4 ms·

Uh, yes? Monarchy is an essential component of the political systems of the Netherlands, the UK, and Denmark (to name a few). There are a variety of reasons the

by bhupy 5y ago

Uh, yes? Monarchy is an essential component of the political systems of the Netherlands, the UK, and Denmark (to name a few). There are a variety of reasons the citizens of those countries continue to preserve that institution. The question at hand is whether it's a foundational pillar of the EU, which it's obviously not, because that's not a concept that's defined at the EU-level. Similarly, slavery as an institution had no bearing on the socioeconomic systems of the Northern States, but it was quite essential to the Southern States. All the US was (at the time) was a Union of all of those States. The concept didn't really exist at the US level, and insofar as it did exist, it was in the form of an incentive to abolish slavery. The foundational pillars of the United States were simply a Federal union of States with a bicameral legislature, a set of enumerated powers, and a set of limitations on the Federal government. That's it. Just because it did nothing to abolish slavery at its founding does not mean that slavery was itself a foundational pillar of the institution. By that logic, <insert atrocity committed by UN member country> is a foundational pillar of the United Nations. A totally unserious argument.

tshaddox 5y ago
> Uh, yes? My question wasn't rhetorical. I actually do not know the history. If monarchy was indeed both socioeconomically important and a deal-breaker for founding the EU to a comparable extent as slavery in the United States, then I would think it's fair to call it a founding pillar. > Similarly, slavery as an institution had no bearing on the socioeconomic systems of the Northern States, but it was quite essential to the Southern States. That isn't the impression I've gotten from my admittedly non-expert reading of history, but I'm willing to be shown how I'm wrong. My impression is that the textile industry (which was intimately tied to Southern cotton production) was hugely important to the North for at least 50 years after the northern states had started restricting slavery. And from what I can tell, Pennsylvania was the first of the colonies to "abolish slavery," and that wasn't until 1780 and more importantly it didn't free existing slaves. It abolished importing slaves, and made children subsequently born to slaves indentured servants. > By that logic, <insert atrocity committed by UN member country> is a foundational pillar of the United Nations. A totally unserious argument. No, again, it's not about the mere existence of a phenomenon. I'm not claiming that wearing a tricorne hat was a founding pillar of the United States because it was common at the time of founding. I think I've been clear about that.
- bhupy 5y ago
  > If monarchy was indeed both socioeconomically important and a deal-breaker for founding the EU to a comparable extent as slavery in the United States, then I would think it's fair to call it a founding pillar. The disagreement is that it's not accurate to call it a founding pillar even in such cases. "The founding pillar" of most unions has nothing to do with the specifics of members of that union, unless explicitly stated. And in fact, as I pointed out above, the Framers added systems to incentivize its abolition, so not only is it inaccurate to argue that slavery was a foundational pillar, it's arguably the opposite. We actually have a rich set of literature outlining what the so called "founding pillars" were, and they were the Federalist Papers. The outlined "founding pillars" were (in no particular order): federalism, bicameralism, minority rights, republicanism, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. > My impression is that the textile industry (which was intimately tied to Southern cotton production) was hugely important to the North for at least 50 years after the northern states had started restricting slavery. And from what I can tell, Pennsylvania was the first of the colonies to "abolish slavery," and that wasn't until 1780 and more importantly it didn't free existing slaves. It abolished importing slaves, and made children subsequently born to slaves indentured servants. There was certainly trade between Southern and Northern States, but the North was overwhelmingly industrialized, whereas the South was an agrarian slave-driven economy. When the Civil War ended, the North continued to prosper, while the South's economy was decimated; in fact when slavery was abolished, the GDP of the US increased(https://www.econlib.org/archives/2014/09/ending_slavery.html https://www.econlib.org/archives/2014/09/ending_slavery.html). And although you're correct that Pennsylvania didn't abolish slavery until 1780, the US Constitution wasn't drafted until 1787; until then the States were governed by the Articles of Confederation. By 1787, every single Northern State except New Jersey (1806) had abolished slavery. And FYI, abolition meant freeing existing slaves, not just banning the importation. By 1806, all former slaves in the Northern states were free.
  - tshaddox 5y ago
    You seem to be using "founding pillars" to mean "what the founders claimed or intended the founding pillars to be." That's not what I'm talking about. For an actual physical building, it doesn't matter what the architect claims or intends are the parts of the building which are necessary for its structural integrity. Removing a chunk of the building either causes it to collapse or doesn't. Looking at the architect's plans and intentions may be useful, but it's clearly not the final source of truth.

