·  News ·  Travel ·  Food ·  Arts ·  Science ·  Sports ·  Advice ·  Religion ·  Life ·  Greensboro · 

John Jay on unity

by bigrebnc1861 | Published on June 11th, 2010, 8:48 pm | News
I wonder if obama could take some American history classes?
Federalist papers Number 2
John Jay 1st Chief Justice of the United States, President of the Continental Congress
With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people--a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.
 
 
John Jay was wrong then about the make up of the US and he's even more wrong now

a people descended from the same ancestors - nope
speaking the same language - nope
professing the same religion - nope
attached to the same principles of government - maybe
very similar in their manners and customs, - nope

Jay had an enlightened position on slavery "I should also have been for a clause against the continuation of domestic slavery" so he should have recognized that people of various ancestry, language and religion make up the population
All stupid ideas pass through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is ridiculed. Third, it is ridiculed
June 12th, 2010, 12:45 am
User avatar
A Person
 
Location: Slightly west of the Great White North
A Person wrote:John Jay was wrong then about the make up of the US and he's even more wrong now

a people descended from the same ancestors - nope
speaking the same language - nope
professing the same religion - nope
attached to the same principles of government - maybe
very similar in their manners and customs, - nope

Jay had an enlightened position on slavery "I should also have been for a clause against the continuation of domestic slavery" so he should have recognized that people of various ancestry, language and religion make up the population


WOW the arrogance of a statist to think that he would know more about America's past then someone who actually lived during that time. Do you have a dream time machine that you can move through time?
Other then Christianty what religion did we have in America back then?
June 12th, 2010, 6:01 am
User avatar
bigrebnc1861
 
Location: kannapolis North Carolina
bigrebnc1861 wrote:
A Person wrote:John Jay was wrong then about the make up of the US and he's even more wrong now

a people descended from the same ancestors - nope
speaking the same language - nope
professing the same religion - nope
attached to the same principles of government - maybe
very similar in their manners and customs, - nope

Jay had an enlightened position on slavery "I should also have been for a clause against the continuation of domestic slavery" so he should have recognized that people of various ancestry, language and religion make up the population


WOW the arrogance of a statist to think that he would know more about America's past then someone who actually lived during that time. Do you have a dream time machine that you can move through time?
Other then Christianty what religion did we have in America back then?


What's to argue here? Unless you're rewriting history, A-Person's statement is true. You don't need a time machine for that, just a history book.
This is our chance to change things, this is our destiny.
June 12th, 2010, 7:31 am
User avatar
Liv
I show you something fantastic and you find fault.
 
Location: Greensboro, NC
Liv wrote:
bigrebnc1861 wrote:
A Person wrote:John Jay was wrong then about the make up of the US and he's even more wrong now

a people descended from the same ancestors - nope
speaking the same language - nope
professing the same religion - nope
attached to the same principles of government - maybe
very similar in their manners and customs, - nope

Jay had an enlightened position on slavery "I should also have been for a clause against the continuation of domestic slavery" so he should have recognized that people of various ancestry, language and religion make up the population


WOW the arrogance of a statist to think that he would know more about America's past then someone who actually lived during that time. Do you have a dream time machine that you can move through time?
Other then Christianty what religion did we have in America back then?


What's to argue here? Unless you're rewriting history, A-Person's statement is true. You don't need a time machine for that, just a history book.

Again what arrogance of the statist you both do not know what you are talking about. John Jay a man from that period of time would know better than you or a pupil. Just to add many things written in histoiry books have been found to be not sao true.
June 12th, 2010, 7:36 am
User avatar
bigrebnc1861
 
Location: kannapolis North Carolina
Arrogance is believing the way you have interpreted something to fulfill your dark fantasy. Arrogance is to suggest you are capable of interpreting a man's demeanor countless years into the future based on a quote.
June 12th, 2010, 7:43 am
User avatar
Liv
I show you something fantastic and you find fault.
 
Location: Greensboro, NC
Liv wrote:Arrogance is believing the way you have interpreted something to fulfill your dark fantasy. Arrogance is to suggest you are capable of interpreting a man's demeanor countless years into the future based on a quote.

No arrogance is to think someone who lives in the 21st century knows more about 1787 then the person who lived during that period of time. OK a puple is the one doing to interpeting. I just posted the quote a puple is the one doing the interpeting.
June 12th, 2010, 7:59 am
User avatar
bigrebnc1861
 
Location: kannapolis North Carolina
bigrebnc1861 wrote:No arrogance is to think someone who lives in the 21st century knows more about 1787 then the person who lived during that period of time.


It's a matter of historical record. Politicians misprepresented realty then as now.

