The Founding Founders Did Not Believe in Natural Rights....

[Kutnupe14]

....at least not, at first.


Here on INGO, the “intent” of the Founders of our nation isoften cited, in regards to the Bill of Rights, and the concept of NaturalRights. The “Founding Fathers,” are a group that includes, but is not limitedto, the signers of the Declaration of Independence, the Framers of theConstitution, and the members of the “Revolutionary” colonial governments. Theera in which they lived, is commonly referred to, by historians and politicalscientists, as the “Founding Era.”

The concept of “Natural Rights,” (commonly attributed to the writings of John Locke) is one that holds the belief that all men (and by default women), are entitled, without reservation, to a certain set of fundamental rights, which should never be infringed upon by man nor government. For example, a person has the right to defend themselves, and may procure whatever means they desire to forward that end (i.e. the Second Amendment).
This is the belief held by many, concerning the concept of Natural Rights, today.

Unfortunately, this concept that many of us hold so dear, has not always been universally understood in America. In fact, from the very beginning of the republic, “natural rights,” were things that were only understood as being held by certain classes of people.

Make no mistake, this thread is going to make people upset,and I apologize in advance for providing you facts about our nation, but rest assured, these are all documented FACTS.

 

[Kutnupe14]

First, we’ll start with the most obvious infringement on therights of others, slavery. If one holds that blacks were men, then placing themin bondage for monetary gain, is one of the most egregious violations ofnatural rights man or government can have against another. If one holds thatthe Founders did not understand this, and did not believe blacks were “men,”this one must question their understanding of natural rights.
However, at the very least, the Founders believed thatslaves/free blacks were, at least, 3/5 “men,” as cited by the 3/5 Compromise,in the original Constitution stating:

Article 1, Section 2,Paragraph 3
Representatives and direct Taxes shall beapportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union,according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding tothe whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Termof Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all otherPersons.

During this time, both slaves AND free blacks were prohibited from owningfirearms (and all other “offensive” weapons, and could only possess them invery specific circumstances (i.e. killing pests which endangered crops).
I would think it would be obvious as to why the Founders didn’t wantblacks to own firearms. Just as the colonists fought to be free from theimpending slavery of the Crown, it is a fair bet that slaves, with guns, wouldprobably fight just as fiercely. The Founders simply placed a firearm ownershipban, for the welfare of the public. How, at least concerning “free” blacks,does this NOT violate the 2nd Amendment?

Article 1,Section 9
The Migration or Importation of suchPersons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shallnot be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundredand eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceedingten dollars for each Person.


And there you have it, two examples of law, which is a determinant factorconcerning their “worth,” in both a representative and monetary, function.Those which are the subject of these sections are without natural rights, atleast as far as the Constitution is concerned.
What is the Constitution, if not adocument that is “supposed” to protect the natural rights of all? TheConstitution, as it is written, should not make a difference between “excepted”and “protected,” classes, but clearly such did exist, IN THE TEXT, of theoriginal document.

“My opinion against it [slavery] has always been known… Neverin my life did I own a slave.”
—John Adams

 

[Kutnupe14]

The next example, I would like to introduce would be the laws concerning the Tories, or Loyalists, during the earliest days of our Republic, and slightly prior. Tories/Loyalists were those persons who either remainedcommitted to the English Crown, or simply did not support the ideals of the Revolution. Not all Tories/Loyalists actively supported the Crown via “comfort”or “military” aid; some simply wanted to “ride out the storm.”
Unfortunately for the latter, American Revolutionaries would have none ofit. In an effort to “flush out” those who were not committed to the Revolution, many states required “Oaths of Allegiance.”

In 1777, the General Assembly of Virginia required such an oath, stating:
"Whereas allegiance and protection are reciprocal, and those who will not bear the former are not entitled to the benefits of the latter . . . all free born male inhabitants of this state, above the age of sixteen years, except imported servants during the time of their service, shall, on or before the tenth day ofOctober next, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation before someone of the justices of the peace of the county, city, or borough where they shall respectively inhabit."

Failure to take this oath would result in the “militia,”disarming those persons, and those persons then being barred from "holdingany office in this state, serving on juries, suing for any debts, electing orbeing elected, or buying lands, tenements, or hereditaments."

