The glaring inconsistency of The Declaration of Independence.

dilettante said:
Nope.

Many of the most prosperous actually were against the Revolution in its entirety. They had made out pretty well under King George III. Those who didn't own slaves held indentures for servants with little means.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarification.
 

If half of the Continental Congress owned slaves, that would mean half did not and a good number of those were abolitionists, including my favorite Founding Father, Thomas Paine. Even then, 248 years ago, the tide was turning against the concept of slavery. Yet the last criminalization of it was in Mauritania in 1981.

The fact that there are still huge numbers of people who feel they belong to an inherently 'superior' group of human beings speaks to how little some humans have actually evolved. Even within the Christian Church there have been clear differences of opinion about some being 'more equal'.

The Bible has passages that clearly condone slavery, and a Christian Pastor wrote a book that basically was an instruction manual on how the faith could be used to keep the slaves subjugated. One of many reasons i walked away from organized religion, tho some white pastors acted from their values and were staunch abolitionists. It always comes down to the specific humans involved.

@bobcat - as self contradictory as the wording of the Declaration of Independence was, you might also find the info in Dr. Henry Gates' documentary about another paradox-- the 'Black Church' in America as much of a paradox. He addresses it in the documentary. (on PBS)
I can't say much more without moving from history and human nature to politics, so i'll stop here.
 
The Constitution is a goal we all must collectively strive daily to achieve. But the human condition is flawed as there is a daily dose of good and evil inside and out, in the entire world. But that doesn't mean we must give up. We must do exactly what our forefathers did....make the best ideal plan for success to keep us all focused on the same goal. No one was ever meant to be perfect.
 

I’m working 9 to 5. I’m enslaved to my religion. Just one more glass of Ice Water please.
Let’s all move to Canada. Gas costs more there. Life is simpler. Haha

We have to end Social Security! No lets import more illegal aliens, they will work lots for less.
OK lets SSN Tax them to pay for social security benefits for the many. That’ll work they said.
Anything for a better life we want to be. The unseen future of it all is great.
 
Only white males that owned property were allowed to vote. No rights for black people, no rights for Indians, no rights for women no rights for poor white people. Seems to me there is a certain segment of our population that wants to take us back to those "Good Old Days"
 
First of all let’s build tons of warehousing space. 100’s of Millions of Sq. Ft.
Now let’s import cheap stuff to fill them, then sell it at high inflation prices. Yeah per.

We’re the guardians of our fate, not some J-A’s Joke plan.
 
july-3rd-jefferson.jpg
 
bobcat said:
It would seem, from the wording, that their "way of thinking" was that All men are created equal and are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I am curious as to how All men doesn't mean All men.
Click to expand...
In your post #1 you mentioned some not all had slaves. The wording IMO reflects what was normal at that time.

The answer to your question of how do the framers of the constitution manage to say one thing and do another is quite simple.

During that time in history owning a slave or multiple slaves was considered normal.

Example of present day.
Persecution of homosexuals was & still is by some to be normal. Yet they profess to be God fearing righteous individuals.

It's all what the mind believes to be normal.
 
Knight said:
In your post #1 you mentioned some not all had slaves. The wording IMO reflects what was normal at that time.

The answer to your question of how do the framers of the constitution manage to say one thing and do another is quite simple.

During that time in history owning a slave or multiple slaves was considered normal.

Example of present day.
Persecution of homosexuals was & still is by some to be normal. Yet they profess to be God fearing righteous individuals.

It's all what the mind believes to be normal.
Click to expand...
Granted it was a common practice and even considered by many to be very profitable, judging by some of the plantations. I guess the part I have trouble with is professing that all men are created equal, and then living in a way that disputes what you claim to believe. It just undermines what one claims to embrace. Maybe it's just me.
 
"In addition to their own self-interest, the delegates had a larger intent in mind when they deleted the references to slavery in the document. They realized that this manifesto would inevitably lead to war. This document had to convince thousands of colonists to voluntarily risk their lives in a rebellion against the British. The grievances against King George III needed to be ironclad and compelling. They had to unify Americans from 13 very different colonies and from all walks of life. They needed to clearly distinguish friends from enemies. Removing the slavery passage, the delegates felt, helped clarify their arguments and achieve these goals."

