amend the constitution, it should also be able to be done by the courts on an ad hoc basis per court case?
 
christiefan915 said:
You mean it was voted on by the white men of the states.
Click to expand...

Is he talking about the Constitution itself or the Journal of the Convention/Madison’s Notes? The Journal contained only a record of what motions and resolutions were voted on in the Convention- nothing about the debate and discussion behind them was included, and Madison wouldn’t allow his Notes to be published or otherwise circulated until after he was dead- 50 years or so after the Constitution had been in real world operation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top