“Supposed to have,” Gracie? What if we declare that we’re SUPPOSED to have the right to kill our children? Apparently we DO believe that given the 60 million (just in THIS country) that we’ve destroyed in the name of “women’s rights” just in the last 45 years and continue to destroy every day. There is no such thing as “natural rights” to which every human being is entitled. Again, one ONLY has the “rights” that everyone else–or the majority of everyone elses–agrees to grant…period.
And the contradiction is why they were phasing slavery out.
It wasn’t simply compassion, it’s that they recognized Negros were also people, thus, they needed to have their rights recognize.
The majority did, they stated this man:
“In a warm climate, no man will labour for himself who can make another labour for him. This is so true, that of the proprietors of slaves a very small proportion indeed are ever seen to labour. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference!”
It’s why Jefferson called Slavery an “abhorrent crime”, because it violated natural rights.
If I’m “unify[ing] multiple conflicting ideas”, so were they.
“The prevailing ideas entertained by [Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically.”
– Alexander H. Stephens, The Cornerstone Speech
The Founders disagreed.
In practice, so do we. Even non-Americans. When a dictator terrorizes and suppresses his people, we state that those people’s human rights are being violated, even if that country’s social charter makes no mention of those rights.
Universal rights are thus abstracted to be in effect, always, even when the Government or non-state actors make no attempt to recognize them.
Pretty sure he didn’t. I’ve quoted Jefferson’s thoughts on blacks quite throughly with ample context, perhaps you’d like to present similar contrary evidence?
Not people misinterpreting Jefferson - as you’ve done twice now with the Vice President of the Confederates. Why you keep quoting the VP of the Confederacy to interpret Jefferson is beyond me, but whatever. Please quote Jefferson directly with at least two full sentences of context, rather than quoting Confederate politicians on their perception of the Founders.
Ah, sorry, wrong a-word:
“Seven votes being requisite to decide the proposition
affirmatively, it was lost. The voice of a single individual of the
State which was divided [New Jersey] . . . would have prevented
this abominable crime from spreading itself over the new country.
Thus we see the fate of millions unborn hanging on the tongue of
one man, and Heaven was silent in that awful moment! But it is to
be hoped it will not always be silent, and that the friends to the
rights of human nature will in the end prevail.”
They weren’t though. Jefferson believed in natural law, that even slaves were party to it, hence why slavery needed to be abolished.
It wasn’t generalized sympathy that motivated this, it was principle. A principle he offered by name.
From Howell v. Netherland, where Jefferson argued for the freedom of a 3rd generation mulatto slave:
“Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance. The reducing the mother to servitude was a violation of the law of nature: surely then the same law cannot prescribe a continuance of the violation to her issue, and that too without end, for if it extends to any, it must to every degree of descendants.”
You STILL refuse to get it, AS. Jefferson gave lip service from time to time in opposition to the institution of slavery, all the while MAINTAINING about a hundred or so himself–one of whom he impregnated a few times and treated as his “property.” “Natural Law” is a pipe-dream that, in reality, doesn’t exist as a practical matter IF those in charge simply refuse to apply it universally. It might be an ideal to which to strive, but it simply does NOT exist in practice. If it did, there wouldn’t be such political pressure to disarm people and leave them defenseless against the predators among us, just as one example. A fairly substantial percentage of Americans want this to happen–and the sooner the better–IGNORING what you claim is “Natural Law”…that being everyone’s so-called “right” to life, liberty and property. If you are DENIED your right to life, liberty and property–and we are so denied that right routinely every day–then they don’t really EXIST as a practical matter. If you doubt this, try not paying your property taxes for a couple of years and see how long you enjoy your “right” to your “property” and how long you may enjoy your “liberty.” You probably won’t be killed for not paying your taxes…at least not in this country…but you could easily be killed if the government decides to take away your “right” to self-defense, and we seem to be moving in that direction.
You did meet my two sentence criteria, so I will grant that you passed that threshold.
But what was he speaking of? Was it slavery in general or…
Ah, so the inception of the Missouri Compromise.
You imply Jefferson argued for this in the entire nation - which he did not. He simply wanted to limit the benefit of utilizing slaves to his home state and a dozen or so others.
It makes no sense for Jefferson to adamantly oppose slavery in all forms while personally owning a hundred slaves himself. Lincoln was actually opposed to slavery and never owned a slave. Though he was far from an equaliist.
Cwolf, why is he calling slavery a crime?
You’re going to have to acknowledge this sooner or later.
That’s like 40 years later, and the result of the vote Jefferson speaking to failing. What you just quoted concerns the Northwest Protocol, which I reiterate, he wrote.
