|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Feb 9, 2015 18:39:24 GMT
Yes, most black Americans were "denied equality" and held as mere slaves "in 1776." But we have progressed a very long way since then. It is now 2015--remember? Whenever you interpretation of "the natural (inalienable) rights of the person" differs with the US Constitution, you seem to go with the former. I will cast my lot with the latter, in all cases.
We can actually quantify how far we've come since 1776 (or more accurately from the Civil War and 13th Amendment). Prior to the Civil War and the 13th Amendment the entire slave population had a total wealth of $0.00 because slaves were property prohibited from owning property. Since the Civil War and the 13th Amendment the average household wealth of African-Americans has increased from $0.00 to roughly $11,000. Of course when you start with "nothing" later having "anything" is infinately better but when compared to white households with an average household wealth of over $140,000 African-Americans are only about 1/10th of the way to achieving economic equality. At the rate of achieving economic equality of about 10% per 100 years it will take about 1,000 years before blacks will achieve economic equality in the United States. That's not based upon a liberal or conservative opinion but is a fact based upon simple math.
My interpretation of the "natural (inalienable) rights of the person" do not conflict with the US Constitution, and in fact, they are protected under the 9th Amendment to the US Constitution. My interpretations conflict with US statutory law but not the US Constitution. What I will concede is that US Supreme Court decisions have not supported all of my interpretations of the "natural (inalienable) rights of the person" because they have not be argued before the Supreme Court. The fact that an argument has not been presented before the Supreme Court does not disparage the validity or compelling nature of the argument. We can also note that the Supreme Court does overturn statutory law consistantly including statutory laws that may have existed since the United States was founded based upon the compelling arguments of the "right of the person" protected by the US Constitution.
Someday my arguments of the "natural (inalienable) right of property" will be presented before the US Supreme Court and many of the "statutory laws of property" are going to be ruled unconstitutional because the "natural (inalienable) right of property" is compelling and undeniable.
You probably should not hold your breath until the SCOTUS decrees that all "statutory laws of property" are illegal, and that one must till the land in order to acquire the right to the property in question, rather than just purchasing the land. And I am not especially impressed with mere averages. After all, the "average" among 25, 50, 75, 100, and 1,000,000 is 200,050; but that is not even close to the median. |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Feb 9, 2015 18:51:15 GMT
Apparently, then, you object to capitalism as it currently exists--both in America, and anywhere else. Title to property is not granted, in the US, according to the "fiat of the monarch." Rather, it is granted in exactly the same way that a car title is granted: i.e. as a result of its purchase.
If the Framers were all in substantial agreement with John Locke, that only "sweat equity" might establish a right to the land in question, why was that point never included in the US Constitution?
Capitalism based upon the Austrian School and/or Keynesian School of economic ideology are indeed objectionable to me because both are based upon "statutory ownership" that often violates the "natural (inalienable) right of property" of the person. Capitalism can be based upon the "natural (inalienable) right of property" of the person meeting the criteria established by John Locke and capitalism in this form is the only acceptable economic system.
Ownership of every square foot of land and every natural resource is based upon a statutory grant of "title" where the original owner paid nothing for it (with the possible exception of a filing fee). We can also note that anything purchased where the "natural (inalienable) right of property" of the person that created it with their labor was violated represents "theft" of the labor of the person. If the employee doesn't receive enough in compensation to provide for their basic "support and comfort" that they have a right to based upon their labor in producing that which we purchase then, at least in part, their labor was stolen from them.
Do you advocate theft in our economic system under the law?
In the 1780's when the Constitution was created they had to same problem that we have today. The "conservatives" opposed the "progressive" (that would be progressive libertarians today) that included Jefferson and Madison and, to obtain ratification of the US Constitution, the progressives were forced to compromise on many of the "natural (inalienable) rights" of the person in the Constitution. The progressives (i.e. Madison specifically) were actually quite skillful in including the 9th Amendment in the Bill of Rights but that always required that the "unenumerated" rights of the person would be subject to future Supreme Court decisions and/or to later Amendments to the US Constitution.
For example the denial of Right to Vote for women was always a clear violation of their civil rights and that was not rectified until the 20th Century well over 100 years after the US Constitution was ratified. It was the "progressives" that fought for women's suffrage and they were opposed by the "conservatives" in the United States that argued for the status quo where women were denied the right to vote.