John Jay was of French ancestry on his father's side, Dutch on his mother's. America contained people from many countries, sects and races, including African slaves, indigenous Americans and Jews. Francis Salvador and Haym Salomon spring to mind as two prominent Jews in the American revolution. Jay was a protestant and argued (unsuccessfully) for Catholics to be prohibited from holding office in New York so he was hardly confused about the presence of religious differences

English/French/Dutch/African/Native American/Hebrew are not all the 'same ancestry, language, religion and customs'

Jay was writing a political essay not a historical one.
June 12th, 2010, 8:54 am
User avatar
A Person
 
Location: Slightly west of the Great White North
A Person wrote:
bigrebnc1861 wrote:No arrogance is to think someone who lives in the 21st century knows more about 1787 then the person who lived during that period of time.


It's a matter of historical record. Politicians misprepresented realty then as now.

John Jay was of French ancestry on his father's side, Dutch on his mother's. America contained people from many countries, sects and races, including African slaves, indigenous Americans and Jews. Francis Salvador and Haym Salomon spring to mind as two prominent Jews in the American revolution. Jay was a protestant and argued (unsuccessfully) for Catholics to be prohibited from holding office in New York so he was hardly confused about the presence of religious differences

English/French/Dutch/African/Native American/Hebrew are not all the 'same ancestry, language, religion and customs'

Jay was writing a political essay not a historical one.

You do not know more than John Jay. Your liberal agenda precedes you.
And his essay is now Historical

1.The Indians not concidered American at the time so you are wrong
2. English Colonies fought against England
3.John Jay was talking about the Christian faith Protestant and Catholics both are of the Christian faith.
June 12th, 2010, 9:52 am
User avatar
bigrebnc1861
 
Location: kannapolis North Carolina
bigrebnc1861 wrote:You do not know more than John Jay. Your liberal agenda precedes you. And his essay is now Historical


"On the Jews and their Lies - Martin Luther" and "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" are historical too, it doesn't make them right

bigrebnc1861 wrote:1.The Indians not concidered American at the time so you are wrong
They weren't Chinese :lol: How about African Americans? Jewish Americans? etc. Yeah they weren't considered Americans either.

bigrebnc1861 wrote:2. English Colonies fought against England

Sure ... and?

bigrebnc1861 wrote:3.John Jay was talking about the Christian faith Protestant and Catholics both are of the Christian faith.

Jay did not consider them to be of the same faith when he tried to pass laws prohibiting Catholics from holding office. Are Jews of the same faith?

If you exclude all non-white, non-Europeans and non-Protestants, Jay was spot on.
June 12th, 2010, 10:26 am
User avatar
A Person
 
Location: Slightly west of the Great White North
A Person wrote:
bigrebnc1861 wrote:You do not know more than John Jay. Your liberal agenda precedes you. And his essay is now Historical


"On the Jews and their Lies - Martin Luther" and "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" are historical too, it doesn't make them right

bigrebnc1861 wrote:1.The Indians not concidered American at the time so you are wrong
They weren't Chinese :lol: How about African Americans? Jewish Americans? etc. Yeah they weren't considered Americans either.

No blacks were not considered American Citizens, Chinese were not considered American citizens Indians were not concsidered Americans Citizens. You are looking at 21st century stats and names to in regards to 18th century views.

bigrebnc1861 wrote:2. English Colonies fought against England

Sure ... and?

bigrebnc1861 wrote:3.John Jay was talking about the Christian faith Protestant and Catholics both are of the Christian faith.

Jay did not consider them to be of the same faith when he tried to pass laws prohibiting Catholics from holding office. Are Jews of the same faith?
Judeo–Christian values ever heard of that. Jews and Christians serve the same God.
If you exclude all non-white, non-Europeans and non-Protestants, Jay was spot on.

As of the Revalutionary war there were only 2000 Jews in America.
June 12th, 2010, 10:45 am
User avatar
bigrebnc1861
 
Location: kannapolis North Carolina
Oh well that makes it all right to ignore them then :roll:

How about the 753,430 non whites? (1790 census)
June 12th, 2010, 11:13 am
User avatar
A Person
 
Location: Slightly west of the Great White North
A Person wrote:Oh well that makes it all right to ignore them then :roll:

How about the 753,430 non whites? (1790 census)

They were not considered American citizens facts are facts. Indians were a people to themselves. If the Indian was thought to be an American citizen then the Indian wars would have been another civil war instead of the Indian wars.
June 12th, 2010, 11:18 am
User avatar
bigrebnc1861
 
Location: kannapolis North Carolina
The 1790 census didn't enumerate Native Americans. It's referring to African Americans slaves 694,280 and other non whites: 59,150
June 12th, 2010, 11:25 am
User avatar
A Person
 
Location: Slightly west of the Great White North
A Person wrote:The 1790 census didn't enumerate Native Americans. It's referring to African Americans slaves 694,280 and other non whites: 59,150

They were not citizens did they have the right to vote? Did they pay taxes?
June 12th, 2010, 11:28 am
User avatar
bigrebnc1861
 
Location: kannapolis North Carolina
:lol:

With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people (tax paying citizens that is) --a people descended from the same ancestors (except the ones with dark skins), speaking the same language (those that speak English anyway), professing the same religion (pesky Catholics and Jews who should not even be allowed to hold office excluded of course), attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs (except those without decent European manners), and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war (ignoring those inconsequential slaves, blacks and Jews who fought and died with us), have nobly established general liberty and independence for white, European stock only.