"Finally, there was also a prevailing belief at the time that slavery in America was on the wane—that the general emancipation of slaves was imminent and inevitable. Taking the path of least resistance, the delegates chose not to face this divisive issue head-on."

"In the end, the delegates replaced the deleted slavery clause with a passage that instead highlighted King George’s incitement of “domestic insurrectionists among us”—a direct reference to the British stirring up, encouraging, and supporting warfare between colonists and Indigenous tribes:

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

This was a statement, the delegates believed, that the colonists could truly rally behind. They made no more changes after that."

The Deleted Slavery Passage from the Declaration of Independence
 
'' working 9 to 5. I’m enslaved to my religion. Just one more glass of Ice Water please.''
Let’s all move to Canada. Gas costs more there. Life is simpler. Haha''

There are those who wish to build a wall between us and have the US pay for it.
 
bobcat said:
Very interesting, and even adds to the mystery. He condemned the practice, but engaged in it anyway. I guess, like many, he voted with his wallet.
Click to expand...
... it's said, that was part of it. Although as President, Jefferson did outlaw international slave trade.

"Thomas Jefferson, the third president of the United States, owned more than 600 slaves during his adult life. Jefferson freed two slaves while he lived, and five others were freed after his death, including two of his children from his relationship with his slave (and sister-in-law) Sally Hemings. His other two children with Hemings were allowed to escape without pursuit. After his death, the rest of the slaves were sold to pay off his estate's debts.

Privately, one of Jefferson's reasons for not freeing more slaves was his considerable debt, while his more public justification, expressed in his book Notes on the State of Virginia, was his fear that freeing enslaved people into American society would cause civil unrest between white people and former slaves.

Jefferson consistently spoke out against the international slave trade and outlawed it while he was president. He advocated for a gradual emancipation of all slaves within the United States and the colonization of Africa by freed African Americans. However, he opposed some other measures to restrict slavery within the United States, and also was against voluntary manumission."

Thomas Jefferson and slavery
 
Would this be a good time to point out that in the 1770's, there were 3 groups involved in the discussions about breaking away from Britain. The revolutionary supporters, the Loyalists, and the people who said " Leave me out of this ". A considerable number of the ones who wanted to be left alone, were attacked, had their homes burnt and their property stolen by the rebels. The Loyalists suffered the same sort of treatment, and as a result many of them physically fled to what is now Ontario, in Canada. The bullies won.

While the USA was born out of a bloody war of revolution, Canada became an independent nation in 1867, by an Act of Confederation in Parliament. The history of the two nations could not be more opposite in terms of both military strife, and political assassinations. In 157 years since Confederation, there has been JUST ONE political murder in Canada. Thomas D Arcy Magee in 1873. How many American political leaders have been murdered over the years starting with Lincoln ?
 
jimintoronto said:
Would this be a good time to point out that in the 1770's, there were 3 groups involved in the discussions about breaking away from Britain. The revolutionary supporters, the Loyalists, and the people who said " Leave me out of this ". A considerable number of the ones who wanted to be left alone, were attacked, had their homes burnt and their property stolen by the rebels. The Loyalists suffered the same sort of treatment, and as a result many of them physically fled to what is now Ontario, in Canada. The bullies won.

While the USA was born out of a bloody war of revolution, Canada became an independent nation in 1867, by an Act of Confederation in Parliament. The history of the two nations could not be more opposite in terms of both military strife, and political assassinations. In 157 years since Confederation, there has been JUST ONE political murder in Canada. Thomas D Arcy Magee in 1873. How many American political leaders have been murdered over the years starting with Lincoln ?
Click to expand...

[off topic]

McGee (not Magee) was assassinated 1868 (not 1873) on 7 April.

He wasn't the JUST ONE ... there was another ...
Pierre Laporte, deputy premier of Quebec, was kidnapped and strangled in 1970 by militant Quebec separatists.

Also, Ryan Grantham, 24, loaded his car with three guns, 12 molotov cocktails and a map with directions to Rideau Cottage.
A former child actor killed his mother and planned to drive across the country to assassinate the prime minister.
Thankfully that didn't happen.

There may have been other attempts over the years that were thwarted. Dunno

[/off topic]
 

Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top