Is it possible that after a life of slavery those particular people, because of the conditions they lived in as slaves were unprepared to live in the world? Perhaps, and I admit I’m just musing on the topic, but maybe He felt responsible for those particular slaves?
So you’re saying that Jefferson ADMITTED that holding his slaves likely diminished them into something “simpler” than whites? If so, then he believed them to NOT be a white person’s “equal.” Sort of punctures your whole meme doesn’t it?
I’ve often wondered about this in a general sense of slavery in America. When they were freed, most rose to the challenge. But a fair percentage (small in general terms, but significant in context) of them didn’t know how to handle their abrupt freedom, and turned to drinking and crime; and I’ve often wondered if that isn’t a significant part of the reason for the significantly higher crime rate among blacks.
Not to excuse modern behavior, but cultural elements can be quite persistent, and it often seems to me that the most negative elements are the most persistent. I dont think that notion can be casually dismissed, but neither do I think modern whites bear any responsibility for it.
The blacks in this country were doing quite well when integration was in process. Their successes were discouraged when LBJ told them they shouldn’t integrate, or they’d lose their culture. That must have been part of the incident when he was caught on mike saying, "We’ll have those n****rs voting for us for 200 years.
I think I already covered this. He can think some Muslims and Hindus are better than some Christians, while maintaining a strong preference for one particular group. There is quite a difference between “We will accept your most capable elite” and “Please empty our your ghetto/prison into our town”
He cites Locke’s Letter on Tolerance as evidence for why respect for Religion must be Universal (his term), not dependent on anything Christian.
Jefferson’s own words demonstrate his motive here.
You’re going to have acknowledge this Cwolf, irrespective of immigration, they did mean universal respect of rights. There’s no escaping that.
And I think you missed what I said before, so I’ll elaborate on it here.
The Founders centered their argument as to who fully joined into the society through arguments on naturalization, not immigration.
They had other categorizes of person who weren’t naturalized, yet whom still enjoyed Constitutional protections, such as “friendly” aliens (anyone were not at war with), and denizens (non-whites born here).
If you read the text of the Naturalization Act of 1798, you’ll get a sense of it.
Whites were given exclusivity to naturalize until the 1850s. Immigration was allowed to be its own thing.
I’ve always said that the seeds of slavery’s overturn were sowed in the Constitution itself and deliberately so. Slavery was certainly controversial in 1789 and clearly on the decline, I’ve never denied that. But there’s a huge gap between “Slavery is wrong” and “Everyone has equal treatment under the law”.
I quote Jefferson, Lincoln and plenty of others who directly deal with “Should black people be able to vote” and the universal reply was “NO”. And you sit here and say they ‘really meant yes’. They did not.
You know, I can’t take my dog out to the town square and beat him to death with a baseball bat either?
That doesn’t mean my dog has equal rights. In a less extreme example than pets, would be children - or women before the early 20th century. They had some of the rights - but not all of them.
Even if you want to go with the slave vs freeman argument - fine. We had black freemen. ALL white women were free people. White women were not granted all of the same rights.
If they believed in universal equality, why did they specify rights that applied exclusively for men?
And do you think ANY of the founders(including abolitionists) considered “free” black men to be equals to white women? Make a case for why, I’d love to hear it.
The two are tied together; (small r) republican values as the Founders saw them through Locke, demanded equal, universal treatment of natural rights.
Thus, unfortunate culture practice where we treated one part of our population less than equal in terms of their liberty, person, or property, had to go. It’s a threat to the ethic; a way for anti-republican values to creep back into the society.
But they couldn’t do it all at once as that would have created riot that would split the country; thus, a phase out was instead put into motion.
Okay, so we’re getting to heart of the misunderstanding here.
I was talking about natural rights: Life, Liberty, Property.
Voting, Holding public office, being a public servant, those are all artificial creations of Government. These aren’t natural rights, rather, they are contractual privileges which Government is free to gate however it sees fit [within the bounds of the Social Charter].
Natural Law is about what rights you would have (or at least assert you have) even in the absence of Government.
Those privileges meanwhile, are what separates a Citizen from a “friendly” alien, or the obsolete category of denizen. Hence why debates over naturalization became so fractious, because that was a struggle over how access to voting etc. was being gated.
Your dog doesn’t have property, or liberty. Nor would killing them threaten capital punishment. So the comparison has lost something.
If you were trying to take the property of a person, even a non-white, you would have to assert that claim in a civil court, and prove it by “the preponderance of the evidence” that you had some claim to it.
You also couldn’t stop people from walking down a street, or stop a “Muhammadan” from practicing his faith, and expect a court to defend the action.
Due process, would defend the person you’re harming. Not because “compassion”, which is inexact and nebulous, but because “natural rights”, which apply to everyone, equally, and for which we have 3-4 centuries worth of precedent to decide what the bounds of it are.
BS. If there is no government, the very TERM “citizen” is meaningless, as would be the idea of a “friendly alien”. The term “denizen” would be the ONLY operable definition. Your definition of “natural law” then, is without real meaning in the absence of government. The fact is, you only have the “rights” that someone else, or some group of someone elses, are willing to GIVE you, which implies that ALL rights derive from government…or from some form of organized social controls, regardless of what you choose to call it. We believe in “God-given rights” in THIS country because we CHOOSE to believe in them. Many other countries simply deny that they exist–or they only exist in a form of which we collectively (at least in the majority) approve.
The reason this is falling apart is because you’re trying to unify multiple conflicting ideas. The people who made the law did not agree that everyone had a right to those things. They just didn’t. And that’s a much more basic “Other people can’t OWN me” idea, which is a quite a bit more basic than “The right to move to any land you deem fit”(which is a ‘right’ I have never heard of).