Replies

RE: How many slaves did Jefferson own? Wasn’t it something like 80 or so? So what was the intent of the man who wrote “All men are created equal” while keeping 80+ slaves? One would think that if he intended that concept to apply to them, he would have freed his slaves, don’t you think?

That of course is the question we have to ask today. When he espoused the idea that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL, THAT THEY ARE ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS... LIFE, LIBERTY AND PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, What was his original intent?

Did he intend to mean that by “All Men: he was only referring to a class of people? ( dis-including people of certain race, ethnicity or gender )?

If it was not his intent, then we have to say that Jefferson and the rest of the slave-owning founders, being imperfect men, were actually living a life of hypocrisy, espousing a noble idea, yet practicing something antithetical to the idea they espoused.

Or did he and those who signed on to the Declaration intend it to be for only a certain class of people?

If his intent was this -— “all free, property-owning males are created equal”

Then Frederick Douglas’ question : “Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us?” was moot. IT WAS NOT INTENDED FOR THEM.

And it was not intended for women ( white or black ).

If we understand it to be “only for free property-owning males”, then the companion document which intends to be in harmony with the declaration — THE CONSTITUTION, and all its provisions and original amendments were only intended for a certain class of men.

In which case, we then have latter amendments which in effect, are CONTRADICTIONS of the original intent of the founders of this country.

However, hypocrisy notwithstanding, if Jefferson and the founders understood it to mean that Equality is not something that a government can grant or deny a body of citizens; for this right is unalienable, then we have to conclude that Dred Scott is WRONG, EVEN AT THE TIME IT WAS DECIDED.

And if the Dred Scott decision was wrong and unconstitutional and against the spirit of the founding of this nation, then so was Minor V Happersett. And if so, then so is the idea that natural born citizenship can only accrue to a child through his father and not his mother.

It’s a choice we have to make today — is the Declaration intended for all men, or only a certain class of men?

I choose the former.