It was a strategic plan to limit slave power and to phase the institution out, which Lincoln saw to its conclusion.
He came up with a plan of “We’ll let all slaves go at age of 49; long enough for them to have paid for themselves.” But that didn’t work, partly because he couldn’t get enough support. His buy-out plan had the same reaction.
He said it about the expansion of it to new territories. Not in general. As(again) he himself owned numerous slaves. Do you think he felt his own on-going actions to be “a crime”? And if so, how exactly can you point to him as a moral authority?
Which is what I’ve said all along. Jefferson had some misgivings about slavery in general, and was torn between abolishing it and modifying it. You’ve done nothing to disprove my rather objective position. Jefferson was never a full throated abolitionist - he simply wasn’t. He was conflicted his entire life. Lincoln indeed appears to have been a firm abolitionist for all of his political life. But much like Jefferson he explicitly said he would never stand for equal rights and status of different races.
Again, all of this started over your insistence that people who actively owned slaves believed in unfettered migration. Which is just plainly untrue. But you can’t even accept that Jefferson a man who owned over a hundred slaves was anything but a fierce defender of universal equality.
As a plan to cordon slavery off. He couldn’t hope to wipe it away instantly, so he went with a containment strategy.
I already said this. I’ve brought up the Northwest Ordinance three times already. A document Lincoln waived as around as evidence that the Founders intended to gradually wipe slavery away.
Yes, he was highly troubled by it, and when abolitionist were invited to his home, he would hide the slaves away. He equally said that slavery basically corrupted both the slave and the slave owner.
But he was born into the life, and he frequently went broke. So he couldn’t divest himself of it easily.
He applied natural law to it, and saw it as inconsistent.
Not only did he read Locke to reach this conclusion, his own Law professor explicitly held to this:
This wasn’t general misgivings. It was the very thing abolitionists used to argue slavery needed to be destroyed.
The very thing that “accidentally” made Slavery illegal in England.
Equal as citizens, that’s where you got things mixed up. Universal rights were something they were both convinced had to happen.
Thinking blacks didn’t equate whites in mental capacity, was no obstacle to thinking that they had natural rights. They can & did apply those rights to actual mentally deficit people.
Uh, It is true, because naturalization. That’s how the debate was argued & settled.
Anyone could come, work, and live here, only a select could be citizens.
That’s the dichotomy embedded here.
He’s an Olympic gold medalist in mental, moral and logical gymnastics, so flexible he might be considered near boneless, and certainly spineless.
The question doesn’t answer mine; why was Jefferson calling it a crime?
I’m not asking you to buy his judgement, I’m asking you to identify what it is.
What motivated him to say it.
Where did Thomas Jefferson approve of Islam? He got a Koran because he wanted to find out what made the Barbary Pirates tick. And when he found out, he took appropriate action.
Wasnt that the foundation of the Marine Corps?
I’m not saying he approved it, I’m saying he defended their right to practice in America.
He thought of them no differently than he did Catholics. Too rigid in dogma and unwilling to adjust.
Susanne, he bought his first Qu’ran when he was still in law school. His intent seemed to be wanting to understand their legal theory, and how that impacted the legal theory of non-Islamic nations.
And quix, I’m still waiting for an answer from you.
I wasn’t citing Jefferson as a moral authority, that was a shift in goalposts, I’m asking why was he trying to get rid of slavery?
What was driving this?
It seems Cwolf only learned that they took action, not why.
I’m pretty sure so, and the building up of the Navy.
My uncle always said that Sparta was the real start point for the USMC.
Jefferson was a scholar. He was curious about a whole lot of different things…Islam, being only one. What better way to understand Islam than by reading about their beliefs and philosophy. I doubt that he REALLY ever understood that Islam is more of a political, governing philosophy than a true religion. If Islam is “merely” a religion, that would be one thing–and maybe even benign in this country as is Shinto or Sikhism. However, we know that there are radical sects of Islam, embraced and adhered to by as many as 20% of all Muslims, that are extremely dangerous to anyone’s liberty. Twenty percent doesn’t sound like much of a problem until you realize that 20% of 1 and a half BILLION Muslims is a staggeringly large number…300+ MILLION radicals.
Just to hammer in the point, Abraham Lincoln also held that the Founders intended to rid the country of slavery.
He even quoted Jefferson speaking on the behalf of Virginian Emancipation:
“It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation, and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off insensibly…”
Lincoln himself summed up the Founders views as:
“Thus we see, the plain unmistakable spirit of that age, towards slavery, was hostility to the PRINCIPLE, and toleration, ONLY BY NECESSITY.”
So he and the Confederacy were on the same page here. The Founders couldn’t achieve it in their own age, but they did aim for gradual emancipation.