The Founding Fathers

[Dill]

(07-23-2020, 04:25 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: This post definitely contextualizes the times the FFs were operating in, and explains the compromises they had to make in order to found a nation. I agree with that, and as a practical man, I can appreciate it. Yet, in some ways one thought I'm not convinced of: They were willing to fight Britain and lay down their lives in the interest of freedoms (admittedly in some ways self serving, and service of ideals in other ways), but not willing to do so for the right of other Americans enslaved? I look at it as, if they saw that as a wrong, then they weren't willing to lay down their lives for correcting a wrong, in the defense of higher ideals. Still they were great out of the box thinkers (although, in this context only in ways that would benefit themselves directly). On the other side, if they didn't see it as wrong, well then they are getting credit for being visionaries who could see past their times (in regards to the founding), while at the same time showing that they cannot see past their times (in regards to slavery). So, either way, I think a proper assessment would be a full assessment of their greatness and shortcomings, instead of just being lionized as "heroes."

Good post, MasterP.

To the bolded, in the 17th-18th century, developing conceptions of "equality" and a consequent "natural right" to freedom were predicated upon a presumed ability to reason, to manage one's affairs without paternal oversight. These ideals were articulated/developed against feudal conceptions of paternal hierarchy and natural inequality, at the level of class as well as family.  The men driving the liberal revolution were for the most part business/tradesmen commoners who realized they had a better grasp of worldly affairs, and certainly of the economy, than a privileged aristocracy living parasitically off others labor and inherited property. But women children and servants--they didn't run households and businesses. Seems they did not even come to mind for the most part. (Chapter 5 of Locke's Second Treatise of Government, he makes the classical argument for the origin of and right to property in every person's own labor, drawing food from the commons, then in the very next he adds that the work of one's "servant" is also one's own property. LOL This Founding Father of liberal government also had shares in the slave trade.)

As slavery began to boom in the later 17th century, and the British took most of the trade from the Portuguese and Dutch, to compete with the Spaniards, the debate began over whether slavery was in accord with liberal (and Christian) ideals.  Could Africans manage themselves? Clearly not was the dominant answer, especially when the "not" was coupled to insane profits.  So, like women, servants and children, domination of black people was not necessarily seen as a contradiction with liberal ideals. Certainly not with trade for profit.

What so many find "obvious" today about universal equality was not so obvious back then. That's why I tend to spend most of my energy finding out what these guys actually thought and why, and how and what changed people's thinking on the nature of equality. Important to affirm racism is not an ideal we want to live by now; waste of time to "condemn" Locke or Jefferson, as if they'd just re-tweeted Trump's finding of "good people on both sides."