This was Natural Law, as opposed to the laws made by institutions. Now Thomas Jefferson (the primary author of the document) was not suggesting that man-made laws were irrelevant; rather, he was asserting that Natural Law trumped human law. Human law did matter--but only when it illuminated and complemented Natural Law. If human law contradicted Natural Law, well, then you have reason for--revolution.
Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson, however, was hardly working in a vacuum when he composed this document. In fact, the Declaration of Independence articulates fundamental principles that were abounding during the Age of Reason. The notion that all men were created equal was not new to Jefferson or the Declaration. The concept that a government can only work through the consent of the governed, and when the governed did not give their consent, they had the right and duty to rebel, basically restates John Locke's Two Treatises of Government (1689). In fact, much of the Declaration--including some of Jefferson's phrasings--borrow substantially from Locke's writings about government and society in the 17th century.
However, there is a significant change that Jefferson makes in the Declaration that sets that document apart, and depending upon one's point of view, has brought much delight or much dismay to the American experiment. One of Locke's more famous quote forms the basis for one of the most famous quotes from the Declaration; as Locke wrote, “Man... hath by nature a power.... to preserve his property - that is, his life, liberty, and estate [my emphasis] - against the injuries and attempts of other men.” Unless we've been living in a closet, if we're American we should recognize two of the three elements of that trilogy. And again notice that like Jefferson, Locke asserts that our power comes "by nature," not by human law. So Jefferson clearly knows his Locke (no surprise, considering he was one of the smartest and most well-read people in our entire history). But Jefferson also diverts from Locke in one meaningful way--he substitutes "pursuit of happiness" for "estate."
So there are two questions I'd like you to think about regarding the Declaration of Independence. First, what do you think is the significance of adding a phrase about the pursuit of happiness to our revolutionary document? The issue was not so much what Jefferson thought of property (he was for it), but that somehow he (and the others who signed the document) believed there was something important about codifying the right to pursue happiness.
Rough Draft of the Declaration of Independence
Second, we all are familiar with the phrase "all men are created equal," and as I've said, that's not a concept original to Jefferson. We also know that these words exist in a document written while institutionalized slavery was quite prevalent in this country. (We may or may not know that Jefferson had originally included language outlawing slavery, but removed it in order to get the pro-slavery signers to sign. Even without their signatures, Jefferson still would have had a majority, but he believed the Declaration would be effective only if he had unanimity.) The knee-jerk response is that Jefferson was simply a hypocrite. But can you think of ways in which the existence of slavery could be justified (or perhaps the better term is rationalized) in a nation which declares in writing that all men are created equal?
I think the "pursuit of happiness" is added as an admonishment against England. It was as the title of the entire document suggests, "Declaration of their Independence". They would no longer be under British rule, and able to live freely;happily. Unfortunately, they would not be willing to extend those same natural rights to others. All the talk about freedom when most of the writers themselves owned slaves. I not only find that our forefathers were hypocritical, but duplicitously so. They were not alone. I would say the same for most of the Christian's who often used the bible to justify their enslaving human beings. Their thin argument riding on the fact there were was slaves in the bible. Yet, they fail to acknowlede that it was not all based upon race. In fact, God clearly condemned that very practice. Exodus 13:14. Personally, I do not see any rationale or justification that can be used in support of slavery. Perhaps, the colonist could have argued,they borrowed from Britian, and mastered(no pun intended)the art of being the oppressor, as opposed to being the oppressed. Which, in my opinion, is certainly nothing to be proud of.
ReplyDeleteEarlier settlers were focused on God and community -- everyone was obliged to "pursue happiness" through these two sacred precepts. If they chose a different path, they were punished or ousted. Jefferson's inclusion of the phrase in the Declaration of Independence recognizes that that which is sacred to some may not be to others; he clears the way for individuals to "follow their bliss" -- to dance around the maypole, so to speak -- living in other ways than simply glorifying God for the purpose of gaining His favor on the community/His "chosen people."
ReplyDeleteJefferson is such a paradox, but we have to see him in the context of his time. Wealthy planters needed slaves to build and maintain their property -- to build the nation. Some didn't believe slavery was right, but seem to have viewed it as a necessary evil. They needed to prosper in order to stand up to and hold their own with other nations.
Also, perhaps a person of color wasn't considered by all the signers to be a "man" and so equality was not in question. In Jefferson's case, we know that he freed some of his slaves --some of those who shared his DNA. Were they more likely to be considered "men" and worthy of freedom because of their mixed blood?
