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

[CountryBoy1981]

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

The way it has always been to avoid giving natural rights to some is to make them less than human, look at what the Nazi's did and look at abortion.

 

[DragonGunner]

Slavery had been going on long before the Constitution. Many of our forefathers as was said never owned slaves and knew it was wrong, many who did have slaves came to see it was wrong, case example was George Washington. but the Constitution was more than just setting slaves free in the future, or being a building block to get rid of that evil. It was much more.

 

[Liberty1911]

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.

That's exactly right. No one was arguing that slaves weren't people. The slave states wanted them counted 1 for 1, because it would increase their apportionment in congress.

Free states didn't want them counted at all for the same reason. The compromise was 3/5ths.

So as much as the left likes to gin up the base, like when Al Gore said strict constructionism means "counting you as 3/5ths of a person", it was actually an anti slavery compromise.

 

[johnny45]

.

 

[Hoosier8]

The Declaration of Independence is based upon the "self-evident" truth that "all men are ... endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". Those unalienable rights are natural rights, the rights that you would have without government. The Constitution does not give us positive rights, rights given by government but is negative, putting limits on government from infringing on our unalienable rights.

Hobbes and Locke wrote about natural rights but the main influence for those writings and the Founders was Cicero. Cicero’s impact, both direct and indirect, on important post-Renaissance thinkers such as Locke, Hume, and Montesquieu was substantial, and through such writers, and often directly, his thought and very phrases reached to America’s founding generations. Thomas Jefferson explicitly names Cicero as one of a handful of major figures who contributed to a tradition “of public right” that informed his draft of the Declaration of Independence and shaped American understandings of “the common sense” basis for the right of revolution.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights#cite_note-us-doi-7

 

[johnny45]

The Declaration of Independence is based upon the "self-evident" truth that "all men are ... endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". Those unalienable rights are natural rights, the rights that you would have without government. The Constitution does not give us positive rights, rights given by government but is negative, putting limits on government from infringing on our unalienable rights.

Hobbes and Locke wrote about natural rights but the main influence for those writings and the Founders was Cicero. Cicero’s impact, both direct and indirect, on important post-Renaissance thinkers such as Locke, Hume, and Montesquieu was substantial, and through such writers, and often directly, his thought and very phrases reached to America’s founding generations. Thomas Jefferson explicitly names Cicero as one of a handful of major figures who contributed to a tradition “of public right” that informed his draft of the Declaration of Independence and shaped American understandings of “the common sense” basis for the right of revolution.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights#cite_note-us-doi-7

Well said.... tried to rep you, but I was told I have to wait.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Well said.... tried to rep you, but I was told I have to wait.

Got him!

 

[NomadS]

That's exactly right. No one was arguing that slaves weren't people. The slave states wanted them counted 1 for 1, because it would increase their apportionment in congress.

Free states didn't want them counted at all for the same reason. The compromise was 3/5ths.

So as much as the left likes to gin up the base, like when Al Gore said strict constructionism means "counting you as 3/5ths of a person", it was actually an anti slavery compromise.

Exactly right. It was the start of dismantling slavery. The fact that the OP does not know this pretty much supports my gut feeling that he is a statist troll.

 

[johnny45]

You are dead on zero regarding the 3/5ths amendment.

Somebody has been doing their homework!

 

[CarmelHP]

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:

Not this 3/5ths of a man bull**** again, is it? This starts off showing you know next to nothing about the Constitution. The 3/5th was a compromise penalty provision. 3/5ths for purposes of apportionment. The Southern slaveholders wanted slaves counted fully for purposes of apportionment so that they'd get MORE representation in Congress. The Northern free states wanted them counted no at all for purposes of apportionment so that the South wouldn't benefit politically.

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?

Which federal law prohibited free or slave blacks from possessing firearms? We are talking about the Constitution, aren't we? It would not be conceived to enforce the BoR against the states for nearly another century post-Civil War, and the process of incorporation wouldn't get up any steam until the 1930's.

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.

Another moronic interpretation. This is a compromise and a penalty, the Federal government was prohibited from stopping the importation of slaves until 1808 (and it did so that year) but was given the power to apply a tax up to $10 a head to make the trade less profitable.

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

And this illustrates the difference of opinion among the Founders, and society and the world in general, some considered African slaves as people fully to the Rights of Man, and some considered them simpletons or beasts to be traded and used or at least shepherded. That says nothing about their concept of rights, just their concept of racial entitlement.

 

[CarmelHP]

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."

