3 ms·

> Half the authors of the American Constitution thought that slavery should be legal, but they managed draft the foundation of modern day democracy anyways. Th

by geofft 8y ago

> Half the authors of the American Constitution thought that slavery should be legal, but they managed draft the foundation of modern day democracy anyways. This is a story of democracy happening in spite of the founding fathers, not because of the founding fathers. It was, as you may know, a long (multiple centuries) and bloody (a pretty big war, plus lots of extrajudicial lynchings etc.) road from what they drafted to universal suffrage. It's still in progress in many ways, and a lot of people were hurt in the progress. So this seems like a pretty good argument that we should not let people who have views that are contrary to the long-term goal be setting the direction of how to get to the long-term goal.

bumby 8y ago
Are you claiming the U.S. founding fathers had an adversarial role in establishing democracy?
- geofft 8y ago
  If by "democracy" we mean "a certain privileged class of humans have shared influence in their government, usually by voting," then the US founding fathers were rather late to the game - plenty of republics had that already. If by "democracy" we mean "there is no privileged class, and all people born in the land can vote if they are of age and have not had their privileges removed by due process of law," or we mean "that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" (the Declaration of Independence), or we mean "Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.... The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage" (Universal Declaration of Human Rights), then yes, I think the people responsible for the Constitution were quite adversarial to that goal. The United Kingdom, in freedom from whom the US founding fathers supposedly established democracy, banned slavery over half a century before the US did and slowly but steadily allowed more people to vote for Parliament during the 1800s. At the time the US Constitution was established, only 6% of the US population could vote, according to https://web.archive.org/web/20160706144856/http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/charters_of_freedom_13.html https://web.archive.org/web/20160706144856/http://www.archiv... .
  - bumby 8y ago
    I think you are missing the point of the parent comment. They implied the U.S. founding fathers made progress toward universal suffrage, not perfected it. While accurate, your point on slavery misses the point too. The parent comment was implying that significant democratic progress was made despite contentious disagreement on important issues like slavery. Your "in spite of" comment comes across as if it's saying "their system was flawed, therefore it didn't make any meaningful contributions and society would have been better without it". Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good... This exemplifies the parent comment's original point about Google's AI ethics committee of throwing the baby out with the bathwater because they were unable to meet the expectation that everyone agree on everything. If that maxim isn't met, they just take their ball and go home and the overall system is no better than when it started.
Aunche 8y ago
It's easy to criticize someone when you're not the doing the work. The world was a lot more racist a few centuries ago, so considering what they had to work with, the founding fathers did well. The alternative is that there still would have been civil war, and slavery could have continued to this day.
- geofft 8y ago
  This counterfactual would be more convincing if the UK did not ban slavery before the US did, and did not need a civil war to do it. And it is just as easy to praise someone when you're not the one they're hurting.
  - Aunche 8y ago
    Even if the Great British Empire was "better" than the early US (I'm sure some of their former colonies would say otherwise), it bears no relevance to the discussion of whether the American Constitution was a success or failure. The US isn't Great Britain, so it can't be compared as such. I also don't understand why you would hold the founding fathers responsible for things that happened several decades in the future.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > I also don't understand why you would hold the founding fathers responsible for things that happened several decades in the future. The Constitutional explicit protections for both slavery and the slave trade were written in by the framers, they did not occur several decades later. The concrete divergence between UK and US policy on slavery began no later than the UK 1807 ban on the slave trade, which was less than two decades after the adoption of the Constitution while the framers were still politically active in many cases (Jefferson was President, for instance).
      - Aunche 8y ago
        The US actually banned the slave trade the same year. Slaves didn't become fully emancipated in Britain until 1838 or so.

by geofft 8y ago

bumby 8y ago

Are you claiming the U.S. founding fathers had an adversarial role in establishing democracy?

geofft 8y ago
If by "democracy" we mean "a certain privileged class of humans have shared influence in their government, usually by voting," then the US founding fathers were rather late to the game - plenty of republics had that already. If by "democracy" we mean "there is no privileged class, and all people born in the land can vote if they are of age and have not had their privileges removed by due process of law," or we mean "that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" (the Declaration of Independence), or we mean "Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.... The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage" (Universal Declaration of Human Rights), then yes, I think the people responsible for the Constitution were quite adversarial to that goal. The United Kingdom, in freedom from whom the US founding fathers supposedly established democracy, banned slavery over half a century before the US did and slowly but steadily allowed more people to vote for Parliament during the 1800s. At the time the US Constitution was established, only 6% of the US population could vote, according to https://web.archive.org/web/20160706144856/http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/charters_of_freedom_13.html https://web.archive.org/web/20160706144856/http://www.archiv... .
- bumby 8y ago
  I think you are missing the point of the parent comment. They implied the U.S. founding fathers made progress toward universal suffrage, not perfected it. While accurate, your point on slavery misses the point too. The parent comment was implying that significant democratic progress was made despite contentious disagreement on important issues like slavery. Your "in spite of" comment comes across as if it's saying "their system was flawed, therefore it didn't make any meaningful contributions and society would have been better without it". Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good... This exemplifies the parent comment's original point about Google's AI ethics committee of throwing the baby out with the bathwater because they were unable to meet the expectation that everyone agree on everything. If that maxim isn't met, they just take their ball and go home and the overall system is no better than when it started.

Aunche 8y ago

It's easy to criticize someone when you're not the doing the work. The world was a lot more racist a few centuries ago, so considering what they had to work with, the founding fathers did well. The alternative is that there still would have been civil war, and slavery could have continued to this day.

geofft 8y ago
This counterfactual would be more convincing if the UK did not ban slavery before the US did, and did not need a civil war to do it. And it is just as easy to praise someone when you're not the one they're hurting.
- Aunche 8y ago
  Even if the Great British Empire was "better" than the early US (I'm sure some of their former colonies would say otherwise), it bears no relevance to the discussion of whether the American Constitution was a success or failure. The US isn't Great Britain, so it can't be compared as such. I also don't understand why you would hold the founding fathers responsible for things that happened several decades in the future.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > I also don't understand why you would hold the founding fathers responsible for things that happened several decades in the future. The Constitutional explicit protections for both slavery and the slave trade were written in by the framers, they did not occur several decades later. The concrete divergence between UK and US policy on slavery began no later than the UK 1807 ban on the slave trade, which was less than two decades after the adoption of the Constitution while the framers were still politically active in many cases (Jefferson was President, for instance).
    - Aunche 8y ago
      The US actually banned the slave trade the same year. Slaves didn't become fully emancipated in Britain until 1838 or so.