The glaring inconsistency of The Declaration of Independence.

bobcat

bobcat

Well-known Member
Location
Northern Calif
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.
 

Denial. Not just a river in Egypt. The mind disassociates. Making blacks 3/5 of a person for their own economic security. Jefferson, unlike Washington, did not free his slaves upon death, not even his own children. Boggles the mind.

This Fourth of July brings to my mind a song:

I like a party too, but I can see clearly now, the rain has gone. A Hard Rain's Gonna Fall, though, it's coming. Turn on the captions for the video. Eerie, prophetic.
 
Last edited:
Pepper said:
Denial. Not just a river in Egypt. The mind disassociates. Making blacks 3/5 of a person for their own economic security. Jefferson, unlike Washington, did not free his slaves upon death, not even his own children. Boggles the mind.

This Fourth of July brings to my mind a song:

I like a party too, but I can see clearly now, the rain has gone. A Hard Rain's Gonna Fall, though, it's coming.
Click to expand...
Our historical dishonesty with truth, reality, and even with ourselves is often the stuff that blows the mind of anyone attempting to be rational. I guess the takeaway is to not apply reason to any situation when reason wasn't used in it's creation.
 

bobcat said:
Our historical dishonesty with truth, reality, and even with ourselves is often the stuff that blows the mind of anyone attempting to be rational. I guess the takeaway is to not apply reason to any situation when reason wasn't used in it's creation.
Click to expand...
Sorry Pepper. Just to clarify. That wasn't, in any way, directed to you. I only meant it with regard to the Declaration, and also (I think) about the Dylan song. Mankind is often in denial when it suits their purpose, as you pointed out.
I wasn't clear on what it was in reference to. My apology.
 
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...
Just throw the word white in before men, and it would have been more truthful at the time.
 
Quote
"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?"

That's the great thing about historical written word. We can look back & question the why of what was heppening 248 years ago.

I think the answer is in your post
Quote
"over half of the members of the Continental Congress (Who approved it) also owned slaves."

At that time it was an acceptable way of thinking. Doesn't mean they were right, just that was how it was then.

Times change.

Imagine 248 years from now what people will think about the LGBTQ movement.

I imagine the thinking will be. How could people be so closed minded about another humam?
 
This was a heated topic in the 13 Colonies years before and in the midst of the drafting of the Constitution. Ultimately temporary acceptance of slavery was deemed better than continuing to suffer under the tyranny of England. The very England which established and profited from slavery, which it held as legal in all of the 13 colonies and British Canada.

The story of Black slavery in Canadian history | CMHR
Canada takes pride in the history of the Underground Railroad. We celebrate being a destination for freedom‐seeking enslaved Americans fleeing to the north. But Canada also has its own long history of slavery, and the legacy of slavery lives on in anti‐Black racism in Canada today.
Click to expand...
Abolitionist sentiments took longer to reach Canada. But by the turn of the 1800s, attitudes to slavery among the free population of British North America were beginning to change. Accounts of dehumanizing violence and moral arguments against slavery began appearing in newspapers.

Despite the influx of enslaved people in the early 1780s, few people remained enslaved in Canada by the late 1790s.13 Slavery remained legal, however, and pro‐slavery merchants and politicians attempted to keep it that way.
Click to expand...

The United States was far more progressive than Canada and the other colonies established and held by the British Crown, especially in the Caribbean.
 
At the time, slaves were not considered to be equal to whites during this time. The concepts of racism were not part of their consideration. Ignorance is/was bliss! Throughout history man has made many mistakes or assumptions that in today's world would be consider immoral and wrong based on Christian teachings. Yet it happened and most of the people who were doing these things were just ignorant about it.

This went on for many years and it was not just in America, but all over the globe. You can deny this and try to demonize it, but with research you will come to understand that the people in power at this time just did not think about it. It just was the way it was...
 
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...

It was another culture, another time. It's easy to judge from a high horse.

Socrates/Plato said the same, but all these men were speaking of their culture, which included slaves. I mean, how free can one be if he must do his own work?

Do your own work, people, or pay for the labor.

Today is the Fourth of July, a festive occasion. It is not the time to criticize, but to celebrate.
 
Last edited:
Knight said:
Quote
"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?"

That's the great thing about historical written word. We can look back & question the why of what was heppening 248 years ago.

I think the answer is in your post
Quote
"over half of the members of the Continental Congress (Who approved it) also owned slaves."

At that time it was an acceptable way of thinking. Doesn't mean they were right, just that was how it was then.

Times change.

Imagine 248 years from now what people will think about the LGBTQ movement.

I imagine the thinking will be. How could people be so closed minded about another humam?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Yes, I remember thinking this even as a teenager. Made no sense to me. All men are created equal yet there were slaves. Who are people. Boggles the mind.

I found this YouTube channel after hearing on the news about the bottles of fruit discovered at Mount Vernon recently.

George Washington's Mount Vernon

There are a number of videos that address slavery. Here is one short video.

