Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 31 Jan '11 16:02 / 2 edits
    As i understand it, the American constitution was established on certain principles which one can trace directly to the declaration of Arbroath.

    The most lofty of these principles being that it sets the wishes of the people above that of the governing body, at the time a Monarch (Robert Bruce), and while the people are bound to him by law (he still ruling by divine right), if he takes an action contrary to their interests, he may be deposed (this is perhaps a reflection of an earlier Celtic tradition of selecting a King, not through hereditary succession, but through right of tanistry), at any time.

    please note this point, taken from a site i was reading,

    Secondly, the manifesto affirmed the nation's independence in a way no battle could, and justified it with a truth that is beyond nation and race. Man has a right to freedom and a duty to defend it with his life. The natural qualifications put upon this by a medieval baron are irrelevant, as are the reservations which slave-owning Americans placed upon their declaration of independence

    My question is this, what are these reservations which our American cousins have placed upon their constitution? Are they still extant?
  2. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    31 Jan '11 16:20
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    As i understand it, the American constitution was established on certain principles which one can trace directly to the declaration of Arbroath.

    The most lofty of these principles being that it sets the wishes of the people above that of the governing body, at the time a Monarch (Robert Bruce), and while the people are bound to him by law (he st ...[text shortened]... rvations which our American cousins have placed upon their constitution? Are they still extant?
    I have no idea what the site is talking about; I know of no "reservations" placed by Americans (the great majority of whom were not slave owners) "upon their declaration of independence" (which is not, of course, our Constitution).
  3. 31 Jan '11 16:23
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    As i understand it, the American constitution was established on certain principles which one can trace directly to the declaration of Arbroath.

    The most lofty of these principles being that it sets the wishes of the people above that of the governing body, at the time a Monarch (Robert Bruce), and while the people are bound to him by law (he st ...[text shortened]... rvations which our American cousins have placed upon their constitution? Are they still extant?
    What site was it? If it has the word Tea in it, you can pretty much dismiss it as revisionist history.
  4. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    31 Jan '11 16:33
    Originally posted by CliffLandin
    What site was it? If it has the word Tea in it, you can pretty much dismiss it as revisionist history.
    http://www.constitution.org/scot/arbroath.htm


    Reading the actual document, it is merely an assertion of freedom from foreign rule and takes as a given the divine right of kings. Thus, it is hardly as praiseworthy as the site claims.
  5. 31 Jan '11 19:00
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    http://www.constitution.org/scot/arbroath.htm


    Reading the actual document, it is merely an assertion of freedom from foreign rule and takes as a given the divine right of kings. Thus, it is hardly as praiseworthy as the site claims.
    Then either you have misunderstood the document or you have failed to isolate the salient points. Clearly it states that a ruler is not above the people and if he shall betray their interests, he shall be deposed, secondly it affirms the right of an individual to safeguard his freedom, with his life.

    My point is this, at which point did those who drafted the American constitution decide that it was pertinent for a man to defend his freedom, with his life (is it not enshrined that you have the right to bear arms), but not the black man?
  6. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    31 Jan '11 19:12
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Then either you have misunderstood the document or you have failed to isolate the salient points. Clearly it states that a ruler is not above the people and if he shall betray their interests, he shall be deposed, secondly it affirms the right of an individual to safeguard his freedom, with his life.

    My point is this, at which point did those w ...[text shortened]... with his life (is it not enshrined that you have the right to bear arms), but not the black man?
    It says no such thing:

    But from these countless evils we have been set free, by the help of Him Who though He afflicts yet heals and restores, by our most tireless Prince, King and Lord, the Lord Robert. He, that his people and his heritage might be delivered out of the hands of our enemies, met toil and fatigue, hunger and peril, like another Macabaeus or Joshua and bore them cheerfully. Him, too, divine providence, his right of succession according to or laws and customs which we shall maintain to the death, and the due consent and assent of us all have made our Prince and King. To him, as to the man by whom salvation has been wrought unto our people, we are bound both by law and by his merits that our freedom may be still maintained, and by him, come what may, we mean to stand. Yet if he should give up what he has begun, and agree to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King; for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom — for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.

