How would our country be different if … part 1

[metrognome]

Since we all seem to be starting from entrenched beliefs and since many of these beliefs relate to varying interpretations of our Constitution (incl the first 10 amendments) and Declaration of Independence, I thought it might be useful to start from scratch, sort of.

So, how would our country be different if …

– there were Founding Mothers and Founding Brothers (and Sisters, etc.) in addition to Founding Fathers? (I understand this is highly unlikely at this time in history; for the sake of discussion, assume that it was in fact possible.)

– Specifically, what would have been different? Would slavery have been allowed? Would women and non-white citizens have been able to vote from the outset? How would Amdmt 1 (freedom of religion, press and expression) and Amdmt 2 (‘a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed’) be different?

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html seems to be a useful, non-partisan resource.

‘Partisan’ answers are fine as long as they are civil. I hope I don’t need to define that. Depending on the answers and the civility and respectfulness of the anwers, there may be more questions (that means I am unwilling to perpetuate the ‘its ok for me to do it because he did it first’ conversations that dominate public discourse today. Sister David Francis would have rapped my knuckles with a ruler for such specious logic.)

Share This

[dawsonct]

I just don’t believe the Founder’s intent for us was “you’re on your own, sucker.”

Share This

[JoB]

metrognome..

you forgot the founding poor… i think the vote was originally given only to property owners…

Share This

[HMC Rich]

I think the Constitution put together in that time period was so radical for its time. If it was to be put together today, I see a much different document.

Also, the union would not be as it is today if they had tried to ban slavery. There would have been another country in the south. Women’s sufferage was probably dreadfully low on the list of items to include. Minorities were fully different. Those poor Italians and Irish. But, if they had made slavery illegal back then, I doubt the black population would have been very large and maybe a civil war would not have been fought.

Share This

[rockhills]

A broader spectrum of ‘founding persons’ would certainly have resulted in some differences from our Constitution–and I would be willing to bet that slavery and suffrage would be two of the main differences. But don’t forget that the Civil War wasn’t really about slavery. Slavery was a rallying cry for some on both sides, but the radical difference in economies between North and South (‘big’ industry vs ‘big’ agriculture–I included ‘big’ because most farms in both regions were small and staffed entirely by family members) was the main issue.

Share This

[JoB]

that definition of people has been sticky from the get-go… as our supreme court recently made very clear.

slavery was inherent in the popular definition of “we the people” at the time of the constitution. Women and minor children were little more than property…

if you can own people.. you can buy and sell them… or lease them.. many of our ancestors came here as indentured servants… little more than slaves with no real legal rights.

It was a very loose confederation of states that our constitution united… and permanence was always suspect.

rockhills.. i would posit that the civil war was also as much about the not yet resolved issue of independence.. those in the south maintaining closer ties to the English monarchy and trade than the northern states… and about who stood to benefit from the resources of the south… as it was about Northern industrialization.

the colonial system was still alive and well in the south prior to the Civil War.

Share This

[Author]

Posts