PDA

View Full Version : Interesting dialogue with my teacher on the Declaration of Independence




Rael
02-17-2009, 09:30 PM
This from a chat in my online class, regarding the DOI:

Student: In light of the history that has just been made less than a month ago, I would have to say yes, the principles outlined in the early sections of the Declaration of Independence are still operative. It reads, "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." Despite the fact that the Declaration of Independence is still in a progressive state, meaning all of its intentions have yet to be fulfilled, throughout the past two and a half centuries, transitional steps have been made in the right direction. I responded to these principles when I exercised my voting right in the November election. The Declaration of Independence set out to acknowledge my freedom and liberty as a human, but also my obligation in securing and putting to use these same freedoms.

Me:I would argue that the Declaration is in a regressive state and has been so for many years. The people in control have no intention of fulfilling the intentions of the DOI.

Teacher: Rael, I doubt we can know the "intention" of "the people in control." We can be sure of what we see, which is that our country has elected a new President and seems to be making progress towards respecting the communal will of the voters.

My response: I would have to disagree with you on this point. Their intentions are clear based on their actions: More war, more spending, more hidden taxes through inflation. We do have a new president but so far the only difference I see is that he has (D) next to his name instead of an (R).

The communal will of the voters is not necessarily compatible with the Declaration. In the past, the communal will of the voters has favored slavery, Nazism, and many other evil practices. As Ben Franklin is reported to have said, "Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner."


He probably also didn't like the fact that in my assigned post I called for the people to peaceably take advantage of the DOI's state right to alter or abolish the government. :D

user
02-17-2009, 09:36 PM
What kind of class is it?

Rael
02-17-2009, 09:44 PM
What kind of class is it?

American Literature

RSLudlum
02-17-2009, 09:53 PM
"our country" as in the voters in one aggregate didn't elect a new president; the States through their electors elected a new president (does your teacher know what a 'republic' is??)


oh how I loath the 'communal will' = 'general will'. The appeasing of the "general will" on a national scale fascilitates totalitarianism and is opposite of a federal system which the federal constitution sought to construct. This is why Patrick Henry wanted "We the States" instead of "We the People"; as a bulwark against a huge consolidated gov't pursuing the 'general will' at the detriment of the States (and their citizens) sovereignty.

But then again I digress, this thread was about the DOI not the Constitution ;)

Rael
02-18-2009, 04:56 PM
This is the first students reply..she actually thinks things are getting better in this country!

Student: I doubt those individuals with an "R" beside their name would agree with that! In response to your last rebuttal, the declaration of independence's major goal was to gain independence and complete authority over its territory by organizing and insisting on freedom. With that said, slavery has been abolished, schools are integrated, and we now have a black president! I am not saying that it has been carried out in its entirety, I am however; stating that it's in a state of progress no matter how you look at it. It's been said by many that "it's going to get worse before it gets better," so if that means a few more dollars spent now so that future generations live a little better, so be it!

user
02-18-2009, 05:00 PM
This is the first students reply..she actually thinks things are getting better in this country!

Student: I doubt those individuals with an "R" beside their name would agree with that! In response to your last rebuttal, the declaration of independence's major goal was to gain independence and complete authority over its territory by organizing and insisting on freedom. With that said, slavery has been abolished, schools are integrated, and we now have a black president! I am not saying that it has been carried out in its entirety, I am however; stating that it's in a state of progress no matter how you look at it. It's been said by many that "it's going to get worse before it gets better," so if that means a few more dollars spent now so that future generations live a little better, so be it!
What does this:

the declaration of independence's major goal was to gain independence and complete authority over its territory by organizing and insisting on freedom.
have to do with this:

slavery has been abolished, schools are integrated, and we now have a black president!
I can only see a clear connection to the first, but slavery wasn't abolished until decades after the DOI.

Zolah
02-18-2009, 07:37 PM
And adding a trillion to the national debt isn't likely to be appreciated by future generations..

tonesforjonesbones
02-18-2009, 10:05 PM
My suggestion, next time they say "slavery"...turn the convo to SLAVE POWER..that was the actual issue. tones

tonesforjonesbones
02-18-2009, 10:08 PM
The Slave Power (sometimes referred to as the "Slaveocracy") was a term used in the Northern United States (primarily in the period 1840-1875) to characterize the political power of the slaveholding class in the South.

The problem posed by slavery, according to many Northern politicians, was not so much the mistreatment of slaves (a theme that abolitionists emphasized), but rather the political threat to American republicanism, especially as embraced in Northern free states. The Free Soil Party first raised this warning in 1848, arguing that the annexation of Texas as a slave state was a terrible mistake. The Free Soilers rhetoric was taken up by the Republican party as it emerged in 1854.

The Republicans also argued that slavery was economically inefficient, compared to free labor, and was a deterrent to the long-term modernization of America. Worse, said the Republicans, the Slave Power, deeply entrenched in the "Solid South", was systematically seizing control of the White House, the Congress, and the Supreme Court. Senator and governor Salmon P. Chase of Ohio was an articulate enemy of the Slave Power, as was Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts.

Historian Henry Brooks Adams explained that the Slave Power was a force for centralization:[1]

“ Between the slave power and states' rights there was no necessary connection. The slave power, when in control, was a centralizing influence, and all the most considerable encroachments on states' rights were its acts. The acquisition and admission of Louisiana; the Embargo; the War of 1812; the annexation of Texas "by joint resolution" [rather than treaty]; the war with Mexico, declared by the mere announcement of President Polk; the Fugitive Slave Law; the Dred Scott decision — all triumphs of the slave power — did far more than either tariffs or internal improvements, which in their origin were also southern measures, to destroy the very memory of states' rights as they existed in 1789. Whenever a question arose of extending or protecting slavery, the slaveholders became friends of centralized power, and used that dangerous weapon with a kind of frenzy. Slavery in fact required centralization in order to maintain and protect itself, but it required to control the centralized machine; it needed despotic principles of government, but it needed them exclusively for its own use. Thus, in truth, states' rights were the protection of the free states, and as a matter of fact, during the domination of the slave power, Massachusetts appealed to this protecting principle as often and almost as loudly as South Carolina.

***The southerners were the free marketers and the northerners were the protectionists. You know, new englanders (hamilton) and southerners (jefferson). Tones