Yes, we disarm enemy aliens, and we deny them all other kinds of rights. This is a war power, and says nothing about rights. And you do understand the General Assembly of Virginia is not a national government and certainly not operating under the Constitution, right?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Well, I must say, I'm impressed. I figured I'd have to go into hiding in starting this thread. I understand that this may come off as harsh concerning the Founding Fathers, but history can something do exactly that.

I appreciate those understood my point that some of the Founders were heavily conflicted with the denial of Natural Rights of certain sections of the populace, but did so in order to "push through," the Constitution. I have no reservations in saying that had they not infringined on the rights of some, the Constitution would have never be drafted, and we would be a land of multiple lil kingdoms.

The founders did what they needed to do, but allowed for future generations "to get it right." At the time, there was not a single nation in the world that could boast a government that had such an ability.

Do I think the Founding Fathers were tyrants? No, actually, I think they were best group of intellectuals on the planet at the time, who understood that hard decisions had to be made in forming our nation.

 

[Liberty1911]

Exactly right. It was the start of dismantling slavery. The fact that the OP does not know this pretty much supports my gut feeling that he is a statist troll.

I get that feeling too.

 

[Glocker 400]

Realistically speaking, there is no such thing as natural rights. You may believe anything you want about what you think you have the right to do, but at the end of the day, each person has only the rights granted to him/her by the government under which he/she lives. This is true not just in the US, but around the world.

If I had a right to carry a handgun in public in Indiana, I wouldn't have to buy a little pink permission slip to do it.

 

[CarmelHP]

….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.

Now. THIS IS JUICY, as its a blatant, unadulterated lie. The Militia Act of 1792 is online and can be read by anyone. The only power given is for the brigade inspector to attend the regimental meeting of those in actual militia service and report back how many arms and what type were brought by the men. Kutnupe, either you intended this lie or you're taking your Democratic Underground marching orders uncritically and swallowing them whole. Where exactly did you cut and paste this tripe from?

 

[johnny45]

Realistically speaking, there is no such thing as natural rights. You may believe anything you want about what you think you have the right to do, but at the end of the day, each person has only the rights granted to him/her by the government under which he/she lives. This is true not just in the US, but around the world.

If I had a right to carry a handgun in public in Indiana, I wouldn't have to buy a little pink permission slip to do it.

I disagree with your opinion regarding natural rights.

Many would agree with you though which does much to explain why the republic is in the condition it is today.

That said, natural rights are certainly supressed. Your example of the pink permission slip is one example. That you must go through a background check and receive permission from the king before you can purchase a firearm from a dealer is yet another.

 

[Glocker 400]

I disagree.

Many would agree with you though which does much to explain why the republic is in the condition it is today.

So you have a natural right to open carry a handgun without a license in Indiana?

If you do, why aren't you doing it? Because realistically, you don't have that right. You need government permission.

Where does this "natural right" come from?

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

On a tangent, I thought the movie "Lincoln" did a good job demonstrating the conflict Presiden Lincoln had - ends justifies the means kind of thing - with the Amancipation Proclamation. The AP was a means to free slaves during the war but only by first declaring them property - property may be confiscated by the government during war. Lincoln did not believe blacks were property, but using it to set them free seemed the lesser of two evils. Also, if the war were to end without the 13th Amendment, the AP would then be null and void. Therefore, a hard push for the 13A before the end of the war.

 

[RockofStrength]

So you have a natural right to open carry a handgun without a license in Indiana?

If you do, why aren't you doing it? Because realistically, you don't have that right. You need government permission.

Where does this "natural right" come from?

A natural right denied is not nonexistent, rather it is wrongly taken from me and gives me cause for complaint and if the infringement is sufficient for war.

According to the Declaration of Independence natural rights are endowed upon men by their Creator. That is to say, they are granted by an Authority superior in every way to any and all human government and cannot be revoked by their edict. The point of natural rights is not to in themselves prevent governments from infringing upon them, but rather to give just cause and rationale for fighting against those who otherwise ought to be reasonably obeyed.

 

[johnny45]

So you have a natural right to open carry a handgun without a license in Indiana?

If you do, why aren't you doing it? Because realistically, you don't have that right. You need government permission.

Where does this "natural right" come from?

See post above expanded while you were posting.

The pink slip is a suppression and infringement of the underlying natural right which exists. We should be working on eliminating the permission slip as does Vermont, Alaska, Arizona and others.

The suppression of the right does not mean it does not exist. It exists and must be defended against suppresson.

Where does it come from? We were endowed by our creator with these rights.

Reading Locke is a good place to start.