So then, what actual difference does it make? So many other countries have adopted the same principles. What real world difference does it make that the US adopted them (in theory but not in practice) at conception?
I guess I just dont understand the point of your original comment.
“I might repeatedly demonstrate that I jump to conclusions and make shit up without taking more than a passing notice of what I’m replying to, but making fun of me for it is just plain arrogant.”
No, it’s just that you made a few claims without any backing sources. Since you asserted a claim against the influence altogether and are a self confessed irritated person, i felt some backings sources would be useful.
Constitutional convention members such as Benjamin Franklin were very familiar with the Haudenosaunee Confederacy nations and their founding principles. He reviewed Cadwallader’s The history of the five Indian nations depending on the province of New-York in America, and he wrote the article, “Short Hints Towards a Scheme for Uniting the Northern Colonies.” Franklin wrote to his printing partner, James Parker, “It would be a very strange Thing, if [the] Six Nations… should be capable of forming a Scheme for such an Union, and be able to execute it in such a Manner, as that it has subsisted Ages, and appears indissoluble; and yet that a like Union should be impracticable for ten or a Dozen English Colonies, to whom it is more necessary, and must be more advantageous.” He worked on the Albany Plan of Union and members of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy attended the Albany Congress, where members of northern colonies discussed forming a general council for their common defense.
I apologize that you would have had to click that and go offsite to review.
It might be difficult for someone who is actively engaging their irritated side.
John Rutledge of South Carolina, delegate to the Constitutional Convention, read excerpts of various Iroquois Treaties to the drafting committee, however an English translation of the Great Law of Peace was not created until the 19th century.[37][38]
The influence of Six Nations law on the U.S. Constitution is disputed by scholars.[39] Haudenosaunee historian Elisabeth J. Tooker has pointed to several differences between the two forms of government, notably that all decisions were made by a consensus of male chiefs who gained their position through a combination of blood descent and selection by female relatives, that representation was on the basis of the number of clans in the group rather than the size or population of the clans, and that the topics discussed were decided by a single tribe. Tooker concluded there is little resemblance between the two documents or reason to believe the Six Nations had a meaningful influence on the American Constitution and that it is unclear how much impact Canassatego’s statement at Lancaster actually had on the representatives of the colonies.[40] Stanford University historian Jack N. Rakove argued against any Six Nations influence, pointing to lack of evidence in U.S. constitutional debate records and examples of European antecedents for democratic institutions.[41]
Journalist Charles C. Mann has noted other differences between The Great Law of Peace and the original U.S. Constitution, including the original Constitution’s allowing denial of suffrage to women and majority rule rather than consensus. Mann argues that the early colonists’ interaction with Native Americans and their understanding of Iroquois government did influence the development of colonial society and culture and the Suffragette movement but stated that “the Constitution as originally enacted was not at all like the Great Law.”[41][42]
Other critics of the Iroquois-influence theory include Samuel Payne, who considered the Iroquois division of powers as seen by Adams as being unlike those in the U.S. Constitution;[43] William Starna and George Hamell, who described errors in Grinde’s and Johansen’s scholarship, particularly on Canassatego and the Lancaster Treaty;[44] and Philip Levy, who also wrote that Grinde and Johansen had misused Adams’s material, stating that he was not describing the Iroquois Confederacy government separation of powers and model of government but that he was instead describing England’s structure.[45]
Nice citation of Britannica that says absolutely nothing about your claim, by the way.
If your argument is that this wasn’t always the case “before the country was formed” this holds for the US as well before it was united or still native American tribes.
One of the few? Sounds like you have not been abroad much or suffer from “American exceptionalism”.
I thought for many other countries equality wasn’t a foundational belief, it was adopted later after the country was formed.
One could argue that when they adopted them they became a new country or at least a new form of their country allowing them to lay new foudations.
Hum hum… “Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité”. Fuck off, American exceptionalist.
Kinda an unfair comparison when most other countries were created in antiquity.