I do not think its reasonable to say they "needed" to enslave individuals in order to thrive. They chose to exploit people because they wanted to. The truth is, those same great men who believed that if a man does not work, he should not eat, in most cases were too indolent to cook their own meals, cultivate their own land, build their own structures! For graciousness sake, I won't even mention some of the other horrors that women, and children were subjected to. If it were not for the sheer maliciousness of it, the destroying of family structure, the complete interruption of the "pursuit of happiness", the hypocrisy would almost be laughable;but it is not. With that said, I understand why we need to have this sort of discussion. If we assert a standard, and do not give them validation by using the "cloak of time", then we must own up to our sordid history and its carnage; which reflects our inhumaneness.
ReplyDeleteIt may be unreasonable for us to condone enslavement under any circumstances -- but its necessity is what some of the Founding Fathers believed in, exhibited by their willingness to permit it even when their consciences smote them.
ReplyDeleteThen again, could the U.S. have prospered and grown without slave labor? The cities along the coast were industrialized, but what about the interiors? Who, other than the vast number of slaves imported from Africa, was available to work and improve those huge tracts of land, to grow crops like cotton, to sell in order to earn money that would pay taxes that would build roads, that would buy more land, to sell more crops that would make other countries dependent upon the U.S.?
It's easy for us now to say slavery was downright wrong; we don't live in an era where our leaders feel it's "needed". But for the Founding Fathers intent on growing a country that could hold its own with Europe, what was the alternative?
Is a "great man" like Jefferson or Washington, who both have far more accomplishments to their credit than just the Presidency, not truly great because he owned slaves? How do we weigh that sin against their other, more admirable, actions? We don't disregard the principles of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" because the Founders were so wrong about slavery; should we reject their vision entirely because they believed that, at least in part, it depended upon slave labor?
Again, slavery needs to be viewed in the context of its time -- not to justify it, ever, but to understand why it was allowed to happen. Understanding why slavery (or any kind of oppression) happens is the best way to avoid history repeating itself.
As both of you can tell--and both of you are making excellent points--slavery was a complex issue, one I'll deal with only marginally in this comment. The biblical rationale that Tia mentions actually came about in the early 19th century, precisely because abolitionists frequently attacked what they saw as the faux-Christianity of the slaveholders. The rationale was more directed towards the slaves than slaveholders, to keep the slaves in line. (It's also why masters sometimes forbade slaves from learning to read. If they could read, they could read the Bible, and so read the anti-slavery passages in the Bible.)
ReplyDeleteAlso, generally slaveholders knew that slavery had to end, that slavery had no reasonable place in America, and that slavery as an economic model was unworkable in an industrializing nation. The problem was, no one really knew how to end it. Jefferson's attitude echoed the attitude of many: slavery was no doubt a vile institution, but what happens when we unloose millions of uneducated and unskilled Blacks on American culture? The South didn't want them, the North didn't want them, so where are they going to go, what are we supposed to do with them? Jefferson's approach was the prevailing approach, what was called "gradualism." That is, let's slowly phase out slavery and slowly phase in freedmen. Unfortunately, "gradual" turned into "not yet."
And I haven't even said anything yet about race...
With regards to the pursuit of happiness, two things. First, note that the right is not a right to happiness, but a right to pursue it. A question that extends from that is, does this mean one can pursue happiness to the exclusion of the happiness of others, that one need to be concerned over the consequences of one's actions? Second, not all are thrilled by the codification of that right. Some would see it as a first step in our journey away from the community-centeredness of the Puritans and towards self-centeredness.
Teri--The notion that arguments against slavery should be dismissed because these so called "great men" believed it was profitable to a growing nation is ludicrous. Would that particular argument apply to Adolph Hitler as well? I am sure that he too saw visions of prosperity and harmony when he intiated the enslavement, torture, and subsequent slaughter of millions of jews. If we accept your view, then we accept that it was ok for women and children to be subjected to shameful atrocities in the name of growth! Just as Hitler's warped vision of growth included genocide of millions, african's were kidnapped from their homeland, stripped from their families, and last but not least; their dignity! But, hey, it was all in the name of prosperity! Anyone who has ever done anything wrong can find some justification for their actions. But wrong is wrong; no matter how we dress it up. To address your point about the "great men" and their other accomplishments, let me go back to my comparison. I am sure there are those who believe that Adolph Hitler was not so bad of a guy either. Today many people revere him, and I am sure they would be happy to point to some of his more admirable qualities and contributions as well. However, I think most of us find no conflict in shunning his criminal acts against humanity. Similarly, I feel the same about many of our "great" forefathers. Murderers, rapist kidnappers and pedophiles are criminals, and should not be glorified. You mentioned many of these crimes happened long ago, when times were different. Yet, lets not forget there are people who commited crimes during the 60s, when they were more "time friendly" and have later been convicted. If those "great men" were alive today, I would be a firm supporter of them meeting a similar fate. You made a point that in order for us to not repeat certain history we need to "understand" it. My position is, there is nothing to understand. Besides, the burden should not reside with the victims, but the offenders.Which is why we lock our criminals up, as we want to protect ourselves and our way of life from savages who believe they can just take whatever they want for personal gratification. Visiting most of our stained history, especially with regards to slavery,I liken to ingesting a disgusting pill. I must take it, but it is very hard to swallow, so, I do it as fast as I can to get it over with. However, the bad taste always remains.