 

[Kutnupe14]

Here is the actual verbiage of the text:

I renounce & refuseall Alegiance to George the third King of great Britain his Heirs & successors*& that I will be faithful & bear true Alegienace to the Common Wealthof Virginia as a free &Independant state & that I will not do or cause to be done any matter or thing that will beprejudicial or Injurous to the freedom & Independance thereof as Declaredby Congress and also that Iwill Discover & make Known to some one Justice of the Peace for the said State all Treasonsor Tratirous Conspiracies which I now or hereafter shall Know to be formed against this or any of theunited States of America

(If you needa link to the original document, I assure you I can provide it)

 

[Kutnupe14]

During theAmerican Revolution, several states passed laws providing for the confiscation of weapons owned by persons refusing to swear an oathof allegiance to the state or the United States. To deal with thepotential threat coming from armed citizens who remained loyal toGreat Britain, states took the obvious precaution of disarming thesepersons. Thus, the security of the community outweighed anyright a person might have to possess a firearm. In Pennsylvania,if a person "refuse[d] or neglect[ed] to take the oath or affirmation" of allegiance to the state, he was required to deliver up hisarms to agents of the state, and he was not permitted to carry any arms about his person or keep any arms or ammunition in his "house orelsewhere., Sucha broad provision effectively eliminated the opportunity for someone to violently protest the actions of thePennsylvania government or defend himself with a firearm.

(FordhamLaw Review pg 506 Vol 73, Issue 2:3)

 

[Kutnupe14]

“No freeman shall ever be debarred the useof arms.”
-Thomas Jefferson during thedrafting of the Virginia Constitution (1776)


Continuing,even those persons, who today we would call conscientious objectors,” were notexempt from the “join the Revolution,” hysteria. Mennonites and German Baptistswhowished to have no hand in the “art of war,” in November 1775 wrote thePennsylvania Assembly and asked that they an alternative be found to them having to participate in military service, consisting of caring for destitute families. The response of the Assembly was to levy a war tax on the groups which they refused to pay stating they found "no freedom in giving,or doing, or assisting in anything by which men's lives are destroyed orhurt." The Pennsylvania assembly promptly confiscated their property in theamount which would satisfy the war tax. (these types of required oaths were calledTest Acts).

For more reading: http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/pds/makingrev/rebellion/text5/religiouspacifists.pdf

 

[Kutnupe14]

Further, even Americans that supported the Revolution were not exemptfrom the overstepping of the “new” federal government. Many of us today viewthe Affordable Health Care Act as un-Constitutional; which it very well may be.Many are of the belief that the federal government mandating anything isoppressive. Well, before the AHCA, there was another one called the Militia Actof 1792, which conscripted, for military service, every white male between theages of 18-45, into the militia. These “draftees,” were, by law, required to outfitthemselves with a musket, bayonet, belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with20 bullets, and a knapsack. All men were required to report for training twicein a calendar year.

This act was voted on by many of the very same founders who had a hand increating our Constitution. It was signed into law by President GeorgeWashington.

For more reading (original text of the Act): http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

 

[Kutnupe14]

….And now to the juicy stuff.

We are all in agreement that registration is a bad thing right? I sharethat sentiment, what I’m not exactly sure about, is whether this opinion was sharedby our founding fathers. For instance, in order to make sure that citizenry was abiding by the Militia Act of 1792, door to door surveys were conducted of andarms cataloged and documented.

Militia regulations were the most common form of laws pertaining to firearms. Such laws could be quite intrusive, allowinggovernment not only to keep track of who had firearms, but requiring them toreport for a muster or face stiff penalties. Regulations governing the storageof gun powder were also common." States prohibited the use of firearms oncertain occasions and in certain locations.

(FordhamLaw Review pg 505 Vol 73, Issue 2:3)

Yes,you read that right, early American law allowed for the government to come toyour home, and compel a resident to “declare” the firearms they had in their possession.This was occurring prior to 1792, but was enacted into law that year. 1787,that’s when the Constitution was written, 1792, 5 years later. Are we to believe that the noble ideas set forth in “most” of the Constitution, were disregarded a paltry 5 years later? Or are we to believe that our, still living, founders had no issue with suchpractices? And what of these “new” Americans, after fighting a war against tyranny does one believe that they would allow themselves to have their “natural rights” infringed upon again? Or perhaps, maybe they did not believe that thiswas tyranny, at all, nor that their rights were being infringed upon.

