A New Law

[Gen. Volkov]

The franchise extended to wealthy white male landowners. Democratic? Pish tush. I grant you that within that framework it was, and it was certainly liberal.

Still better than a bloody monarchy. Besides which, any other democracy you care to name, prior to the United States birth, the privilege was only extended to wealthy male landowners. We can argue minutiae, but in real terms, it wasn't until after the birth of the US that democracy and voting privileges were extended to anyone other than wealthy landowners, in any country.

Fair enough, British and American stock and thinking are never far from each other, and were nearly indistinguishable at the time. That said, there was a definite new body of American thinking.

Yes, there was a new body of American thinking, but it was inspired by recent British philosophers, like Thomas Paine and John Locke. Ben Franklin and others then took it and ran with it, but almost all the founding beliefs of the US are rooted in the thoughts of various British philosophers.

[The Beatles]

Well, you're arguing a position I never took. Here's my first statement in full:

For all intents and purposes though, in the modern US, a right is a privilege arduously granted by a quorum of the people and corporations, and easily taken by the whim of a few leaders.

Though I referred to the modern US, you responded with the Bill of Rights. I then replied that that was hardly democratically granted either, and I wasn't arguing on the quality of 18th-century democracy. So now it's become a historical contest about who invented democracy again. That's not something I wanted to debate; I merely made the statement I quote above, and still think it true.

If you do, as a separate issue, want to discuss 18th-century democracy, we can of course do that on the side as well. And I'll kick off and grant you that no country in the 18th century was democratic, and the franchise was only extended to women in most countries in the early 20th century, and to blacks in the US effectively around the 1960s. But your statement about being better than a monarch is disingenous. England and later Scotland had been constitutional monarchies since 1689-1701, with the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement. They were ruled by the co-operation of Parliament and Sovereign; the Sovereign eventually got out of government affairs in any but an arbitrating role by the 19th century.

Even discounting women's votes, property qualifications from males were only lifted in the UK in 1918 and in the US in 1964. With these restrictions, it is not very meaningful to talk about democracy in any sense. At best a liberal aristocracy, in the original sense of that word (arete), which does not imply hereditary, merely a "rule of the best".

So to be precise, even in the new US, voting rights were still reserved for wealthy landowners. Don't forget that the American Revolution was not about democracy; it was about self-determination. As one historian put it, the Americans drafted a free constitution because they believed the British already lived under one. And to a great extent, that was true. What Americans wanted was self-determination; as this was not granted to them, they forged ahead and even seceded from the Empire. Into the bargain, they received a state without the preponderance of an established aristocracy, so in a real sense it was more free as it lacked the hereditary element. But for a great deal of time it was effectively an oligarchy, and you really cannot argue that it was more free or democratic than Britain, and in fact less so if you consider that England had banned slaves a century earlier, but the US had not.

[edit]For anyone else reading this, I ought to note that the apparent confusion of terms England/Britain/United Kingdom is deliberate; as political entities it is correct to refer to England and Scotland until 1707, to Great Britain thereafter until 1801, and to the United Kingdom thereafter; with Britain being used informally for the latter two.

[Gen. Volkov]

Though I referred to the modern US, you responded with the Bill of Rights. I then replied that that was hardly democratically granted either, and I wasn't arguing on the quality of 18th-century democracy. So now it's become a historical contest about who invented democracy again. That's not something I wanted to debate; I merely made the statement I quote above, and still think it true.

And I still disagree, because a right is something you should have, even if you don't, whereas a privilege is not something you need, but is granted to you anyway. Or at least, that's how the founders of the United States saw it. "Each man is endowed with certain inalienable rights" and all that.

If you do, as a separate issue, want to discuss 18th-century democracy, we can of course do that on the side as well. And I'll kick off and grant you that no country in the 18th century was democratic, and the franchise was only extended to women in most countries in the early 20th century, and to blacks in the US effectively around the 1960s. But your statement about being better than a monarch is disingenous. England and later Scotland had been constitutional monarchies since 1689-1701, with the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement. They were ruled by the co-operation of Parliament and Sovereign; the Sovereign eventually got out of government affairs in any but an arbitrating role by the 19th century.

It is not disingenuous, and you well know it. We've already had this discussion, and you know as well as I do that it wasn't until Victorian times that England became a constitutional monarchy as we know the term. Up until that point, the sovereign held far more power than the parliament, and England was for all intents and purposes a monarchy. It was constitutional in that the subjects of the crown had a certain number of rights, and an act of parliament governed succession to the crown, but the sovereign, once he or she could claim the thrown, had great power, including the power to summon and dismiss parliament, though the monarch was required to summon parliament frequently.

Even discounting women's votes, property qualifications from males were only lifted in the UK in 1918 and in the US in 1964. With these restrictions, it is not very meaningful to talk about democracy in any sense. At best a liberal aristocracy, in the original sense of that word (arete), which does not imply hereditary, merely a "rule of the best".