ReplyDeleteI think the term “all men are created equal” really refers to “all white men just like us”. Slaves were considered property so, of course, they could not be considered individuals with any rights. Women were also excluded from the equality club.
ReplyDeleteI believe that “pursuit of happiness” is a declaration of individual freedom. People should have the right to live their lives without undue interference from the government and be allowed to make decisions about their lives based on their personal ambitions as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others. The colonist no longer wanted to be subjected to the absolute rule of a monarchy and wanted to create a new form of government that vested power in the people.
Tia-- I have not said slavery or oppression should be dismissed or condoned because these particular instances occurred long ago or because some slaveholders indeed happened to be great men who founded a nation. It happened, we as a people need to study why it happened, why it was allowed. Studying it and trying to understand doesn't imply consent. I admire Jefferson greatly; I abhor his position on slavery. I want to understand the difference in his opinion and mine, not to be convined myself that slavery was permissible, but to understand why HE thought it was. I want to understand the conflicts he experienced within himself. If we as a people turn away from trying to understand the reasons behind our leaders' actions, as I mentioned before, they're more apt to be repeated.
ReplyDeleteI can't compare Jefferson with Hitler. Jefferson owned a few hundred slaves. Bad enough, but there's no evidence he was personally responsible for any deaths other than those of soldiers that occurred during the Revolutionary War. Do we condone that? Hitler was responsible for the deaths of millions of innocent people. I don't see a comparison.
By referring to the Revolutionary War deaths, I guess I'm implicating all the Founding Fathers in those deaths, as well as Jefferson.
ReplyDeleteTeri--
ReplyDeleteI do not see how the Revolutionary War applies here in the least. While, I am no proponent of War, I think War in general is different than genocide. There is a standard even in War. By nature its a fight. The other side has an opportunity to resist. As we know, that was not the case with slavery, or the holocaust.I find it unfortunate that you do not see a correlation between the vile existence of the holocaust and slavery. Both, were against ethnic groups and both completely reprehensible. I know that you like to refer to the "context of time" when you speak about slavery, but I think one of the most contemptible and devastating things about slavery has been its continual success in dehumanizing a group of people. In your post you mention that slaves were "imported", as if they were cigars. I think similar to you, many individuals have not been able to yet transition slaves into human beings, and have instead chosen to buy into the original theory. Again, I know if one does admit its true egregiousness, they must also look at those who participated in it. So, its easier to say, "its just the way things were." While Jefferson clearly benefitted from some of the horrors inflicted on men, women and children, I do not know if he actually participated in murder. However, by many accounts, he was said to be engaging in sex, or I should say, raping an underage girl, which would make him a pedophile, in my book. I do not think its a matter of complexity. I do not find a conflict with Jefferson at all. I think the world has had many articulate, intellectual, deviants.
Earlier, I said that Jefferson did not necessarily "kill" anyone. However, In retrospect, since he kept "people" in bondage against their will, I find that almost an oxymoron. He did something far worse. He killed dreams, hopes, futures. Jefferson killed the spirit. Perhaps it is unfair to compare him to Hitler afterall.
ReplyDeleteTia-- I appreciate reading your opinion and engaging in this discussion, but I object to being incorrectly characterized by your statement: "I think similar to you, many individuals have not been able to yet transition slaves into human beings, and have instead chosen to buy into the original theory."
ReplyDeleteSlaves were "imported" -- they were merchandise to their owners, who bought and sold them for their own purposes. For the sake of political correctness: yes, they were human beings, it was egregious and inhumane. A scholarly understanding of how the slaveowners' views and why they felt they "needed" slavery does not translate into modern-day justification. Raging over the wrongs in history doesn't change them; examining history objectively in order to develop an educated opinion and understanding is more productive.