    It makes no general claim that the people are free to overthrow their ruler.
  7. 31 Jan '11 19:28 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    It says no such thing:

    But from these countless evils we have been set free, by the help of Him Who though He afflicts yet heals and restores, by our most tireless Prince, King and Lord, the Lord Robert. He, that his people and his heritage might be delivered out of the hands of our enemies, met toil and fatigue, hunger and peril, like ...[text shortened]...
    It makes no general claim that the people are free to overthrow their ruler.
    really, with reference to the Scottish King it states,

    if he should give up what he has begun, and agree to make us or our kingdom subject . . . . . . .we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King;

    and this universal appeal,

    but for freedom — for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.
  8. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    31 Jan '11 19:33
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    really, with reference to the Scottish King it states,

    if he should give up what he has begun, and agree to make us or our kingdom subject . . . . . . .we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King;

    and this universal appeal,

    but for freedom — for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.
    LMAO! Really to replace " to the King of England or the English" with ellipses has got to be one of the most dishonest things I've seen on this board (and that's saying something).
  9. 31 Jan '11 19:44 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    LMAO! Really to replace " to the King of England or the English" with ellipses has got to be one of the most dishonest things I've seen on this board (and that's saying something).
    Look number1, it does not change the facts, whether he subjects us to the English, or the Norwegians, or the French, it is clearly stated that we are to rise up and depose him. My thinking is that you read the passage initially and thought it was with reference to the English King, clearly it is not, the reference to the English was deliberately left out to highlight this. Anyone can see it in its original context, for you yourself copied and pasted it.

    Now please address my points, is this document reflected in the American constitution and at what point was the right to defend ones freedom denied to the black man? What i mean by that was what appendages or provisos were introduced to the constitution to justify slave owning, while keeping a semblance that one could defend individual freedoms with life?
  10. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    31 Jan '11 19:59 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Look number1, it does not change the facts, whether he subjects us to the English, or the Norwegians, or the French, it is clearly stated that we are to rise up and depose him. My thinking is that you read the passage initially and thought it was with reference to the English King, clearly it is not, the reference to the English was deliberately lef ...[text shortened]... ify slave owning, while keeping a semblance that one could defend individual freedoms with life?
    You're probably not aware of this, but slavery was legal in Scotland until 1799.http://www.pdavis.nl/ErskineMay.htm

    So if the Declaration of Arbroath was really intended as an assertion of human freedom ("Man has a right to freedom and a duty to defend it with his life" has the author of the piece you cited claims), your question should be why the Scots maintained slavery for another 479 years.
  11. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    31 Jan '11 20:09
    Even before the Act of Union with England, the Scots made attempts to get in on the profitable "triangular trade", but once in the union their involvement took off. Goods were taken to Africa by ship, exchanged for native peoples forcibly torn away from their families and communities and enslaved. These people were then shipped in hideous conditions to America and the Caribbean. There they were sold to be worked to death growing colonial crops such as sugar and tobacco, as "chattel" slaves, the property of their owners. The same ships returned to Scotland loaded up with plantation produce: the sweat of their labour.

    The facts are shocking. The great mercantile wealth that Glasgow accumulated in the 18th century, so confidently expressed in the handsome buildings of the Merchant City, was based on the profits from slavery. Our Scottish banking system, so proudly defended by first minister Alex Salmond, grew as a direct result of the triangular trade. It gave us the first Scottish millionaires; "Virginia Dons" such as Andrew Buchanan, James Dunlop, James Wilson, Richard Oswald and John Glassford, who cornered the Chesapeake Bay tobacco trade. They have streets named after them to this day. Places such as Virginia Street, Jamaica Street, Kingston Bridge and Mount Vernon (named after a plantation in Virginia) underscore the Scots involvement in the Caribbean and America.

    Part of the building that now houses the Gallery of Modern Art was built by merchant William Cunninghame as a lavish home, in no-expense-spared Palladian, plantation style from the profits gained from slavery. Richard Oswald, who lies buried with honours in Glasgow cathedral, founded a leading tobacco dynasty. His eponymous nephew bought Bance island off Sierra Leone, where he traded 13,000 enslaved Africans, a man so patriotic that he had slaves dressed in tartan as caddies on his island golf course.