That would be a meritocracy, and the property restrictions to voting were generally applied on racial lines, rather than real socioeconomic ones. Basically all white males were allowed to vote by the late 1800's. Black males too, though that was slowly taken away again during closing years of the 1800's and the beginning of the 20th century.

So to be precise, even in the new US, voting rights were still reserved for wealthy landowners. Don't forget that the American Revolution was not about democracy; it was about self-determination.

That's a bit simplistic, by denying the American colonies any say in Parliament, they were being excluded from the democratic process. That was one of the factors that led to the revolution.

But for a great deal of time it was effectively an oligarchy, and you really cannot argue that it was more free or democratic than Britain, and in fact less so if you consider that England had banned slaves a century earlier, but the US had not.

The US was more democratic than Britain, as we never had a sovereign interfering with our legislative body. I won't speak to the US being more or less free, but that bit about slavery is a bit misleading. The reason Britain banned slavery and the US didn't is because Britain didn't have any slaves to speak of in the first place. The slaves Britain had captured all went to it's American colonies, where they formed an integral part of the colonies economies. The founders of the US recognized that slavery was a terrible evil, but unfortunately it was also a necessary evil, at the time.

[The Beatles]

And I still disagree, because a right is something you should have, even if you don't, whereas a privilege is not something you need, but is granted to you anyway. Or at least, that's how the founders of the United States saw it. "Each man is endowed with certain inalienable rights" and all that.

And as I said, all very Lockean, but in practice:

For all intents and purposes though, in the modern US, a right is a privilege arduously granted by a quorum of the people and corporations, and easily taken by the whim of a few leaders.

After which

Quite right, but hardly democratic either. It was granted by a handful of people, with input from not more than a few thousand, and inspired by foreign philosophers to boot. By the way, as Constitutional Amendments, they did indeed require a quorum of the people to grant. But I was referring to things beyond the first few decades of the country's history. Look at the list of the amendments following those ten.

So let me say that I agree with you, that I was trying to discuss was newly-granted rights, such as the right to privacy, which is nowhere enshrined as such in the Constitution, and the US is having a hell of a time with it. As for the other rights, they were granted by the founders of the country.

It is not disingenuous, and you well know it. We've already had this discussion, and you know as well as I do that it wasn't until Victorian times that England became a constitutional monarchy as we know the term. Up until that point, the sovereign held far more power than the parliament, and England was for all intents and purposes a monarchy. It was constitutional in that the subjects of the crown had a certain number of rights, and an act of parliament governed succession to the crown, but the sovereign, once he or she could claim the thrown, had great power, including the power to summon and dismiss parliament, though the monarch was required to summon parliament frequently.

We had a different discussion last time, actually. There are three main threads to consider with any such debate. The first is the process of transferring power from an absolute ruler to the rule of law. The second is the transfer of the remaining power of the absolute leader to a body representing the interests of the people. The third is the democratisation of the ruling body. Last time, if I recall, we debated merely the third one, with touches of the former.

And that's why I say it is disingenous or misinformed to claim that Britain's monarchy was worse than the US's republic. Your comment on the Victorian Era is patently untrue. Here's what happened. In the English Civil War, transfer of power occurred from the Sovereign to Parliament, and this was enshrined in the Bill of Rights 1689 and the Act of Settlement 1701 (extending to Scotland in 1707). The last remaining power of the monarch is a veto (inherited in the US as the Presidential Veto); this was last exercised in 1708. The sovereign did not as you say hold more power than Parliament since the 1640s. The sovereign had a limited soft power in that he could choose which party or person to lead his Parliament, but that was about it. This is still exercised today to a lesser extent in times of governmental crisis -- the UK with Callaghan, Canada with King-Byng, Australia in 1975, etc. This was definitely not a sort of willy-nilly rule. It did happen, last in 1834, that the monarch dissolved Parliament. But this was at most a sort of guiding power. In practice it didn't interfere with the execution of power according to Parliament's designs.

So to be precise, even in the new US, voting rights were still reserved for wealthy landowners. Don't forget that the American Revolution was not about democracy; it was about self-determination.

I think we're saying much the same thing. The US wanted its own democracy, which it wasn't getting, so it fought for it. They wanted to govern themselves (democratically).

The US was more democratic than Britain, as we never had a sovereign interfering with our legislative body. I won't speak to the US being more or less free, but that bit about slavery is a bit misleading. The reason Britain banned slavery and the US didn't is because Britain didn't have any slaves to speak of in the first place. The slaves Britain had captured all went to it's American colonies, where they formed an integral part of the colonies economies. The founders of the US recognized that slavery was a terrible evil, but unfortunately it was also a necessary evil, at the time.

And as I said, interference by the sovereign was of a very limited nature. The greater problem with British democracy was the weakness of the franchise; and which you correctly state was only rectified 1830-1860. This is on another thread (of the three I outline above) than the discussion about the Sovereign.

Britain had very few slaves and that's why it banned them, as you say. It's worth noting at this point that the slaves that Britain sent to the Colonies were rarely actually captured but bought. Slavery was extensively practiced on the African continent, and its spreading through the European trading empires was more naturally a product of that than imperial domination; considering Europe itself had not practiced slavery since almost antiquity. It's correct that it was easier to ban slavery within Britain than the US, but it was definitely not easier to ban it in the Empire, as they did in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century.