I was fortunate to have a brief chat with Dr. Annette Gordon-Reed, author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning "The Hemingses of Monticello" at the National Book Festival not even two weeks ago, about Thomas Jefferson's alleged liaison with a slave. Since she's devoted much of her life to studying him and that relationship, you might find her comments interesting; they can be viewed in the National Book Festival archives on www.booktv.org.
From speaking with Dr. Gordon-Reed and hearing her presentation, it doesn't appear that she -- after decades of objective research through primary sources, two books on the subject and a third to come -- considers Jefferson a pedophile or rapist; she admits to both liking and disliking him, seeing the good and the bad -- a reasonable assessment that has made her one of the most distinguished authors of her time.
At the time of the Declaration of Independence was drafted, America was under Tyranny from the British Crown. Nothing could be done unless the King approved. To our founding fathers, as British citizens, they believed they were entitled to the rights and privileges granted by the Magna Carta, and the British Bill of Rights. Among other things, these documents established that the King was not above the law, that the people, represented in parliament, had a right to endorse or reject taxation, and that citizens were entitled to a trial by jury of their peers. Additionally, the Declaration relied on precedent; most British colonies had enjoyed self-rule and had been governed through their own legislative bodies since their founding. At the time of the Declaration, most of the colonists that had once protested "no taxation without representation" found themselves without any representation whatsoever, neither in Parliament nor in any colonial house of representation.
ReplyDeleteThe King interfered with the colonists' right to self-government and for a fair judicial system. Acting with Parliament, the King also instituted legislation that affected the colonies without their consent. This legislation levied taxes on the colonists. It also required them to house British soldiers, removed their right to trial by jury, and prevented them from trading freely.
Jefferson himself owned slaves, however it troubled him. He continued to acquire slaves by inheritance, and he was prohibited by Virginia law from freeing them, a law he sought to overturn with his first act in the Virginia legislature.
There is no way to rationalize owning of another as property and treating them less than human. However, if you break up the word rationalize into Rationa/lies then you can rationalize anything true or false. I guess for Jefferson he thought that his treatment of his slaves was better than that of the average slave owner. The aristocracy was against the freeing of slaves because it was part of what they deemed to be their right to own slaves to work the land on their plantations and one of the key reasons for the Civil War.
Teri-- I do not know if by introducing this author your implication is that I should agree with her for some reason. Furthermore, I think its bordering the line of classism to suggest because she has written several novels, and is a "distingushed writer" that her opinion on Jefferson should be any more relevant than mine. I would just add that I could cite many reputable author's who agree with my assessment, but as this class is designed to give our personal views, that is how I choose to proceed. However, since you think I am "raging" simply because I disagree with you. I think its best that I not respond to anymore of your post on this particular issue.
ReplyDeleteAnnette Gordon-Reed hasn't written novels, she's written two definitive studies on Jefferson's relationship with Sally Hemings and her family. For anyone interested in learning more about this aspect of Jefferson, she's an authority. Her credentials make her opinion more relevant than mine, and her writing has helped form my personal opinion of him.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what we disagree about, other than how the faults of the Founding Fathers should be measured against their achievements, and frankly I don't claim to have the answer to that, nor did I. Again, I believe that it's important to understand the Founding Fathers in the context of their own time, just as we're trying to understand the Puritans, the Transcendentalists, etc.
Barb-- I think you touched on a very important point. Because Jefferson seemed to perhaps show some hints of remorse many people tend to find him sympathetic. However, I think many people in prision today are "sorry", but does that excuse their behavior? I know that sometimes there is an interest in finding out why people behave the way they do. A psychologist who studies serial killers for example, might tend to look at behavior patterns of the criminals, but never would they seek to minimize the crime. Then there are those who believe the acts against humanity are so heinous, and so far removed from what is considered acceptable in our society, that to even attempt to understand it, or reason it, is almost like breathing validity into it, and thus refuse to give it a forum. Personally, I feel that way about slavery. If one thinks slavery is inexcusable, he or she then cannot state, but there was a really good reason for it. To do so is extremely contradicting.Though there was a time in our society that to own slaves was not an illegal offense, I do think its existence did in fact violate a more important law; a moral one. If we must discuss atrocious behavior we should always be able to discuss it past or present in that context.