Spot on.
June 12th, 2010, 11:44 am
User avatar
A Person
 
Location: Slightly west of the Great White North
A Person wrote::lol:

With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people (tax paying citizens that is) --a people descended from the same ancestors (except the ones with dark skins), speaking the same language (those that speak English anyway), professing the same religion (pesky Catholics and Jews who should not even be allowed to hold office excluded of course), attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs (except those without decent European manners), and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war (ignoring those inconsequential slaves, blacks and Jews who fought and died with us), have nobly established general liberty and independence for white, European stock only.

Spot on.

Agin one more time did anyone other than an American citizens pay taxes, did they have the right to vote?
June 12th, 2010, 11:59 am
User avatar
bigrebnc1861
 
Location: kannapolis North Carolina
He wrote that in 1787 before there was a constitution and hence before there were US citizens or US taxpayers. He specifically refers to those " who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence."

That includes Blacks and Jews, who unfortunately didn't get general liberty or independence
June 12th, 2010, 12:29 pm
User avatar
A Person
 
Location: Slightly west of the Great White North
A Person wrote:He wrote that in 1787 before there was a constitution and hence before there were US citizens or US taxpayers. He specifically refers to those " who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence."

That includes Blacks and Jews, who unfortunately didn't get general liberty or independence

How do you know what he was refering to since you do not understand what American citizenship was during his time?
June 12th, 2010, 12:37 pm
User avatar
bigrebnc1861
 
Location: kannapolis North Carolina
bigrebnc1861 wrote:How do you know what he was refering to since you do not understand what American citizenship was during his time?


Because he said so, clearly and unambiguously.

" who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence."


Or are you now disputing that Jews and Blacks fought in the Rebellion?
June 12th, 2010, 7:12 pm
User avatar
A Person
 
Location: Slightly west of the Great White North
A Person wrote:
bigrebnc1861 wrote:How do you know what he was refering to since you do not understand what American citizenship was during his time?


Because he said so, clearly and unambiguously.

Thats your misinformed interpetation
" who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence."


Or are you now disputing that Jews and Blacks fought in the Rebellion?

No are you disputing that blacks did not have any voting rights? Are you disputing that there where only 2000 jews in America at the start of the Revolution war?
June 12th, 2010, 7:18 pm
User avatar
bigrebnc1861
 
Location: kannapolis North Carolina
In 1787 no one had voting rights, that was what the American Rebellion was about. "No taxation without representation."

There was no constitution when he wrote his essay and the first elections weren't until the following year

You casually dismiss Jews because there was only a couple of thousand of them, you dismiss african americans because they were slaves - so, as I said earlier if you interpret what he said to apply only to White Protestant Europeans then he would be correct.

With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people (tax paying citizens that is) --a people descended from the same ancestors (except the ones with dark skins), speaking the same language (those that speak English anyway), professing the same religion (pesky Catholics and Jews who should not even be allowed to hold office excluded of course), attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs (except those without decent European manners), and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war (ignoring those inconsequential slaves, blacks and Jews who fought and died with us), have nobly established general liberty and independence for white, European stock only.


This topic is done. There's nothing more to be said.
June 12th, 2010, 8:33 pm
User avatar
A Person
 
Location: Slightly west of the Great White North
A Person wrote:In 1787 no one had voting rights, that was what the American Rebellion was about. "No taxation without representation."

There was no constitution when he wrote his essay and the first elections weren't until the following year

You casually dismiss Jews because there was only a couple of thousand of them, you dismiss african americans because they were slaves - so, as I said earlier if you interpret what he said to apply only to White Protestant Europeans then he would be correct.

With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people (tax paying citizens that is) --a people descended from the same ancestors (except the ones with dark skins), speaking the same language (those that speak English anyway), professing the same religion (pesky Catholics and Jews who should not even be allowed to hold office excluded of course), attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs (except those without decent European manners), and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war (ignoring those inconsequential slaves, blacks and Jews who fought and died with us), have nobly established general liberty and independence for white, European stock only.


This topic is done. There's nothing more to be said.


I will decide when this topic is done you have proven NOTHING you are wrong IT IS YOUR non American interpetation that makes you think you are correct Indians were not considered Americans blacks were not considered Americans there were very few Jews for John Jay to mention them, There were no Chinese in America
June 12th, 2010, 9:35 pm
User avatar
bigrebnc1861
 
Location: kannapolis North Carolina
bigrebnc1861 wrote:I will decide when this topic is done.


Unfortunately you're wrong on that account too... I do... LOCKED!
June 13th, 2010, 10:49 am
User avatar
Liv
I show you something fantastic and you find fault.
 
Location: Greensboro, NC

Return to News