That would be a meritocracy, and the property restrictions to voting were generally applied on racial lines, rather than real socioeconomic ones. Basically all white males were allowed to vote by the late 1800's. Black males too, though that was slowly taken away again during closing years of the 1800's and the beginning of the 20th century.

OK, I don't know much about how it was actually used in practice. It seemed to me that it was still only landowners who could vote for a very long time in the US, but if you correct me on that point I'll be glad.

[Tetigustas shadowson]

I didn’t read all of that, because it is starting to look like a 'Quentin Tarantino' movie with all the thread quotes.
suffice to say the brits have been governing a whole lot longer than the US, so when it comes to who did what first or for how long I am afraid the brits have been doing it longer, Tyranny, Third party slavery, third world government manipulation, intentional misdirection of sovereign rights, for example the right of the lord, governor or local sheriff to fornicate with your bride upon the wedding night!

Who is righter is the wrong approach, is the law a good one or do you think its going to be a political posturing to benefit no one?
I for one think that some laws are needed some government intervention is mandatory and communally healthy, a law allowing you to take another mans bride is ludicrous.
It’s a wonder the whole of peasants didn’t kill every sovereign brit lord who dared venture into the outer lands and occupied territories of the brit nation.


Its all pish posh now

[The Beatles]

I'm afraid you are not actually correct in your claim, Tetigustas:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_primae_noctis

It’s a wonder the whole of peasants didn’t kill every sovereign brit lord who dared venture into the outer lands and occupied territories of the brit nation.

But at least you do reveal some amusingly egregious ignorance of world history in your post.

[Freenhult]

*Laughs* I completely missed that part.

[Gen. Volkov]

The sovereign did not as you say hold more power than Parliament since the 1640s.

I'm going to have to disagree with you there. After the Hanoverian succession, it's true that the English king lost some power to Parliament, though he didn't become the figurehead ruler he is today until the Victorian era.

I'd have to go into the history really deeply to get my point across, but basically, while you are correct about the bills that were passed legally gave parliament as much or more power than the King, the monarchs of England still figured very prominently in the politics of England until the Victorian era. The favor or disfavor of a king figured very heavily in who was in power in Parliament.

As for your statement about the 1640's, I don't think it's quite true King Charles (despite his beheading at the hands of Cromwell), King Charles II and King James held more power than Parliament, and in fact it was the power struggle between James and Parliament that led to his ousting and the Hanoverian Succession. For long periods these Kings refused to call Parliament at all, unless forced too by the Triennial Act. Charles I was forced into many concessions, but I still think that even following the English Civil War, the English King was the greater power in the land.

As for the other rights, they were granted by the founders of the country.

They were demanded by all the colonies, in fact, it's the only reason the constitution was ratified. I hardly call that "granted".

And as I said, all very Lockean, but in practice:

I still disagree, there has never been a constitutional amendment that was taken away on a whim, and the only one that was taken away required the same process that was used to get it added to get it removed.

We had a different discussion last time, actually.

Slightly different.

I think we're saying much the same thing. The US wanted its own democracy, which it wasn't getting, so it fought for it. They wanted to govern themselves (democratically).

We are talking about the same thing, but I'm saying that it was as much about democracy as it was about self-determination, which is more about being free of another's authority. If the American colonies had gotten representation in parliament, and thus a say in democracy, it is less likely that they would have had a revolution.

It's correct that it was easier to ban slavery within Britain than the US, but it was definitely not easier to ban it in the Empire, as they did in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century.

You are correct about most of the slaves being bought rather than captured. My point was that the slaves obtained in African were pretty much all sent to the American colonies, until the ban on the Atlantic slave trade was passed into law. Slavery was legally abolished throughout the whole empire by 1843, but in practice it wasn't finished in India until 1861, and it never really ended in many parts of British ruled Africa. As long as slavery is needed, it's going to remain around. In the US, slavery was just on the verge of not being needed anymore when we had our Civil War.

OK, I don't know much about how it was actually used in practice. It seemed to me that it was still only landowners who could vote for a very long time in the US, but if you correct me on that point I'll be glad.

The 24th Amendment to the constitution eliminated the payment of any poll tax that a a voter had to pay. Given that most blacks were too poor to pay it and almost all whites were rich enough to pay it, (And even the whites who weren't generally were paid for by others) this effectively disenfranchised black voters. But the poll tax was only ever instituted in eleven southern states. The rest of the states in the Union had no such tax. The 14th and 15th Amendments are actually the ones that gave voting rights to all. Though in practice, the blacks were gradually disenfranchised again throughout most of the South, following the end of Reconstruction. But again, this was a racial thing, not a class bias. Pretty much the view was that if you were white, you were OK to vote. They couldn't make race based voting laws, due to the 15th Amendment, so they used property and tax laws to disenfranchise blacks, as the economic status of blacks in the southern states was very low.