ReplyDeleteI also tend to think Barb has an important point when she says that Jefferson believed his treatment of slaves was better than the alternative. As I mentioned in another place, the alternative (for him and many who at least ideologically wanted to see the end of slavery) meant freeing millions of people unprepared to thrive or even survive in a complex society. The problem was exacerbated by the fact that no region of the country, urban or agrarian, North or South, wanted the freed slaves. Was it a rationalization? Sure, but in many ways that is the point--it was a decision based on reason (as those at that time understood it), not feeling or morality. Now, I will be up front and say that I tend to try to see behavior in the context (time, culture, etc.) in which it occurs--I just think culture and the values carried with it change constantly. However, let's not forget that at the time Jefferson and others were working (and I don't want to just isolate Jefferson here) there was also a growing abolitionist movement that were attempting to force the debate over slavery into the area of morality. Also, there was one religious society--the Quakers--that unstintingly opposed slavery on moral grounds. (Sorry to say, but most mainstream Christian religions at the time were okay or indifferent to slavery.)
ReplyDeleteI also want to say that we need to be careful about comparing slavery to the holocaust. Both indeed resulted in much suffering and death. But the holocaust was intended as genocidal; slavery was not. The Nazis saw the Jews as the source of Germany's economic distress; however, for slaveholders slaves were property, which immediately placed an economic value upon them, and the primary workforce, so they were, to put it bluntly but unpleasantly, and economic necessity. In the rare instances that slaveholders would be brought to trial for abusing slaves, it would be because a slaveholder abused or killed a slave belonging to another. This had nothing to do with right or wrong, and everything to do with the perceived economic value of the slave. The Jews "enjoyed" no such value.
I agree with Tia’s opinion on “the pursuit of happiness.” I mean, a whole section of the Declaration of Independence babbles on about how horrible the King of England treated everyone. “He did this” and “he made us do that,” almost sounding like a girl complaining about her older brother. How could someone possibly stay happy with all those feelings of animosity and dissatisfaction? The Declaration of Independence states that each individual has the right to pursue their own happiness and, if that means “throw[ing] off such government” and seeking new means for “future security,” then so be it (page 1058). I also really liked Cheryl’s comment on individual freedom. Everyone, as long as they don’t “infringe upon the rights of others,” should be able to live their lives as they see fit. Who wouldn’t want that!? It seems like a great idea for Jefferson to get the public excited about the document. Signing this will ensure your future happiness and independence: sounds like a winner to me! After reading Prof. Bodziock’s replies, I realize now that it says the “pursuit” of happiness. I was easily fooled into thinking that meant actually experiencing this feeling of joy. Perhaps, everyone else reacted to that word alone and accepted the phrase without considering the things that Prof. Bodziock brought up.
ReplyDeleteI really struggled to answer this question about slavery. It’s very difficult, in today’s world, to even consider why that was acceptable. We grew up in a time when all of that was changing, so I find it hard to put myself in a colonist’s shoes. With such strong opinions against slavery (… and discrimination, racism, prejudice, etc.), I need to explore the time more to understand the supposed justification of slavery at that time. Reading Prof. Bodziock’s comments helped me grasp the vacillating thoughts of the colonists. Once you start its hard to stop though you feel it’s wrong. This, I think, most people can relate to.
I believe that the phrase, pursuit of happiness, was to symbolize the colonist’s true freedom from Great Britain, the “Great Oppressor”. This was all true with the Articles of Confederation as well. Now that they had their freedom, they had so much of it that they wanted separation from any government. (However, interestingly enough, it was still similarly modeled after that of the British rule.) They had lived there lives for so long under the rule of the British and, even after moving to the Americas, still had to suffer through their laws and malevolent militia. Even the phrasing was perfectly put, “…pursuit of happiness.” It wasn’t guaranteed, but they still had the right to pursue it regardless of the outcome.
ReplyDeleteSlavery rationalized? I agree with both Teri and Tia. With Teri, it is true that we have to think about slavery in their time and not compare it to the many advantages and wealth we have today. During those times, a man could only be worried about the survival of himself and his family. If he spread his fears over a broad group of people, such as his slaves, community members, as well as he, would begin to question his ability to care and provide for his family. As to agreeing with Tia, this man could have chosen to live life more simply and not basked in the glories of his success. But the outcome of this could have been far harder and worse for him in the long run.
Professor Bodziock--
ReplyDeleteI wanted to use this opportunity, if I may to respond to a few of your points. And maybe clarify a few of my own points. However, I think this forum only allows for a certain amount of words, so I had to make two separate entries, hope thats ok.