The funny thing is that “I” would view ANY of these actions as an infringement. Iwould not allow the government to catalog my firearms. I would not allow them to conscript me into an army. I would not allow them take my possessions, as atax in lieu of military service. I have always been part of the so called “gun culture,” and am not old enough to have seen America in any different way. However, the more I research about the laws our Founding Father’s set forth, and how they we’re observed, in practice, the more I am inclined to believe that the “rights” we call “natural” haven’t always been considered as such.

 

[netsecurity]

You are wrong. You have given no evidence whatsoever why the founding fathers didn't believe in natural rights. You just went on a long winded tirade, which could have been one sentence: "The founders were hypocrites because of slavery."

Yes, they were hypocrites, we all recognize that. It doesn't mean for one second that they didn't "believe in natural rights" does it? Natural rights were somewhat a new concept, since no government ever had a constitution before, so their ideals had to be written before they could be practiced.

Our constitution was signed in 1787. The Declaration of Independence states that "All men are created equal." But back in 1776 they didn't consider non-Europeans to be men. They were ignorant and conceded. They were human. But at least they were wise enough and honest enough to plot the course for equality and freedom. It is their ideals that we still strive to acquire, yet still sometimes fall short, but that doesn't mean we don't believe in them either.

 

[Kutnupe14]

In conclusion, the Founding Fathers were simply products of the world in which they lived. Yes, they did stomp on the natural rights of millions, but an argument could be made that this was required in order to create the republic; a republic that was given the tools to correct its initial shortcomings. I think this is where I think they have proven themselves to be the geniuses of the time.

However, I think it is a misnomer to ever say what the Founders “intended,”I do not think that could ever be known, unless they created a government that observed ALL rights from its inception. CLEARLY they did not create such a government. In my OPINION, they created a government that they hoped could survive, a government that had the ability to change itself. The rights we nowhold as “fundamental,” may have very well -been considered the same by the Founders… they simply knew that they could not, at that point, make everyone happy, so they “compromised.” It does not absolve them of their shortcoming involving the rights of slaves, freedmen, Tories, Loyalist, and religious sects but it does provide a solid excuse, in wanting a nation to survive.

 

[netsecurity]

….And now to the juicy stuff.

We are all in agreement that registration is a bad thing right? I sharethat sentiment, what I’m not exactly sure about, is whether this opinion was sharedby our founding fathers. For instance, in order to make sure that citizenry wasabiding by the Militia Act of 1792, door to door surveys were conducted of andarms cataloged and documented.

Militiaregulations were the most common form of laws pertaining to firearms. Such laws could be quite intrusive, allowinggovernment not only to keep track of who had firearms, but requiring them toreport for a muster or face stiff penalties. Regulations governing the storageof gun powder were also common." States prohibited the use of firearms oncertain occasions and in certain locations.

(FordhamLaw Review pg 505 Vol 73, Issue 2:3)

Yes,you read that right, early American law allowed for the government to come toyour home, and compel a resident to “declare” the firearms they had in their possession.This was occurring prior to 1792, but was enacted into law that year. 1787,that’s when the Constitution was written, 1792, 5 years later. Are we to believe that the noble ideas setforth in “most” of the Constitution, were disregarded a paltry 5 years later?Or are we to believe that our, still living, founders had no issue with suchpractices? And what of these “new” Americans, after fighting a war againsttyranny does one believe that they would allow themselves to have their “naturalrights” infringed upon again? Or perhaps, maybe they did not believe that thiswas tyranny, at all, nor that their rights were being infringed upon.

Thefunny thing is that “I” would view ANY of these actions as an infringement. Iwould not allow the government to catalog my firearms. I would not allow themto conscript me into an army. I would not allow them take my possessions, as atax in lieu of military service. I have always been part of the so called “gunculture,” and am not old enough to have seen America in any different way.However, the more I research about the laws our Founding Father’s set forth,and how they we’re observed, in practice, the more I am inclined to believethat the “rights” we call “natural” haven’t always been considered as such.

