The glaring inconsistency of The Declaration of Independence.

bobcat said:
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.
Click to expand...
Saying one thing and demonstrating another is not new. We are witnessing that now.
 

Jefferson was no doubt scripting from the June 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights drafted by George Mason.

It was generally common in documents to acknowledge a diety and the equal creation of men. Many State Constitutions reference thanks to God or such for blessings etc.
 
Naturally said:
... 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
Click to expand...
So many conflicting and mixed messages. It's like secretly being against gambling, but betting on the horses to raise money to pay off your debts. (Strange)
 

Here is what a black woman, Carol Swain, Former Tenured Prof. of Political Science, Princeton & Vanderbilt has to say about Thomas Jefferson. The whole video is an interesting overview of our country's founding fathers if you have about 38minutes to spare, but the segment on Thomas Jefferson should start in the linked video below, if I've pasted the link correctly. In it, she mentions Jefferson and slavery ...

 
Naturally said:
[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]
Click to expand...
I was writing from memory. I mis spelled McGee and I got the year wrong. LaPorte was a murder all right. Got any other corrections you would like to make ?
 
Pepper said:
Then why didn't he free his own children in his will. They all knew it was wrong. This was the Enlightenment period. Of course they knew, otherwise 50% wouldn't have been against it. Stop making excuses. They Knew.
Click to expand...

Not making excuses, presenting links (History dot com and Henry Ford dot org) to facts and opinions from those more knowledgeable than myself. Maybe Thomas Jefferson was the father of white guilt, who knows. Personally I would have pursued a different endeavor rather than own slaves. Why Jefferson didn't work in a different field and/or didn't free all his slaves is a matter of conjecture that apparently many have and others still speculate on. But I'm pretty sure that Jefferson would be okay with "All men are created equal" and today all men are free.

EDIT: Please point out the excuse "I" or anyone in those links I posted, made. What are you talking about? I'll wait.
 
Last edited:
bobcat said:
It seemed fitting this morning to re-visit the Declaration of Independence on this esteemed holiday.
I imagined what it was like back then, and upon reading the words, I just couldn't reconcile living with two different, and opposing beliefs.

The Declaration states 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". It goes on to say that there is equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them.
This all seems well and good, except for one huge inconsistency.

Thomas Jefferson (Who wrote most of it) had over 600 slaves during his life, and over half of the members of the Continental Congress (Who approved it) also owned slaves.

This makes no sense to me. How could anyone believe that All men are created equal, and have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and be OK with owning someone else against their will? How is that not hypocrisy. It seems that the cognitive dissonance would be unbearable. Furthermore, it took 87 years to right this wrong.

I know we can't blot out this horrible stain from our past (Nor should we), nor could we ever make it right, and this isn't about dredging up that atrocity.
I guess I'm just trying to figure out how they were able to live with something so at odds with what they believed when it was staring them right in the face.
Click to expand...
Because they did not believe they were humans. Or, if they did, they thought like LAWYERS and told themselves The Law of the time called them Property, so if they were legally Property, that's the legal definition they told themselves was true.

This is why so many people hate lawyers. They can take plain words and argue, "No, those plain terms don't mean this - they mean that instead."

Here is a good example of legal historical BS. Slavery in the UK was abolished in 1834 after a few legal steps toward total abolition took place over two decades. The Abolition of Slavery In Britain - Historic UK. However, the UK did not abolish it in all its colonies - so the slave trade to America was alive and thriving after 1834.

That's total BS, right? Yes. Legal BS. UK owned the Colonies in 1834, but the abolishment law did not apply to the US Colonies.

Them Who Has the Gold Write the Rules.
 
What an interesting and fascinating thread. Could it be fair to say then that the Declaration of Independence was in part setting the groundwork, unintentionally, for the later Civil War? The document’s ideals of liberty and equality against the reality of slavery in the US at that time.