 
Timewise 60+ said:
At the time, slaves were not considered to be equal to whites during this time. The concepts of racism were not part of their consideration. Ignorance is/was bliss! Throughout history man has made many mistakes or assumptions that in today's world would be consider immoral and wrong based on Christian teachings. Yet it happened and most of the people who were doing these things were just ignorant about it.

This went on for many years and it was not just in America, but all over the globe. You can deny this and try to demonize it, but with research you will come to understand that the people in power at this time just did not think about it. It just was the way it was...
Click to expand...
Well, from what I can gather the principal reason for going along with the practice was that the founders feared all the colonies wouldn't go along with the idea of emancipation, and they may break apart and rupture into separate confederacies. It was either unite or die. They were in a pickle, and were willing to violate their own value of humanity in favor of preserving the union. I still don't know how they were able to ignore their conscience and attend religious gatherings.
 
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...
I already explained this in post #9 above.

Slavery was accepted for the time being in order to avoid a greater evil, which potentially included even more slavery. This was not an easy compromise.

What would you have them do? Knuckle under to the Crown like the rest of the colonies around the world?
 
dilettante said:
Slavery was accepted for the time being in order to avoid a greater evil, which potentially included even more slavery. This was not an easy compromise.
Click to expand...
This. You really have to dig into the history and read material from that time to understand how brutal the disagreement was over slavery. In the end, as stated above, it was unite or die - so compromises were made to ensure a unified break from King George and to successfully establish the new nation. Even with that, it was still a very fragile beginning.
 
Pepper, wow, that Dylan song is, as you said, eerie and prophetic.
"I saw guns and sharp knives in the hands of young children."
And the verse about thunder, fire, waves, all the imagery about nature going mad.
Of course, Dylan didn't write those lyrics that long ago, and he's still around, but still.
 
I am probably wrong but when taking into consideration the time it was written , I have always considered the phrase "All men" was only meant to include all white MEN who owned property. Thankfully it has evolved to have a different meaning now but at the time many who were prosperous did want to break away from the rule of England.
 
MarkinPhx said:
I have always considered the phrase "All men" was only meant to include all white MEN who owned property. Thankfully it has evolved to have a different meaning now but at the time many who were prosperous did want to break away from the rule of England.
Click to expand...
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.
 
To dilletante's point above, about the debate that went on before the Declaration was finalized. Just thinking about this, admittedly without enough historical knowledge to give it substance. But...

Canada's "Act to Limit Slavery" was passed In 1793. Canada was a British colony, and the British made slave trade illegal as of 1807, meaning It was against the law for any British subject (hence British ships) to continue to trade in enslaved people. Britain's "Antislavery Act" was passed, taking effect in 1834.

It seems possible to me that the American debate about slavery, around the time when the U.S. Declaration of Independence was being composed, may have influenced thinking in Canada & England. Possibly the debate influenced the legal shifts in the British world that began in 1793. ???
 
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...
All his adult life, Jefferson was actively involved in legislation that he hoped would result in the abolition slavery. In 1778, he drafted a Virginia law that prohibited the importation of slaves from Africa, and in 1784, he proposed an ordinance that would ban slavery in the Northwest territories. But Jefferson always maintained that the decision to emancipate slaves would have to be part of a national democratic process, where a majority of slave owners basically consented to a large-scale act of emancipation.

To Jefferson, it was anti-democratic and contrary to the principles of the American Revolution for the federal government to enact laws that would either have only a few planters free their slaves voluntarily, or that all of them be ordered to do so under threat of judicial punishment.

That's where he was conflicted; while slavery went against humanity, forced emancipation went against democracy. In the end, he had to chose humanity over democratic process.
 
I do believe the “All men are created Equal,”
was garnered from “Free MEN.”

The founders of the USA were basically following the, If we don’t all hang together we most surely will be hung by the British separately. All those guys were wealthy. The King of England
Needed the Taxes and the raw abundance of stuff to continue his quests of global domination.

It was understood and accepted that Slavery was a part of life and indentured was also accepted. Youngsters serving to learn a trade was part of growing up. Only wealthy
had the Don’t do what I do, Do what I say lifestyle.

Still a great part of the world is still a basic slavery, call it Communism, Dictatorship, or whatever has a top dog type of Leadership. The protests and onward from the 60’s changed stuff but it’s seemingly gradually returning to us wealthy and you dog dudes.

Carrying the chip on the shoulder is still there, many explainations for it. Racial hatred, attitudes, life styles. Crime, drugs, child slavery, basic auto hostilities. It’s always been
there. The needs of the many out way the needs of the few. all that sort of stuff. If you aren’t needed no one gives a darn.

Most of the world just stays in the grey area, coming and going, shuffling around, walk to market and shop for Bat or Cat meat. You know basically existing in the Cloud. Un noticed.

I guess the selling of Human People started with the Local population of the source area of Slavery. The need for a lot of Labor was part of the business of human trafficking. It hasn’t changed much, just the source areas have. Many northern had Servants / waiters/ drivers and some freed them with papers later.

Remember Eunuchs of the Royalty Servants corps. The do what I say group of work details.
 

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

Back
Top