It has always been the "conservatives" that have impeded the advancement of the ideology of the "rights of the person" throughout the history of the United States. It was the "conservatives" that opposed the emancipation of the slaves in the United States. It was the "conservatives" that advocated for racial/ethnic/religious bias in the immigration laws. It was the "conservatives" that opposed equality for all Americans as exemplified by their opposition to same-sex marriage. It was the "conservatives" that opposed the Right of the Self of the woman when it came to abortion. It was the "conservatives" that advocated laws that created disenfranchisement of the people in our voting laws. It was the "conservatives" that have always opposed the "natural (inalienable) right of property" of the person in our statutory laws.
US history documents the "progressives" consistantly fighting for the "Rights of the Person" while the "conservatives" have consistantly opposed the expansion of those rights.
And with this, you have firmly established what we always suspected, anyway: i.e. your absolute loathing of conservatives (supposedly, based upon many actions of the long-ago past). What I "advocate" is the rule of law--yes, including "statutory law"--rather than each individual's deciding for himself (or herself) what actions are (supposedlt) justified, and acting accordingly. And you have just admitted that you find "objectionable" any form of capitalism that currently exists in the US (the Keynesian school, on the left, and the Austrian school, on the right, being the two predominant theories). By the way, there was never any "violation" of women's constitutional rights, prior to suffrage. And wherever "civil" rights (of which you actually spoke) are in conflict with constitutional rights, I will cast my lot with the latter, until a constitutional amendment corrects the matter. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Feb 10, 2015 13:44:31 GMT
You probably should not hold your breath until the SCOTUS decrees that all "statutory laws of property" are illegal, and that one must till the land in order to acquire the right to the property in question, rather than just purchasing the land. And I am not especially impressed with mere averages. After all, the "average" among 25, 50, 75, 100, and 1,000,000 is 200,050; but that is not even close to the median.
By definition a "law of property" cannot be illegal but it can be unconstitutional. Not all statutory laws of property are unconstitutional but many are based upon the unenumerated right of property as established by the compelling arguments put forward by John Locke. I will certainly take your advice and not hold my breath waiting for these violations of the natural (inalienable) rights of property to be addressed as I know that historically it typically takes centuries before the rights of the person are established under the laws of a nation.
Regardless of whether "average" or "median" wealth is used as the criteria the disparity remains so great that it still provides clear quantitative evidence the the "right of property" is not equal for blacks and whites in America.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Feb 10, 2015 14:06:32 GMT
And with this, you have firmly established what we always suspected, anyway: i.e. your absolute loathing of conservatives (supposedly, based upon many actions of the long-ago past). What I "advocate" is the rule of law--yes, including "statutory law"--rather than each individual's deciding for himself (or herself) what actions are (supposedlt) justified, and acting accordingly. And you have just admitted that you find "objectionable" any form of capitalism that currently exists in the US (the Keynesian school, on the left, and the Austrian school, on the right, being the two predominant theories). By the way, there was never any "violation" of women's constitutional rights, prior to suffrage. And wherever "civil" rights (of which you actually spoke) are in conflict with constitutional rights, I will cast my lot with the latter, until a constitutional amendment corrects the matter.
The inherent flaw in conservative political ideology is that it seeks to perpetuate the injustices of the past. Progressive political ideologies seek to eliminate past injustices.
I also advocate the "rule of law" but also seek to overturn or repeal those laws that represent injustice and/or a violation of the US Constitution.
The Austrian School, Keynesian School, and Marxist School of economics are all based upon the theft of labor which is why I oppose them all. As noted there is no rational reason why capitalism cannot exist without violating the Right of Property of the Person.
I would point out the following statement in Article 1 Section 2 of the US Constitution:
"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States...."
The word "People" (singular "person") when used in the US Constitution refers to everyone including men and women regardless of race, regardless of religion, and even regardless of citizenship status. Any statutory law that prohibits any of the People from voting violates this provision of the US Constitution that has always existed. When women were denied the right to vote they were being denied the definition of being one of the "People" (i.e. a person) under the US Constitution.
Do you believe it was ever correct to deny the "Right of Self" of a woman as a "Person" under the statutory laws in the United States. Or was a woman always a "person" in which case her Constitutional Right to Vote was being denied by statutory laws?
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Feb 11, 2015 19:49:20 GMT
And with this, you have firmly established what we always suspected, anyway: i.e. your absolute loathing of conservatives (supposedly, based upon many actions of the long-ago past). What I "advocate" is the rule of law--yes, including "statutory law"--rather than each individual's deciding for himself (or herself) what actions are (supposedlt) justified, and acting accordingly. And you have just admitted that you find "objectionable" any form of capitalism that currently exists in the US (the Keynesian school, on the left, and the Austrian school, on the right, being the two predominant theories). By the way, there was never any "violation" of women's constitutional rights, prior to suffrage. And wherever "civil" rights (of which you actually spoke) are in conflict with constitutional rights, I will cast my lot with the latter, until a constitutional amendment corrects the matter.
The inherent flaw in conservative political ideology is that it seeks to perpetuate the injustices of the past. Progressive political ideologies seek to eliminate past injustices.
I also advocate the "rule of law" but also seek to overturn or repeal those laws that represent injustice and/or a violation of the US Constitution.
The Austrian School, Keynesian School, and Marxist School of economics are all based upon the theft of labor which is why I oppose them all. As noted there is no rational reason why capitalism cannot exist without violating the Right of Property of the Person.
I would point out the following statement in Article 1 Section 2 of the US Constitution:
"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States...."
The word "People" (singular "person") when used in the US Constitution refers to everyone including men and women regardless of race, regardless of religion, and even regardless of citizenship status. Any statutory law that prohibits any of the People from voting violates this provision of the US Constitution that has always existed. When women were denied the right to vote they were being denied the definition of being one of the "People" (i.e. a person) under the US Constitution.
Do you believe it was ever correct to deny the "Right of Self" of a woman as a "Person" under the statutory laws in the United States. Or was a woman always a "person" in which case her Constitutional Right to Vote was being denied by statutory laws?
At the time that the US Constitution was drafted and ratified, women (like blacks) were widely regarded as being subhuman. Therefore, it is really disingenuous to claim that the Framers intended to include women among the "people" to whom they referred. (Thankfully, that has since been corrected. But until that was accomplished, the US Constitution did--and should have--prevailed, despite any other considerations.) I certainly do not wish to "perpetuate the injustices of the past." That is just a leftist talking point. Any real injustices should be corrected by law--not by mere governmental fiat. (As for "affirmative action," I liken it to so-called "makeup calls" in a basketball game. If an official has--unequivocally--blown a call earlier in the game, I simply detest the thought that he might try to compensate by missing another call, the opposite way, later. That just compounds the error, by resulting in two missed calls, instead of one.) Only a handful of Americans actually endorse Marxism. The two chief schools of economic thought in the US are the Austrian school (on the right) and the Keyensian school (on the left). Your rejection of both indicates that you reject American capitalism, as it is currently practiced; and embrace only some purely theoretical idea of capitalism. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Feb 12, 2015 15:29:04 GMT
At the time that the US Constitution was drafted and ratified, women (like blacks) were widely regarded as being subhuman. Therefore, it is really disingenuous to claim that the Framers intended to include women among the "people" to whom they referred. (Thankfully, that has since been corrected. But until that was accomplished, the US Constitution did--and should have--prevailed, despite any other considerations.) I certainly do not wish to "perpetuate the injustices of the past." That is just a leftist talking point. Any real injustices should be corrected by law--not by mere governmental fiat. (As for "affirmative action," I liken it to so-called "makeup calls" in a basketball game. If an official has--unequivocally--blown a call earlier in the game, I simply detest the thought that he might try to compensate by missing another call, the opposite way, later. That just compounds the error, by resulting in two missed calls, instead of one.) Only a handful of Americans actually endorse Marxism. The two chief schools of economic thought in the US are the Austrian school (on the right) and the Keyensian school (on the left). Your rejection of both indicates that you reject American capitalism, as it is currently practiced; and embrace only some purely theoretical idea of capitalism.
What the general population believed in the 1780's and what the authors of the US Constitution knew varied widely but to claim that the authors of the US Constitution didn't understand that women were also "people" when they used that word in the US Constitution is blatantly false. The authors of the US Constitution knew full well that the words "People" and "Person" referred to everyone regardless of race, religion, gender, ethnic heritage, citizenship, non-citizenship, or any other invidious criteria. Based upon the "original intent" of the authors of the US Constitution, that knew the definition of words and knew exactly what they were saying, the words "People" and "Person" in the US Constitution always referred to everyone regardless of race, religion, gender, ethnic heritage, citizenship, non-citizenship, or any other invidious criteria.
Based upon the explicit wording of the US Constitution and "original intent" of the words "people" and "person" then every adult reaching the "age of majority" regardless of race, religion, gender, ethnic heritage, citizenship, non-citizenship, or any other invidious criteria should have the Right to Vote in US elections. It is only statutory laws that have ever denied this "right to vote" for any adult person under the US Constitution throughout the history of the United States. "Original Intent" establishes that these laws that prohibit voting by any of the "people" are unconsitutional although the US Supreme Court has yet to rule on these laws based upon the "conservative" Constitutional argument of original intent.
The fact is that the US Constitution did not prevail when it was ratified and still doesn't prevail in many cases based upon the original intent of the authors.
Statutory law is a component of government fiat. Conservatives and Libertarians, for example, commonly refer to Federal Reserve notes as "fiat money" because they are created by government fiat under the law and are not "natural money" that is a commonly accepted commodity (e.g. gold and silver bullion) to facilitate trade. Of interest is that the US Courts cannot create government by fiat but instead are limited to striking down the fiats (laws) of government. As an example of this in the case of Roe v Wade the Court did not "legalize" abortion but instead it struck down the "fiats of government" (laws) that prohibited or restricted abortion. Courts can nullify laws (government fiats) but cannot create them.
Capitalism in the US is not based upon either the Austrian school or the Keyensian school of economics. To oppose either is not to oppose capitalism as it exists in the United States. To support capitalism based upon the "natural (inalienable) right of property" is to support capitalism based upon the American political ideology.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Feb 16, 2015 19:01:46 GMT
At the time that the US Constitution was drafted and ratified, women (like blacks) were widely regarded as being subhuman. Therefore, it is really disingenuous to claim that the Framers intended to include women among the "people" to whom they referred. (Thankfully, that has since been corrected. But until that was accomplished, the US Constitution did--and should have--prevailed, despite any other considerations.) I certainly do not wish to "perpetuate the injustices of the past." That is just a leftist talking point. Any real injustices should be corrected by law--not by mere governmental fiat. (As for "affirmative action," I liken it to so-called "makeup calls" in a basketball game. If an official has--unequivocally--blown a call earlier in the game, I simply detest the thought that he might try to compensate by missing another call, the opposite way, later. That just compounds the error, by resulting in two missed calls, instead of one.) Only a handful of Americans actually endorse Marxism. The two chief schools of economic thought in the US are the Austrian school (on the right) and the Keyensian school (on the left). Your rejection of both indicates that you reject American capitalism, as it is currently practiced; and embrace only some purely theoretical idea of capitalism.
What the general population believed in the 1780's and what the authors of the US Constitution knew varied widely but to claim that the authors of the US Constitution didn't understand that women were also "people" when they used that word in the US Constitution is blatantly false. The authors of the US Constitution knew full well that the words "People" and "Person" referred to everyone regardless of race, religion, gender, ethnic heritage, citizenship, non-citizenship, or any other invidious criteria. Based upon the "original intent" of the authors of the US Constitution, that knew the definition of words and knew exactly what they were saying, the words "People" and "Person" in the US Constitution always referred to everyone regardless of race, religion, gender, ethnic heritage, citizenship, non-citizenship, or any other invidious criteria.
Based upon the explicit wording of the US Constitution and "original intent" of the words "people" and "person" then every adult reaching the "age of majority" regardless of race, religion, gender, ethnic heritage, citizenship, non-citizenship, or any other invidious criteria should have the Right to Vote in US elections. It is only statutory laws that have ever denied this "right to vote" for any adult person under the US Constitution throughout the history of the United States. "Original Intent" establishes that these laws that prohibit voting by any of the "people" are unconsitutional although the US Supreme Court has yet to rule on these laws based upon the "conservative" Constitutional argument of original intent.
The fact is that the US Constitution did not prevail when it was ratified and still doesn't prevail in many cases based upon the original intent of the authors.
Statutory law is a component of government fiat. Conservatives and Libertarians, for example, commonly refer to Federal Reserve notes as "fiat money" because they are created by government fiat under the law and are not "natural money" that is a commonly accepted commodity (e.g. gold and silver bullion) to facilitate trade. Of interest is that the US Courts cannot create government by fiat but instead are limited to striking down the fiats (laws) of government. As an example of this in the case of Roe v Wade the Court did not "legalize" abortion but instead it struck down the "fiats of government" (laws) that prohibited or restricted abortion. Courts can nullify laws (government fiats) but cannot create them.
Capitalism in the US is not based upon either the Austrian school or the Keyensian school of economics. To oppose either is not to oppose capitalism as it exists in the United States. To support capitalism based upon the "natural (inalienable) right of property" is to support capitalism based upon the American political ideology.
Your assertion that the sort of "capitalism" that you support is "based upon the American political ideology" is tantamount to your declaring that you "support" a capitalism according to your own definition of "the American political ideology"-- not according to the way capitalism is practiced (and always has been practiced) in America. What do you mean, exactly, by your declaration that statutory law "is a component of government fiat"? (Bold in original) Is that your way of asserting that all statutory law is---well, constitutionally illegal? How you can assert that "people," in the US Constitution, meant "every adult" over the age of majority, "regardless of race," is a real mystery to me. At the time, blacks were regarded as mere property. I am certainly not suggesting that this was perfectly all right; I am just saying that this is the way it really was. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Feb 17, 2015 12:46:08 GMT
Your assertion that the sort of "capitalism" that you support is "based upon the American political ideology" is tantamount to your declaring that you "support" a capitalism according to your own definition of "the American political ideology"-- not according to the way capitalism is practiced (and always has been practiced) in America. What do you mean, exactly, by your declaration that statutory law "is a component of government fiat"? (Bold in original) Is that your way of asserting that all statutory law is---well, constitutionally illegal? How you can assert that "people," in the US Constitution, meant "every adult" over the age of majority, "regardless of race," is a real mystery to me. At the time, blacks were regarded as mere property. I am certainly not suggesting that this was perfectly all right; I am just saying that this is the way it really was.
It is not my definition of the American political ideology but instead it's the expressed political ideology of America as recorded by the founders of America. The Declaration of Independence expresses that political ideology in two short sentences.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
When the author (Thomas Jefferson) referred to "unalienable rights" he was referencing the "natural rights of man" as expressed by John Locke in his Second Treatise of Civil Government and everyone that signed the Declaration of Independence knew that.
The authors of the US Constitution knew what the words "people" and "person" meant and only the racist social conservatives WASP's predominately in the South believed that blacks were property. Madison, Jefferson, and Washington all opposed slavery even while owning slaves. They opposed the institution that turned people into property. They knew full well what the words "people" and "person" meant but were unable to impose the meaning of those words under the Constitution because of WASP racism predominately in the South.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Feb 18, 2015 21:31:01 GMT
Your assertion that the sort of "capitalism" that you support is "based upon the American political ideology" is tantamount to your declaring that you "support" a capitalism according to your own definition of "the American political ideology"-- not according to the way capitalism is practiced (and always has been practiced) in America. What do you mean, exactly, by your declaration that statutory law "is a component of government fiat"? (Bold in original) Is that your way of asserting that all statutory law is---well, constitutionally illegal? How you can assert that "people," in the US Constitution, meant "every adult" over the age of majority, "regardless of race," is a real mystery to me. At the time, blacks were regarded as mere property. I am certainly not suggesting that this was perfectly all right; I am just saying that this is the way it really was.
It is not my definition of the American political ideology but instead it's the expressed political ideology of America as recorded by the founders of America. The Declaration of Independence expresses that political ideology in two short sentences.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
When the author (Thomas Jefferson) referred to "unalienable rights" he was referencing the "natural rights of man" as expressed by John Locke in his Second Treatise of Civil Government and everyone that signed the Declaration of Independence knew that.
The authors of the US Constitution knew what the words "people" and "person" meant and only the racist social conservatives WASP's predominately in the South believed that blacks were property. Madison, Jefferson, and Washington all opposed slavery even while owning slaves. They opposed the institution that turned people into property. They knew full well what the words "people" and "person" meant but were unable to impose the meaning of those words under the Constitution because of WASP racism predominately in the South.
So, what you are saying, effectively, is that John Locke's "Second Treatise on Civil Government" defined capitalism in a way that is congenial to your own views; but that the US Constitution does not, due to "racist social conservatives...predominantly in the South" at the time; and that you will, therefore, go with John Locke's "Second Treatise on Civil Government" whenever it conflicts with the US Constitution in this regard. And to claim that "Madison, Jefferson, and Washington all opposed slavery even while owning slaves" is just a bit disingenuous--to say the least. That sounds rather like the fundamentalist preacher who rails against "the sin of fornication," while experiencing the delights of street prostitutes every chance he gets. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Feb 19, 2015 14:57:34 GMT
So, what you are saying, effectively, is that John Locke's "Second Treatise on Civil Government" defined capitalism in a way that is congenial to your own views; but that the US Constitution does not, due to "racist social conservatives...predominantly in the South" at the time; and that you will, therefore, go with John Locke's "Second Treatise on Civil Government" whenever it conflicts with the US Constitution in this regard. And to claim that "Madison, Jefferson, and Washington all opposed slavery even while owning slaves" is just a bit disingenuous--to say the least. That sounds rather like the fundamentalist preacher who rails against "the sin of fornication," while experiencing the delights of street prostitutes every chance he gets.
The US Constitution does not define capitalism and John Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government does not conflict with the US Constitution.
The opposition to slavery by Madison, Jefferson, and Washington is a matter of history. While all were politicians subjected to the constraints of the politician in their expressions their true opposition to slavery is revealed in their writings.
James Madison, Federalist, no. 54
"American citizens are instrumental in carrying on a traffic in enslaved Africans, equally in violation of the laws of humanity and in defiance of those of their own country." www.answers.com/Q/What_was_James_Madison%27s_view_on_slavery
George Washington "I never mean to possess another slave by purchase; it being among my first wishes to see some plan adopted by the Legislature, by which slavery in this Country may be abolished by slow, sure and imperceptible degrees." www.historynet.com/george-washington-his-troubles-with-slavery.htm
When we address Thomas Jefferson's opposition to slavery it is best exemplified by the passage he included in the Declaration of Independence that was removed by the delegation that ultimately approved the DOI.
From Thomas Jefferson original draft of the Declaration of Independence (deleted before adoption) "He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where Men should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he has obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed again the Liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another." www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/thomas_jefferson_against_slavery_20130216
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Feb 20, 2015 19:32:52 GMT
So, what you are saying, effectively, is that John Locke's "Second Treatise on Civil Government" defined capitalism in a way that is congenial to your own views; but that the US Constitution does not, due to "racist social conservatives...predominantly in the South" at the time; and that you will, therefore, go with John Locke's "Second Treatise on Civil Government" whenever it conflicts with the US Constitution in this regard. And to claim that "Madison, Jefferson, and Washington all opposed slavery even while owning slaves" is just a bit disingenuous--to say the least. That sounds rather like the fundamentalist preacher who rails against "the sin of fornication," while experiencing the delights of street prostitutes every chance he gets.
The US Constitution does not define capitalism and John Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government does not conflict with the US Constitution.
The opposition to slavery by Madison, Jefferson, and Washington is a matter of history. While all were politicians subjected to the constraints of the politician in their expressions their true opposition to slavery is revealed in their writings.
James Madison, Federalist, no. 54
"American citizens are instrumental in carrying on a traffic in enslaved Africans, equally in violation of the laws of humanity and in defiance of those of their own country." www.answers.com/Q/What_was_James_Madison%27s_view_on_slavery
George Washington "I never mean to possess another slave by purchase; it being among my first wishes to see some plan adopted by the Legislature, by which slavery in this Country may be abolished by slow, sure and imperceptible degrees." www.historynet.com/george-washington-his-troubles-with-slavery.htm
When we address Thomas Jefferson's opposition to slavery it is best exemplified by the passage he included in the Declaration of Independence that was removed by the delegation that ultimately approved the DOI.
From Thomas Jefferson original draft of the Declaration of Independence (deleted before adoption) "He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where Men should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he has obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed again the Liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another." www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/thomas_jefferson_against_slavery_20130216
There is a word for opposing something in pure theory, while supporting it in actual practice. That word is hypocrisy.
How does any of this vary, in any meaningful way, from the example I just offered, of the fundamentalist preacher railing against "the sin of fornication," while regularly hooking up with...well, with hookers...? |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Feb 21, 2015 13:04:07 GMT
There is a word for opposing something in pure theory, while supporting it in actual practice. That word is hypocrisy.
How does any of this vary, in any meaningful way, from the example I just offered, of the fundamentalist preacher railing against "the sin of fornication," while regularly hooking up with...well, with hookers...?
There is also the living under an established system and within the system while actively opposing it.
James Madison, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson all inherited slaves and it can be noted that the laws, in most cases, prohibited them from freeing the slaves. If there was a heir to the estate they could not free the slave as the slave, under the law, was considered to be the partially owned property of the heir. The owner could sell the slave but not free the slave under the law. Jefferson dealt with this problem because he wanted to free his slaves but was prohibited by law from doing so.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Feb 23, 2015 20:41:25 GMT
There is a word for opposing something in pure theory, while supporting it in actual practice. That word is hypocrisy.
How does any of this vary, in any meaningful way, from the example I just offered, of the fundamentalist preacher railing against "the sin of fornication," while regularly hooking up with...well, with hookers...?
There is also the living under an established system and within the system while actively opposing it.
James Madison, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson all inherited slaves and it can be noted that the laws, in most cases, prohibited them from freeing the slaves. If there was a heir to the estate they could not free the slave as the slave, under the law, was considered to be the partially owned property of the heir. The owner could sell the slave but not free the slave under the law. Jefferson dealt with this problem because he wanted to free his slaves but was prohibited by law from doing so.
What is your proof, exactly-- from a neutral source--that Thomas Jefferson was "prohibited by law" from freeing his slaves; and, presumably, that others were also? A side note: Wikipedia states that it was Jefferson's "growing debts [by 1776], which made it very difficult to free his slaves and thereby lose them as assets." |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Feb 24, 2015 9:34:57 GMT
There is also the living under an established system and within the system while actively opposing it.
James Madison, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson all inherited slaves and it can be noted that the laws, in most cases, prohibited them from freeing the slaves. If there was a heir to the estate they could not free the slave as the slave, under the law, was considered to be the partially owned property of the heir. The owner could sell the slave but not free the slave under the law. Jefferson dealt with this problem because he wanted to free his slaves but was prohibited by law from doing so.
What is your proof, exactly-- from a neutral source--that Thomas Jefferson was "prohibited by law" from freeing his slaves; and, presumably, that others were also? A side note: Wikipedia states that it was Jefferson's "growing debts [by 1776], which made it very difficult to free his slaves and thereby lose them as assets."
My internet connection is horrible right now so I'll have to get back to you on documenting the limitations under Viriginia law that made it very difficult to free a slave. Jefferson could have sold his slaves but was highly restricted when it came to freeing them.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Feb 24, 2015 9:35:08 GMT
There is also the living under an established system and within the system while actively opposing it.
James Madison, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson all inherited slaves and it can be noted that the laws, in most cases, prohibited them from freeing the slaves. If there was a heir to the estate they could not free the slave as the slave, under the law, was considered to be the partially owned property of the heir. The owner could sell the slave but not free the slave under the law. Jefferson dealt with this problem because he wanted to free his slaves but was prohibited by law from doing so.
What is your proof, exactly-- from a neutral source--that Thomas Jefferson was "prohibited by law" from freeing his slaves; and, presumably, that others were also? A side note: Wikipedia states that it was Jefferson's "growing debts [by 1776], which made it very difficult to free his slaves and thereby lose them as assets."
My internet connection is horrible right now so I'll have to get back to you on documenting the limitations under Viriginia law that made it very difficult to free a slave. Jefferson could have sold his slaves but was highly restricted when it came to freeing them. As you note Jefferson could have been in debt and the slaves used as collateral which would have prevented him from simply freeing them at the time (because the lender owned them as collateral for the debt).
|
|
