Why Virginia ought to ratify the constitution

By -
Because "our negroes are numerous, and daily becoming more so." -- Edmund Randolph, in the Virginia ratifying convention, quoted in Kevin Gutzman, James Madison and the Making of America, p. 217

Comments

  1. Samson Corwell7:48 PM

    Huh. I'm not sure why that's a reason for ratifying the Constitution. You may have goofed when typed in the title, so that may be why I don't get it.

    Admittedly, I've attempted to rewrite the United States Constitution several times. Being the civil libertarian that I am, I took the "rationalist" approach and explicitly wrote out indefinite detention, assassinations, conscription, and taxes not placed on transaction while restricting secession and the powers of the state governments.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah8:41 PM

      "You may have goofed when typed in the title"

      Well, Siri goofed: now corrected. You might put yourself in slaveholder Randolph's shoes and ask why he would think that.

      Delete
    2. Samson Corwell9:26 PM

      Am I correct in guessing that they wished to ratify it because the Fugitive Slave Clause? I'm admittedly taking a literalist view of the Constitution in order to see how they would've interpreted it at the time. Having poured over laissez-faire/Rothbard-derived libertarian material I'm having trouble not looking at this in terms of economic regulation.

      Side note: Though I have to wonder: For all of Rothbard's siding with the anti-Federalists, he was fond of the laissez-faire economic policies that were in place after the Civil War.

      Delete
    3. gcallah12:07 AM

      Even more important, I think, was the 1808 ban on importation of slaves. Anti-ratification people, in fact, decried the delay.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more