I just reread Jefferson's first draft, and I don't see anything in it that makes his definition of equality more inclusive. Perhaps you do, Jake - I'd be interested to hear. He does condemn slavery, but as Lincoln often observed, to be against slavery is not the same as advocating political and social equality for those currently enslaved.
Yeah, I don't know where she was coming from with that response either. Like you say talking about Lincoln, there were many Northerners who were opposed to slavery, but they weren't in favor of granting political rights to freedmen (as you mention here https://hwbrands.substack.com/p/its-complicated), even after the Civil War. And as you mention here (https://hwbrands.substack.com/p/the-last-battle-of-the-civil-war): "Nowhere does the original Constitution speak of equality among individuals or classes of people. Careless students of history sometimes confused the Declaration of Independence, with its 'all men are created equal' language, with the Constitution, but the framers of the latter knew the difference, and they deliberately refrained from promising or requiring equality. That was the business of the states." All men are created equal in terms of unalienable rights, but not in terms of political/social rights.
Another great article, Bill. I've really enjoyed your Grand Inquisitor series. I sent this to a Jefferson scholar at Ashland University (Cara Rogers), and this was her response: "I think it’s quite well done, although I disagree with this: 'I wasn’t speaking of women, or children, or Indians, or indentured servants, or slaves.' If you read the original rough draft that Jefferson wrote of the Declaration, he clearly did mean to include women, children, and all races when he wrote the phrase 'all men.' He referred to enslaved Africans as 'men' whose rights were being infringed upon in a paragraph that other members of Congress deleted."
I just reread Jefferson's first draft, and I don't see anything in it that makes his definition of equality more inclusive. Perhaps you do, Jake - I'd be interested to hear. He does condemn slavery, but as Lincoln often observed, to be against slavery is not the same as advocating political and social equality for those currently enslaved.
Yeah, I don't know where she was coming from with that response either. Like you say talking about Lincoln, there were many Northerners who were opposed to slavery, but they weren't in favor of granting political rights to freedmen (as you mention here https://hwbrands.substack.com/p/its-complicated), even after the Civil War. And as you mention here (https://hwbrands.substack.com/p/the-last-battle-of-the-civil-war): "Nowhere does the original Constitution speak of equality among individuals or classes of people. Careless students of history sometimes confused the Declaration of Independence, with its 'all men are created equal' language, with the Constitution, but the framers of the latter knew the difference, and they deliberately refrained from promising or requiring equality. That was the business of the states." All men are created equal in terms of unalienable rights, but not in terms of political/social rights.
Another great article, Bill. I've really enjoyed your Grand Inquisitor series. I sent this to a Jefferson scholar at Ashland University (Cara Rogers), and this was her response: "I think it’s quite well done, although I disagree with this: 'I wasn’t speaking of women, or children, or Indians, or indentured servants, or slaves.' If you read the original rough draft that Jefferson wrote of the Declaration, he clearly did mean to include women, children, and all races when he wrote the phrase 'all men.' He referred to enslaved Africans as 'men' whose rights were being infringed upon in a paragraph that other members of Congress deleted."
What are your thoughts about her response?