A document inadvertently highlighting a divide from the outset of a young nation trying to get its head around principles versus its practices. Perhaps the contradictions slowly deepened as new States joined the union. Further creating a divide between North & South?
 
Magna-Carta said:
What an interesting and fascinating thread. Could it be fair to say then that the Declaration of Independence was in part setting the groundwork, unintentionally, for the later Civil War? The document’s ideals of liberty and equality against the reality of slavery in the US at that time.

A document inadvertently highlighting a divide from the outset of a young nation trying to get its head around principles versus its practices. Perhaps the contradictions slowly deepened as new States joined the union. Further creating a divide between North & South?
Click to expand...

Excellent observation I think. In the video I linked earlier, it was shown that Lincoln gave "a tip of his cap" to the Declaration of Independence as doing just that, as he finally did the right thing once and for all.
 
Pepper said:
Stop treating me like I'm an idiot. I might be, but it's not for you to imply.
Click to expand...

And respectfully please stop accusing people of making excuses and being rude when they are doing neither.
It's like you waltz in here looking to make trouble ... or act like an idiot. Neither of which I KNOW you want to do.

All you've contributed to the conversation is that black people knew slavery was wrong and 50% (scientific?) of the founding fathers did too ... had to look past the superfluous to find those nuggets.

And speaking of scientific ... is it percentage % ... or zero out of zero? Asking for a friend
 
If Britain had not lost the American colonies, it is likely that the Australian colonies would not have been founded when they were. Instead of slave labour, convicts from Britain were used as labour. The difference is that the convicts had the possibility of emancipation at the end of their sentenced term but few of them ever returned to their homeland.

However, there was a form of pseudo slavery involving men who were enticed, or kidnapped, from Pacific islands to work in the cane fields of Queensland. They were returned after their period of servitude was over. The practice was known as "blackbirding'.

Slavery still exists today. Modern slavery is disguised but it can still be found in some diplomatic households, in brothels and in sweatshops.
 
Magna-Carta said:
What an interesting and fascinating thread. Could it be fair to say then that the Declaration of Independence was in part setting the groundwork, unintentionally, for the later Civil War? The document’s ideals of liberty and equality against the reality of slavery in the US at that time.

A document inadvertently highlighting a divide from the outset of a young nation trying to get its head around principles versus its practices. Perhaps the contradictions slowly deepened as new States joined the union. Further creating a divide between North & South?
Click to expand...
It seems that even now, getting states and individuals to all agree on important issues is next to impossible. The colonists were faced with a tough choice. Either they had to find enough common ground to stand together against their oppressor, or their whole endeavor of freedom would suffer a dismal fate. I guess they had to choose only one battle to fight (A devil's bargain).

So, in a sense, the groundwork was already there, but was put on the back burner to simmer until such time that it couldn't be ignored anymore. I think many knew that slavery was an abomination, but they had to somehow justify what they were doing, even though it must have disturbed their conscience (Or at least it should have). The cruelty and inhumanity was blatant and inexcusable.

Still, it is very unsettling and perplexing that those who were opposed to it, wouldn't just abstain from the practice, but decided to forego their principles and become a part of something that was so in contrast to their very concept of right and wrong.
 
Last edited:
That "All Men" phrase provided the basis for future generations to abolish slavery which is exactly what Jefferson intended. At the time he had to compromise but did his best to project his desires for the future. The very questions raised here regarding the hypocrisy were asked repeatedly after the revolution and led to the civil war. I am proud that the founders laid the foundation for abolition as best they could given the alternatives.
 
I'm no historian, but in the 18th century, the phrase "all men are created equal" was just that. First, only males are equal. Secondly, in most of the colonies, at the time, that meant only men, who owned land. Blacks were considered to be subhuman. Blacks were trainable apes or childishly mentally inferior to whites. There was little difference in owning a horse or a slave. And quite frankly, most of the colonists agreed with that. There was no stigma to owning either, as slavery was common through out all 13 colonies, as in most of the world.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top