    Thirty-one slave ships sailed from Scottish ports between 1717 and 1766, 19 from Glasgow, the others from Leith, Montrose, Dumfries, Greenock and Port Glasgow. The huge warehouses that still line the shoreline in the latter ports were once filled with colonial crops produced through the enforced labour and suffering of enslaved Africans, profitably traded to the benefit of the Scottish economy.

    By 1800, Scots ran 30% of the slave plantations in Jamaica. Nowadays the preponderance of Scottish surnames such as Campbell in Jamaica - indeed throughout the West Indies - reflects the practice of giving enslaved Africans the names of their Scottish masters. It's no coincidence that Shelly-Ann Fraser, Kerron Stewart and Veronica Campbell-Brown, Jamaica's Olympic sprinting medallists, all have Scottish names. Even Rabbie Burns's fine libertarian sentiments didn't prevent him buying a ticket in 1796 to sail to Jamaica to become, in his own words, "a negro driver". Slavery was then seen as a respectable way of making money for any ambitious, well-educated young man.

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/we-can-t-ignore-scotland-s-link-to-slavery-1.830094


    "People in glass houses" etc. etc. etc.
  12. 31 Jan '11 20:29 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Even before the Act of Union with England, the Scots made attempts to get in on the profitable "triangular trade", but once in the union their involvement took off. Goods were taken to Africa by ship, exchanged for native peoples forcibly torn away from their families and communities and enslaved. These people were then shipped in hideous conditions to A e-scotland-s-link-to-slavery-1.830094


    "People in glass houses" etc. etc. etc.
    i am perfectly aware of the Scots and the slave trade, we after study the subject in general history at high school, my own city Glasgow was built on the slave trade and in particular, the tobacco trade, it therefore hardly comes as a surprise. Never the less, it is noteworthy that you have evaded the question, which i repeat for anyone who either can or is willing to attempt to answer, at which point were appendages or provisos introduced which safeguarded individual freedom for Americans but not for slaves.

    Clearly the deceleration of Arbroath is superior to the American constitution for it refers to the right of every human, regardless of colour or creed to avail themselves of the right of freedom. The fact that it was ignored by Scots slave traders and tobacco lords hardly negates this fact, making No1 objections on this basis, irrelevant.
  13. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    31 Jan '11 20:36 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    i am perfectly aware of the Scots and the slave trade, we after study the subject in general history at high school, my own city Glasgow was built on the slave trade and in particular, the tobacco trade, it therefore hardly comes as a surprise. Never the less, it is noteworthy that you have evaded the question, which i repeat for anyone who either c ...[text shortened]... ers and tobacco lords hardly negates this fact, making No1 objections on this basis, irrelevant.
    Where does the Declaration of Arbroath "refers to the right of every human, regardless of colour or creed to avail themselves of the right of freedom."?

    Answer: it doesn't.

    The Declaration itself is nothing but a letter written to the Pope by an individual and was never the basis of any government policy in Scotland. To compare it with the founding documents of a nation which, unlike it, rejected the divine rights of Kings, is manifestly absurd.
  14. 31 Jan '11 20:37
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    You're probably not aware of this, but slavery was legal in Scotland until 1799.http://www.pdavis.nl/ErskineMay.htm

    So if the Declaration of Arbroath was really intended as an assertion of human freedom ("Man has a right to freedom and a duty to defend it with his life" has the author of the piece you cited claims), your question should be why the Scots maintained slavery for another 479 years.
    You are correct i was unaware of this, but it does not in any shape or form absolve you of detailing why the American constitution safeguards individual freedoms, but suspended them in the case of slaves. Clearly the deceleration of Arbroath was not effected as is evidenced by the fact that slavery was practised and the union of the crown took place subjecting us to foreign rule (not initially, but eventually), can the same be said of the American constitution, hardly!
  15. 31 Jan '11 20:40
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Where does the Declaration of Arbroath "refers to the right of every human, regardless of colour or creed to avail themselves of the right of freedom."?

    Answer: it doesn't.
    but for freedom — for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.

    this is now the second, perhaps third time i have posted this i will not do so again, please note the universality of the appeal, it states clearly, 'which no honest man, the gives up with but life itself', the inference being that it is to all or every honest man, for all men have life.