Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The debate over the 'right' to own people as property based on race began at the Constitutional Convention:
It began long before that. The original Declaration of Independence contained a passage derying slavery. The entire delegation from the South walked out of the Congress, and stayed out until the North caved, and struck out the passage. If they hadn't caved, the Declaration would not have been adopted by the Congress.
And long before that, people all over the North were setting up anti-slavery pressure groups.
Southerners regularly repeated that their black slaves "were not people, they were property". No different from owning a horse, or a chair. And you could shoot the horse, or break up the chair for firewood if you didn't like them.
Slavery wasn't something the never noticed until 1789.
Quote:
Originally Posted by atltechdude
Madison started the war of 1812
And all these years we thought it was the British.
Who knew that it was nothing but a bunch of Americans dressed up in those spiffy red coats?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812
The War of 1812 (18 June 1812 – 16 February 1815) was a conflict fought between the United States and its allies, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and its dependent colonies in North America and its allies.
With most of its army committed in Europe fighting Napoleon, Britain adopted a national-level siege strategy, focusing on blockading ports and containing the US at its borders. At sea, the powerful Royal Navy cut off trade and allowed the British to raid the coast at will.
It began long before that. The original Declaration of Independence contained a passage derying slavery. The entire delegation from the South walked out of the Congress, and stayed out until the North caved, and struck out the passage. If they hadn't caved, the Declaration would not have been adopted by the Congress.
And long before that, people all over the North were setting up anti-slavery pressure groups.
Southerners regularly repeated that their black slaves "were not people, they were property". No different from owning a horse, or a chair. And you could shoot the horse, or break up the chair for firewood if you didn't like them.
Slavery wasn't something the never noticed until 1789.
And all these years we thought it was the British.
Who knew that it was nothing but a bunch of Americans dressed up in those spiffy red coats?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812
The War of 1812 (18 June 1812 – 16 February 1815) was a conflict fought between the United States and its allies, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and its dependent colonies in North America and its allies.
With most of its army committed in Europe fighting Napoleon, Britain adopted a national-level siege strategy, focusing on blockading ports and containing the US at its borders. At sea, the powerful Royal Navy cut off trade and allowed the British to raid the coast at will.
Many people will claim the British started it due to the provocation of impressment, however Madison signed the declaration of war which initiated open conflict. The US was not a strong military power then and was woefully unprepared for war which the result showed. The British need for impressment would have subsided anyway after Napoleon was defeated.
However the goal of the founding fathers was to enrich and empower America. In the post-world war II world where the USA is a super power with economic interests in maintaining its naval and monetary dominance would they not logically conclude that American interests would be to remain involved in foriegn affairs?
The best way to understand the American foreign policy of the founders is this line by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Papers #11...
"A further resource for influencing the conduct of European nations toward us, in this respect, would arise from the establishment of a federal navy. There can be no doubt that the continuance of the Union under an efficient government would put it in our power, at a period not very distant, to create a navy which, if it could not vie with those of the great maritime powers, would at least be of respectable weight if thrown into the scale of either of two contending parties. This would be more peculiarly the case in relation to operations in the West Indies. A few ships of the line, sent opportunely to the reinforcement of either side, would often be sufficient to decide the fate of a campaign, on the event of which interests of the greatest magnitude were suspended. Our position is, in this respect, a most commanding one. And if to this consideration we add that of the usefulness of supplies from this country, in the prosecution of military operations in the West Indies, it will readily be perceived that a situation so favorable would enable us to bargain with great advantage for commercial privileges. A price would be set not only upon our friendship, but upon our neutrality. By a steady adherence to the Union we may hope, erelong, to become the arbiter of Europe in America, and to be able to incline the balance of European competitions in this part of the world as our interest may dictate.
But in the reverse of this eligible situation, we shall discover that the rivalships of the parts would make them checks upon each other, and would frustrate all the tempting advantages which nature has kindly placed within our reach. In a state so insignificant our commerce would be a prey to the wanton intermeddlings of all nations at war with each other; who, having nothing to fear from us, would with little scruple or remorse, supply their wants by depredations on our property as often as it fell in their way. The rights of neutrality will only be respected when they are defended by an adequate power. A nation, despicable by its weakness, forfeits even the privilege of being neutral.
Under a vigorous national government, the natural strength and resources of the country, directed to a common interest, would baffle all the combinations of European jealousy to restrain our growth."
The quote above is basically the Monroe Doctrine. And as Retroit explained, we didn't want to maintain any kind of permanent alliance that could get us dragged into foreign conflicts that were against our national interests.
In the War of 1812, the United States wanted to completely remove the British presence from the Northern Hemisphere when Britain was busy fighting Napoleon. And Napoleon sold us Louisiana because he would rather us have it than for it to go to Britain. Russia sold us Alaska for the same reason, they knew they were going to lose it anyway.
The only reason America exists in the first place, is that a bunch of European countries(especially France) wanted to weaken the British Empire after it had grown dramatically from the territorial gains of the Seven-Years War.
By staying out of European conflicts we were seen as less of a threat, which allowed us to basically gobble up much of the Western Hemisphere, and to push Europe out of the rest.
In any case, opposition to "entangling alliances" was not the goal, it was a means to an end. As you say, the goal of the founding fathers was to make America a world power. And to the extent American neutrality existed, it was part of a greater strategy. This supposed neutrality is most visible in regards to WWI. Where we only pretended to be neutral while clearly picking a side, and then entered the war late to make sure that side won.
As to your question, the founding fathers would want America to do what is in our national interests. Is it in our national interests to bomb Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq, and to have NATO troops stationed on Russia's doorstep, while maintaining hundreds of foreign military bases, with carrier strike forces in every major shipping lane?
Last edited by Redshadowz; 07-03-2021 at 06:28 PM..
1846–1848 Annexation of Texas and invasion of California
1887–1889: Samoa
1893: Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom
1903: Separation of Panama from Colombia
They were largely small conflicts and the US did have some internal conflicts, however compared to most countries and indeed Europe, the US was none interventionist on a global scale until WW2 and post WW2.
Do you really think the founding fathers would have supported Vietnam.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
