Yes, this is sensible, and I also note what 2sense and Ibn Warraq have said. I suppose my point can be summed up like this: I can’t see a definition of “democracy” that excludes “only landowners get to vote” but includes legal slavery.
Indeed. The idea of a constitution was widespread in the 17th century. Long before the US Constitution many of the British colonies (aka the future US states) also had some kind of constitution. For example, see the Fundamental Orders and the Mayflower Compact.
Britain came into being in the early eighteenth century. Before that it was Scotland and England as separate countries. Slavery was never legal in England or Scotland either. England did not become a political entity before about 900 ce.
Additionally there is a moral and political difference between chattel slavery and slavery as punishment.
I guess these are nitpicks too.
As noted above, there ia a plitical and moral difference between chattel slavery of a race and slavery as punishment (usually historically for a number of years as reparation after a war with no ownership implied) or indentured servitude- which populated most of the thirteen colonies initially.
Yeh They tried to impress me in 1969 into a foreign government’s illegal war.
The United States, that is, tried to draft me as a Brit against my will.
If impressment was slavery, then slavery existed in the sixties in the US!!!
The possibility of it was abolished by case law which found that if a slave was landed in England, they immediately became freed from the bond. It was held that this had always been the case under English Common Law.
Agreed!
I find a ‘democracy’ based on property qualification undesirable and antiquated, but a ‘democracy’ based on race to be an abomination.
The Troubles in Northern Ireland killed 3000 plus people.
The Civil War in the US killed 500,000.
I think you need a sense of perspective!
You misunderstand case law. The decision implied that slavery had never been legal in England, no matter what lower courts had previously found. Common Law rests on Principles and Legislation. The principle of English Common Law was that slavery was not legal AND parliament had not legislated to make it legal. Therefore it had never been legal.
And which was greater.
The number of people who died in two years of the potato famine or the people who died in five years of the Civil War?
I have no dog in this rather idiotic fight between two countries which happily slaughtered and persecuted vast numbers of brown people while proclaiming themselves the epitome of civilization, but it’s utterly asinine to reduce the problems between Ireland the UK to the number of people killed in the troubles in the last few decades.
No, you need to read for comprehension. “The Troubles” was but one item on the menu for bloodletting in the UK. I was not making a comparison between the American Civil War and only The Troubles.
But the Civil War death toll puts everything into perspective.
It was ‘The Trobles’ that were quoted to me. ‘The Troubles’ refers to the problems between the UK and Sinn Fein in the 1970s-1990s. Previous problems were referred to as the struggle for Home Rule and Independence, and are not referred to as ‘The Troubles.’
I think you need to read your Irish history somewhat more deeply. Certainly the massacres by Cromwell can be laid against Britain, but the Famine has more in common with the Hurricane in New Orleans. Both the British reaction in the 1850s and the US reaction in the first decade in the twenty first century were the same- poor people are not the concern of central government.
The argument is sometimes put that Massachussetts has the oldest continuously operating legislature in North America, but that’s not accurate: the Nova Scotia Legislature was set up in 1758 and has operated continuously since then.
And you also run into the issue of what is a written constitution; the original document setting it up was under the Royal Prerogative, giving it limited legislative powers, and the Legislature could not change its basic composition or powers, unlike the British Parliament.
That sounds like a written constitution to me.
The worlds oldest continous constitutional democracy is the European Republic of San Marino, founded in 301.
While there is some discussion about how far back you can go and still call its legal framework a written constitution, the Leges, from 1600 certainly qualify. The Statuti from the 1300 could also qualify. As an unwritten constitution, you could take it back to the Roman common law that formed the foundation of the legal system. Elected Councilors an Regents are basically Senators and Consuls.
When the United States was 150 years old, the world was on the threshold of WW2. When San Marino was 150 years old, Attila the Hun was invading the Roman empire and England was almost half a millennium in the future.
Nope; that’s spin control, trying to rehabilitate a statement that was incorrect. You didn’t specify “chattel slavery.” You only said “Britain never had slavery.” That’s not quite correct.
As per my reply, “Britain” and “England” never had legal slavery. Predecessor polities may have done.
Britain came into existence in 1703, and England in the ninth century and neither had legal slavery.
Emphasis added. Slaves, either strictly speaking or de facto are certainly to be found in the Domesday Book. It seems to have declined as an institution swiftly thereafter however.
He more likely is aware that only right wingers see a big distinction between the two.
Franklin was being asked to choose between two alternatives:
Given those two choices, obviously we are a republic.
The US at the time the Constitution took effect had many anti-democratic features, including substantial suffrage limitations and highly indirect elections for president and senators.
Franklin opposed separation of powers and favored universal white male suffrage. I got the impression from Isaacson’s biography that, towards the end of his life, Franklin favored universal suffrage, period.
Despite the above, in a famous speech, Franklin praised the US Constitution as good enough. He would have been both pleased and unsurprised to learn that anti-democratic features of the US Constitution have withered away.
What are you talking about? The Protectorate had a written constitution called the Instrument of Government followed by another in the Humble Petition and Advice. A written constitution is not an American idea, nor is the use of “Constitution” to refer to the foundational law of England (later Britain) a back formation from the American usage. “Constitution” in its modern sense was being used well before the American Constitution was drafted in the British Isles.
[/QUOTE]
See also this quotation from William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham, former Prime Minister of Great Britain in 1770: