Posted on 07/11/2015 9:54:21 AM PDT by golux
Should note that one did not have to pronounce that the Founders were wrong in order to believe blacks were not equal.
You could simply decide they weren’t really men and therefore the DoI did not refer to them.
Some who believed in the positive good of slavery chose option A and others option B. Stephens was an option A type. The Founders had simply been ignorant of the scientific facts that had become available by 1861.
The big difference between the two "teams" (as you call them) concerned the issue of slavery. That was the big issue (according to the secessionists). Yeah, I guess you can say that I'm with the Union team on that issue and I'm happy to say that the vast majority of the people (South and North) agree with me about slavery. It's over and it's not coming back.
The America I want to live in is a set of ideas and principles, not a place. This place is becoming a third world version of Nazi Germany as fast as it can, with the difference being that we have no where to run to escape the Nazis this time.
Well, if you live, you have to live in a place. Most people accept that reality.
If America makes you miserable, you're probably not going to find happiness in this world. If you can't make it here, then your situation may be hopeless because I don't know of a better "place" to be right now. Very few people think that the antebellum South was a better "place" so we're not likely to recreate that nightmare soon.
I suggest that you try to find some kind of happiness here. You're very lucky to be here. Just do the best that you can. ;-)
That is not true, because Abraham Lincoln himself said so. His exact words were:
"If you want your Slavery, you can keep your slavery."
No, the difference between them was "Who is going to rule the South?"
The Union team said "Keep slavery, but accept Rule from Washington." The Confederate team said "We will not accept rule from Washington, but prefer instead to rule ourselves.
It's over and it's not coming back.
It's not over, it's just been relatively benign for awhile. It's changing for the worse as most sensible people have been noticing. *We* are the new slaves.
Well, if you live, you have to live in a place. Most people accept that reality.
As did the Colonists, but they did not accept the rules being imposed upon them.
Very few people think that the antebellum South was a better "place" so we're not likely to recreate that nightmare soon.
This has nothing to do with the antebellum South, or even the South at all for that matter. I don't live in "The South" and never have, but that monster which laid them low is slobbering over the rest of us too.
I suggest that you try to find some kind of happiness here. You're very lucky to be here. Just do the best that you can. ;-)
And I take it you think all those Nazi feet marching can be used as the beat for background music or something?
You need to wake up and smell the Fascism.
I would think a big clue to what was the primary purpose of the Declaration of Independence ought to be the fact that It asserted a right to leave England while all the states, it's authors and most of it's signers still owned slaves.
Why do you engage in deliberate history revision? I've seen enough of your writing to realize you have a good historical background. Why do you insist on conflating the zeitgeist of one era with one completely inappropriate to it?
Completely ignored by you is the fact that *WITH SLAVERY* they would have continued in the United States. The rest of the Union was jumping through hoops to guarantee it to them. The Union was perfectly willing to accept perpetual slavery as a condition for the South Remaining in the Union.
Why do you not grasp that Slavery wasn't the sticking point of the Union, that remaining under the Control of Washington D.C. was the only non negotiable demand?
Had the South not Left, Slavery would have continued for Decades, perhaps even longer. That was the Union bargain with them.
I get the Fascist/Nazi vibe from his as well.
"I will say here, while upon this- subject, that I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary..." (Lincoln Douglas Debates)
In his Inaugural Address he reiterated the fact that he had no inclination to interfere with the institution of slavery.
I don’t think you read my last comment. I said that even if it were true that their only reason to secede was slavery (which it was NOT), then they still would have had the constitutional right to do so.
Reminds me of Obama saying he was against gay marriage.
He did that on the campaign trail too.
Isn't that how the colonies left Great Britain?
Maybe in a purely legalistic sense. But Americans have long regarded the Declaration as something more than a narrowly legalistic text. If you're going to honor and cherish the Declaration, you're going to reflect about what "all men are created equal" could possibly mean.
Before Andrew Jackson's time most of the states or colonies had severely restricted suffrage. Only those with enough property could vote. Under the influence of the civic egalitarianism of the Declaration, voting rights were extended to all adult white men.
Should we not have done that? Should we have kept property qualifications for voting? Were they somehow enshrined by the fact that the Founders accepted them?
He seems to be the sort of fellow who cannot accept someone else's right to do something unless he approves of it. This is no different from supporting "freedom of speech" provided it is speech with which you agree.
"I will say here, while upon this- subject, that I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary..." (Lincoln Douglas Debates)
And because he believed that blacks and whites could never live together in equality, he was in favor of sending blacks back to Africa.
Well, you're creating your own soundtrack. If it's making you miserable, then change your tune. If what you're doing makes you unhappy, then try something else. Pushing the cause of slaveholders may not be good for you. What makes you believe that you can convince anyone to follow you to a "place" where you are finding so much misery?
Find a constructive issue. Or, take up golf or painting. Your happiness is worth some effort.
Let the "fascists" take care of themselves for awhile. Take a long lunch. Things won't be much different when you come back, but you may discover that you don't want to come back. Happiness can become a habit.
I know right. Lol. Politicians always changing their tune depending on who they are talking to.
all the states, it's authors and most of it's signers still owned slaves.
As far as the Declaration goes, it was written by five men. Of those five, three were anti-slavery, one was a slaveowner, and I've been unable to find information on the position of the fifth with regard to the institution. Franklin had owned slaves earlier in his life, but by the time of DoI (or perhaps shortly thereafter) was anti-slavery.
So that's three or possibly four out of the five who not only did not own slaves, but were anti-slavery.
Slavery was indeed legal in all states when the DoI was written. Fail to see why that had all that much bearing on whether they were allowed to proclaim an eternal principle that often failed to take effect.
I've never seen any evidence that "most" of the signers of DoI owned slaves, at least not at the time of the signing. But I suspect most owned or had owned slaves at some point during their lives.
There are many, many examples of various of the Founders expressing their discomfort with the contrast between the lofty principles expressed in DoI and the realities of American slavery. Including a good many of the Founders that owned slaves. Washington, Madison and Jefferson, for instance. None of which, AFAIK, ever stated that they thought the principles of DoI did not apply to blacks.
Since they were concerned with this conflict, seems like a claim that blacks weren't included would have been an easy way out. But they didn't take it.
I do know that Nathan Bedford Forrest was one who believed in social equality for blacks more than many people of his time.
Yep, that’s how liberalism works. :-)
Here are the relevant quotes. Please show me where I’m misrepresenting either document.
DoI: 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.
Cornerstone Speech: But whether he (Jefferson) fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him 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. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago.
IOW, it’s not me saying the Founders believed blacks were, or should be equal. That’s Stephens kindly forgiving them for their ignorance of the great principle they had misunderstood.
So who is misrepresenting the past, you, me or Stephens?
The essence of the document is that they had a right to leave. The further contention that slaves had a right to be free was a subsequent "Living Declaration" construction, the sort to which we normally object when applied to constitutional interpretation.
But Americans have long regarded the Declaration as something more than a narrowly legalistic text.
Subsequently, and only as a result of Jefferson introducing those words. Had he not done it, the primary purpose of the document would not have been subsequently misapplied to mean something it was never intended by it's signatories or the states they represented, to mean.
If you're going to honor and cherish the Declaration, you're going to reflect about what "all men are created equal" could possibly mean.
In the context of the time it was written, it meant they wanted some flowery and noble sounding verbiage to make the document more persuasive. They wanted it to aid their cause, and to appeal to a sense of equality among Englishmen. They did not intend to make it into a condemnation of slavery due to it's inherently unequal nature. That was a later and subsequent interpretation starting I believe, in Puritan, Fanatical, Liberal Massachusetts. Whether it be hunting Witches, or Abolishing slavery, or promoting "Gay marriage", whatever they do, they do it with zeal and fanaticism.
Before Andrew Jackson's time most of the states or colonies had severely restricted suffrage. Only those with enough property could vote. Under the influence of the civic egalitarianism of the Declaration, voting rights were extended to all adult white men.
Who paid taxes, is my understanding. I think the removal of that condition is what launched the nation into fiscal insanity since 1964.
Should we not have done that? Should we have kept property qualifications for voting? Were they somehow enshrined by the fact that the Founders accepted them?
Whether we should have kept those restrictions or not is irrelevant to the fact that the Founders never intended or possibly even contemplated such a thing when they wrote that document. As the courts of the time were found of saying, "Such was not comprehended by the law" of that time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.