The single biggest omition from the Constitution was that it contained no penalty for lawmakers who trampled on it. It is still that way, politicians pass laws all the time that are unconstitutional, but they don't get overturned until someone pursues the case all the way to the SCOTUS. That's not right, politicians should constantly be in fear of harsh consequences for such treason then, and now. They swore an oath to defend the constitution, and that is what they should all do! Even if that means having the Governor or Senator arrested while trying to sign an illegal law--let the lawmaker take the charges against himself to the SCOTUS and don't let the bill become law until AFTER it passes muster.

 

[Kutnupe14]

You are wrong. You have given no evidence whatsoever why the founding fathers didn't believe in natural rights. You just went on a long winded tirade, which could have been one sentence: "The founders were hypocrites because of slavery."

Yes, they were hypocrites, we all recognize that. It doesn't mean for one second that they didn't "believe in natural rights" does it? Natural rights were somewhat a new concept, since no government ever had a constitution before, so their ideals had to be written before they could be practiced.

Our constitution was signed in 1787. The Declaration of Independence states that "All men are created equal." But back in 1776 they didn't consider non-Europeans to be men. They were ignorant and conceded. They were human. But at least they were wise enough and honest enough to plot the course for equality and freedom. It is their ideals that we still strive to acquire, yet still sometimes fall short, but that doesn't mean we don't believe in them either.

So just so I'm getting this straight, the Founders believed in natural rights, YET they allowed for slaves, and "didn't believe non-Europeans to be men"?



OK... uh, you did notice I listed other "non-slave" groups too, right?

(I'm just going to sit back and let this one ride out; should be absolutely hilarious)

Oh, if anyone has legitimate questions, PM me

 

[netsecurity]

We all know blacks and indians weren't considered to be complete and proper "men" by the founders. You said yourself they were 3/5's by law, and that proves my point.

I suppose it is much easier to disbelieve someone is a "man", or more aptly that he "has natural rights", if he come from a society without law (lawyers, government, judges, etc.). So when they wrote "All men are created equal," they were selfishly thinking of themselves, not their fellow men. But what is good for the goose, is good for the gander...

Do I fault them for it? Yes, obviously. Slavery and genocide are despicable, but their ideals regarding liberty were spot on, whether they were hypocrites or a-holes, or whatever. I personally believe they were brilliant and kind hearted, but just a product of their time. I frankly don't see a point to your thread besides diminishing people's respect for the founders and the constitution. Are you Constitution bashing or what?

 

[hornadylnl]

Kut,

I believe the same attitudes existed then as now. There are those who think a particular new law is good because their team implemented it. Those same people see that the new law is ripe for abuse but they just know that their guy won't abuse it. But when the next president isn't their guy, all the sudden they're concerned with it's constitutionality. Example: George W Bush and the Patriot Act. And to be totally honest, I was a die hard republican when the Patriot Act was passed and I defended it. I believed that if you weren't doing anything wrong, you had nothing to worry about.

 

[Osobuco]

In several states in the U.S. after the Declaration ofIndependence, Jews, Quakers or Catholics were denied voting rights and/orforbidden to run for office. All sorts of people in different categories were excluded from full participation - just look at women for example - they could not vote either. It's called descrimination - always been around in some form and sadly always will be.

 

[Expat]

Well I am convinced. We should get rid of the Constitution and let your hero Obama rule as he wishes.

 

[ViperJock]

Well I am convinced. We should get rid of the Constitution and let your hero Obama rule as he wishes.

LOL Did you even read it the post(s)?
The OP clearly stated that he considered the violation of these rights to be an infringement on the constitution.

The point he made, and I think he made it well, is that in the context of today's culture, looking back at history, we are trying to assign motives to persons who were deeply conflicted and complex.

He also makes a point, though in my mind it is not proved, with evidence that the FF did not consider all humans equal in their "entitlement" to the "natural rights." While we consider all men to be Men, it is clear that the FF, at least enough of them to get the language in the document, did not think all humans qualified to be Men. This left out a rather large portion of the worlds population that was apparently not created euqal enough to be endowed with natural rights. The OP does allow for the fact that at least some of the FF may have known that this was discriminatory and allowed provisions for it to be changed later.

It is quite clear that the 2nd Ammendment was not as universal in its INGO interpretation as I once thought. I, for one, was unaware of the registration or confiscation by the FF, and I am glad to have learned something today. I wonder if George Washington will now start making the INGO list of "worst presidents ever."