by bhupy 5y ago

tshaddox 5y ago

> Uh, yes? My question wasn't rhetorical. I actually do not know the history. If monarchy was indeed both socioeconomically important and a deal-breaker for founding the EU to a comparable extent as slavery in the United States, then I would think it's fair to call it a founding pillar. > Similarly, slavery as an institution had no bearing on the socioeconomic systems of the Northern States, but it was quite essential to the Southern States. That isn't the impression I've gotten from my admittedly non-expert reading of history, but I'm willing to be shown how I'm wrong. My impression is that the textile industry (which was intimately tied to Southern cotton production) was hugely important to the North for at least 50 years after the northern states had started restricting slavery. And from what I can tell, Pennsylvania was the first of the colonies to "abolish slavery," and that wasn't until 1780 and more importantly it didn't free existing slaves. It abolished importing slaves, and made children subsequently born to slaves indentured servants. > By that logic, <insert atrocity committed by UN member country> is a foundational pillar of the United Nations. A totally unserious argument. No, again, it's not about the mere existence of a phenomenon. I'm not claiming that wearing a tricorne hat was a founding pillar of the United States because it was common at the time of founding. I think I've been clear about that.

bhupy 5y ago
> If monarchy was indeed both socioeconomically important and a deal-breaker for founding the EU to a comparable extent as slavery in the United States, then I would think it's fair to call it a founding pillar. The disagreement is that it's not accurate to call it a founding pillar even in such cases. "The founding pillar" of most unions has nothing to do with the specifics of members of that union, unless explicitly stated. And in fact, as I pointed out above, the Framers added systems to incentivize its abolition, so not only is it inaccurate to argue that slavery was a foundational pillar, it's arguably the opposite. We actually have a rich set of literature outlining what the so called "founding pillars" were, and they were the Federalist Papers. The outlined "founding pillars" were (in no particular order): federalism, bicameralism, minority rights, republicanism, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. > My impression is that the textile industry (which was intimately tied to Southern cotton production) was hugely important to the North for at least 50 years after the northern states had started restricting slavery. And from what I can tell, Pennsylvania was the first of the colonies to "abolish slavery," and that wasn't until 1780 and more importantly it didn't free existing slaves. It abolished importing slaves, and made children subsequently born to slaves indentured servants. There was certainly trade between Southern and Northern States, but the North was overwhelmingly industrialized, whereas the South was an agrarian slave-driven economy. When the Civil War ended, the North continued to prosper, while the South's economy was decimated; in fact when slavery was abolished, the GDP of the US increased(https://www.econlib.org/archives/2014/09/ending_slavery.html https://www.econlib.org/archives/2014/09/ending_slavery.html). And although you're correct that Pennsylvania didn't abolish slavery until 1780, the US Constitution wasn't drafted until 1787; until then the States were governed by the Articles of Confederation. By 1787, every single Northern State except New Jersey (1806) had abolished slavery. And FYI, abolition meant freeing existing slaves, not just banning the importation. By 1806, all former slaves in the Northern states were free.
- tshaddox 5y ago
  You seem to be using "founding pillars" to mean "what the founders claimed or intended the founding pillars to be." That's not what I'm talking about. For an actual physical building, it doesn't matter what the architect claims or intends are the parts of the building which are necessary for its structural integrity. Removing a chunk of the building either causes it to collapse or doesn't. Looking at the architect's plans and intentions may be useful, but it's clearly not the final source of truth.