While I have tried to understand the question that was posed about whether slavery can be “justified” or “rationalized”, and given it careful consideration, I would be remiss if I did not say honestly,I am not comfortable with what I perceive as marginalizing slavery by entertaining the rationale, or lack thereof, of the perpetrators.
Also, I think we should remember that the slaveholders conveniently counted slaves as human beings when it was beneficial (census purposes) so, there seems to be some hypocrisy even within their warped justification. They wanted to treat slaves as property, but count them as men.
Did they have their own reasons for enslaving human beings? Sure, they were too indolent to do their own work; and greed would not allow them to hire someone else. But, doesn’t everyone have their motives?
What about individuals who commit burglaries? Surely in the state of our economy one could claim its "necessity", right? Wrong. Still, it is a choice; as was slavery.
I do agree with you that things are in constant flux. I just do not believe values are one of them; or at least should not be. So, I do think it was a moral issue. Even then many believed it was wrong; including those who participated.
Also, I do note the distinctions you make between slavery and the holocaust. While it was not my intention to imply they were altogether the same, certainly, I do not find the comparison incongruous. I cannot ignore the fact that both were aimed at a specific ethnic group.
Slaves were also subjected to severe psychological, emotional, and physical abuse. Not to mention, kidnapped from their homeland and “forced” to give up their names, religion, and culture, taught they were beasts, and treated as such.
I have not even mentioned the devastation on their country; the lost potential. Perhaps the person who was to unite Africa was among those held captive, and instead was relegated to a farmer, assuming they were fortunate, or unfortunate, enough to have survived the horrific trip across the Atlantic.
While many are able to trace their ancestry generations, descendants of slaves share no such luxury. The slave was purposely stripped of his or her identity and humanity.
Female slaves, often young girls, were commonly used for sex by their masters. Children were frequently ripped from their mothers and sold to another owner.
While one may argue the intial “intent” of the slaveholder with respect to the act of physical murder(though it did occur)surely, no one can dispute the emotional,psychological, and cultural murder that was inflicted “intentionally” against the slave. This in my humble opinion still allows it to fit within the broader definition of genocide.
From what I have studied there seems to be at least some debate about what genocide actually entails. So, I understand it’s all a matter of opinion. Listed below I gathered some information which I think is relevant to my point.
Finally, I would just say I think it’s fair to hold individuals responsible for their actions, even when we are discussing events in the context of history.
ReplyDeleteAlthough, I do not enjoy the luxury of being objective on this particular issue, even if I were, I would think the argument the slaveholders asserted would be an embarrassment.
In my opinion, slavery is a constant reminder, and perfect illustration of what happens when men give in to their savagery and abandon their consciences.
And in my mind, there was absolutely no reason for it. If there is a lesson to be learned here it is that.
Genocide: 8) Genocide is generally believed to involve the murder of indelible group members. But the crime does not. Acts (b)-(e) make clear genocide may also involve the intent to destroy a group by means other than killing one or more of its members.
(9) In Act (b) "serious bodily or mental harm" may include acts of torture, rape, sexual slavery, apartheid, or other inhuman or degrading treatment. (PCICC, ft. 3) That these inhumane acts, among others, were explicitly included in the ICC Statute is a major advance in genocide criminal law.
Retrieved October 10th 2009 from http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/GENOCIDE.ENCY.HTM
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that "pursuit of happiness" was put in there to refer to as property but also thay it is a right to be happy np matter what.
ReplyDeleteAs for the "all men are created equal" I think that it refers to the white, rich people because slaves at that time were considered property. Even todat I don't think that all men are "create equal" it has definitely come a long way since then but it is the way people view different people.
I believe that there is a lot of significance with the addition of the phrase "all men are created equal". Sure, maybe that was the belief or initial thought that Jefferson and everyone else that contributed to the writing of the Declaration of Independence. I find it hard to believe that it says that all men are created equal and that makes the claim that every single individual is on the same level. It was obvious that at the time when the document was written, there was a wide range of different social class, such as the rich white men, the poor white, and obviously the slaves as well. I feel that the pursue of happiness isn't what it was intended to be. To pursue is to go after something or chase something and it's quite evident that it's something that isn't guaranteed. With that said, anyone can pursue happiness at no cost.
ReplyDeleteI looked at "all men are created equal" within the text and for some reason I kind of felt that it didn't make sense. Maybe it was the intention of Jefferson to make it a reality, but even he owned slaves and knew that having them would help produce strong farms. I believe that it can't be justified because slavery didn't end until a half century later or along the lines of that amount of time.