I think the key point in all of it can be summed up with TJ understanding that no "free men" will be denied the right to bear arms. As true today as it ever was. When you think of it in context of preventing the right to bear to men who ere not "free." the context does change and it makes me wonder if rather than the statement we interpret to mean that "if you want to be free you need to have firearms." (certainly how I have always interpreted it--and no less true if it was not the only nuance of the statement) was meant rather to infringe on the rights on the "non-free" to prevent them from revolting against the revolution.

Fantastic brain exercises Kutnupe. Well thought out post. I learned something new and have developed a new perspective on our FF.

In the end. I will say that regardless of the FF intentions (which are clearly more vague than we would like to believe) I do believe these rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness to be endowed upon mankind by God and that those who infringe upon these rights are inherently evil. I also believe my Christian beliefs (recognized that others hold other beliefs) are in conflict with the concept of self defense by killing an enemy. Though I prepare to defend myself from home invasion etc. I cannot fully quell the feeling that Christ would rather meet me sooner than have me kill another ("My kingdom is not of this world.") Something I struggle with deeply. Having said this, I do not mean to "force" my own morality on the rest of INGO so please use this thread for something other than flaming that last statement.

+1 and repped OP.

 

[johnny45]

Regardless of what the founding fathers did or said, the question today is the same as then. Do natural rights as described by Locke, including the right to life, liberty, ad property, exist?

Shall these rights not be infringed?

Or do rights come from man?

I believe natural rights do exist, do not come from man, and shall not be infringed.

 

[kludge]

Some of the Founders wanted to eliminate slavery. If they had, the Constitution never would have been ratified.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

First, we’ll start with the most obvious infringement on therights of others, slavery. If one holds that blacks were men, then placing themin bondage for monetary gain, is one of the most egregious violations ofnatural rights man or government can have against another. If one holds thatthe Founders did not understand this, and did not believe blacks were “men,”this one must question their understanding of natural rights.
However, at the very least, the Founders believed thatslaves/free blacks were, at least, 3/5 “men,” as cited by the 3/5 Compromise,in the original Constitution stating:

Article 1, Section 2,Paragraph 3
Representatives and direct Taxes shall beapportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union,according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding tothe whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Termof Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all otherPersons.

During this time, both slaves AND free blacks were prohibited from owningfirearms (and all other “offensive” weapons, and could only possess them invery specific circumstances (i.e. killing pests which endangered crops).
I would think it would be obvious as to why the Founders didn’t wantblacks to own firearms. Just as the colonists fought to be free from theimpending slavery of the Crown, it is a fair bet that slaves, with guns, wouldprobably fight just as fiercely. The Founders simply placed a firearm ownershipban, for the welfare of the public. How, at least concerning “free” blacks,does this NOT violate the 2nd Amendment?

Article 1,Section 9
The Migration or Importation of suchPersons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shallnot be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundredand eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceedingten dollars for each Person.


And there you have it, two examples of law, which is a determinant factorconcerning their “worth,” in both a representative and monetary, function.Those which are the subject of these sections are without natural rights, atleast as far as the Constitution is concerned.
What is the Constitution, if not adocument that is “supposed” to protect the natural rights of all? TheConstitution, as it is written, should not make a difference between “excepted”and “protected,” classes, but clearly such did exist, IN THE TEXT, of theoriginal document.

“My opinion against it [slavery] has always been known… Neverin my life did I own a slave.”
—John Adams

Kut, these provisions were in place because, in the opinion of the FF's, this compromise was necessary to hold the former colonies together in a unified nation. As I've read it in the past, the 3/5ths provision is there because the slave-holding states wanted to count all the slaves towards their apportionment for the House of Representatives. The non-slave states didn't want to allow the slave states to be able to count the slaves at all--as I remember it. One could use this logic to say the "northern states" didn't even think the slaves were people at all, while at least the southern states at least thought they were 60% men. But that wasn't why, was it? It was because they believed if the slaves were not going to be able to vote, they shouldn't be counted towards HoR representation. And therefore their representation would be a farce and would allow undue power of the slave-holding states in the HoR.

Again, as I remember reading it, the second provision was designed to discourage/eliminate the importation of new slaves into the country, not establish their worth. And after 1808 the congress could prohibit, entirely, the importation of slaves all together. Even back then, the government used the tax code to influence behavior of its citizens.