That’s not an unfair comparison, it’s literally the point. I swear, we need all internet access locked behind reading comprehension tests.
So then, what actual difference does it make? So many other countries have adopted the same principles. What real world difference does it make that the US adopted them (in theory but not in practice) at conception?
I guess I just dont understand the point of your original comment.
It wasn’t me, and I sincerely doubt you’re capable of reaching understanding even if you weren’t bound and determined not to understand.
Solid copout. I like the touch of arrogance while doing nothing to earn it.
“I might repeatedly demonstrate that I jump to conclusions and make shit up without taking more than a passing notice of what I’m replying to, but making fun of me for it is just plain arrogant.”
— You
Good to see you doubling down on the arrogance. Good for you.
… not really? Most countries were created in modernity or early modernity, and almost all of them have deep ethnic and linguistic roots.
The USA was founded on a few idealistic scraps of paper.
We can argue whether that helps or hurts, but it is unusual in world history.
Seems you’re skipping forward to the current founding of the united states, which was ~1776.
The us constitution was modeled after the local Haudenosaunee Confederacy population’s government.
They were finally ousted by white (terrorist) settlers during the Sullivan-clinton campaign.
… considering that there was no ‘United States’ prior to 1776, this seems a pretty natural position to take.
This is a pop history myth.
I don’t think you should just trust me about the Sullivan-Clinton atrocities either, unlike your claims.
https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/the-clinton-sullivan-campaign-of-1779.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_Expedition
https://www.amrevmuseum.org/read-the-revolution/memory-wars
The Clinton-Sullivan Campaign of 1779
Nice comic, bad attitude OP.
I didn’t dispute the Sullivan Expedition. Sorry that your reading comprehension is so sub-par.
No, it’s just that you made a few claims without any backing sources. Since you asserted a claim against the influence altogether and are a self confessed irritated person, i felt some backings sources would be useful.
As it’s easier to spout off a full paste from an article instead of actually reading - here’s a part I’d like to call your attention to: https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2023/09/the-haudenosaunee-confederacy-and-the-constitution/
Constitutional convention members such as Benjamin Franklin were very familiar with the Haudenosaunee Confederacy nations and their founding principles. He reviewed Cadwallader’s The history of the five Indian nations depending on the province of New-York in America, and he wrote the article, “Short Hints Towards a Scheme for Uniting the Northern Colonies.” Franklin wrote to his printing partner, James Parker, “It would be a very strange Thing, if [the] Six Nations… should be capable of forming a Scheme for such an Union, and be able to execute it in such a Manner, as that it has subsisted Ages, and appears indissoluble; and yet that a like Union should be impracticable for ten or a Dozen English Colonies, to whom it is more necessary, and must be more advantageous.” He worked on the Albany Plan of Union and members of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy attended the Albany Congress, where members of northern colonies discussed forming a general council for their common defense.
I apologize that you would have had to click that and go offsite to review.
It might be difficult for someone who is actively engaging their irritated side.
Since you relied on your ‘trust me because I post a lot’ position in responding (you are making it up off the cuff);
Here’s some additional details about what you allege is a myth:
Library of Congress Blog Post: https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2023/09/the-haudenosaunee-confederacy-and-the-constitution/
Britannica post regarding the Confederacy: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Haudenosaunee-Confederacy
Do click in there if you doubt that there’s a plethora of backing information.
Why lie or feign ignorance? Is this to further the point? Doesn’t it function without the lies?
The current nation’s founding is rooted in several theories of antiquity and the ground they occupy had centuries of similar government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Law_of_Peace#Influence_on_the_United_States_Constitution
Nice citation of Britannica that says absolutely nothing about your claim, by the way.
“When the country was formed” is quite vague. Most European countries have constitutions with the same principles:
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/index.html
https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001840/2023-02-22
https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/sites/default/files/as/root/bank_mm/anglais/constiution_anglais_oct2009.pdf
If your argument is that this wasn’t always the case “before the country was formed” this holds for the US as well before it was united or still native American tribes.