That is literally the basis of the American revolution.
This is actually what Dickenson referred to in his statement regarding the need for The Olive Branch Petition.
The HBO series basically borrowed and combined his statements on the matter into a speech that went:
I have looked for our rights in the laws of nature and can find them only in the laws of political society. I have looked for our rights in the constitution of the English government and found them there!
This was exactly the problem. Every time the English had previously asserted their rights, it was as the "restoration of our ancient rights and liberties as Englishmen".
The horrible truth of the colonies is that the British government did not, and would not see them as English. They were not living in England, and therefore could not be English. Therefore, there were no ancient rights and liberties for anyone to appeal to. Only the English could be free. Instead, the political rights of the colonies were constructed by the British parliament and the crown regardless of how, and regardless of correctness.
Dickenson, and all the other colonists, saw themselves as English, and therefore wanted to appeal to those rights, which were a continuation of the Crown's promise to it's citizenry. Hence, the Crown must be appealed to.
Jefferson and Adams were screaming about "natural rights", which simply did not exist within English law. It was an assertion, apropos of nothing but the words of intellectuals and liberal philosophers whom declared it to be so. The English had no "natural rights", they only had rights which they had previously had, as an appeal to tradition. But Dickenson saw that there was no such tradition to appeal to for the colonists.
Once it became clear that the Crown had joined with Parliament to execute every single person in the colonies 13 governments that had petitioned to a stop of the military rule over the colonies, it also became clear that the only legitimacy the colonists had left was to declare independence and assert their "natural rights", in the construction of a new nation of "Americans". In so doing, the concept of English rights and liberties that had been relied on as tradition in England, were now separated from England and asserted as a Universal concept within "Natural Rights", and that would be the basis of the American national government and character as a nation.
That's neat and all, professor, but you seem to be overlooking a major snag in your claim that the US universalized rights. You know, the whole nearly 100 years of legalized slavery after the revolution thing.
You know, the whole nearly 100 years of legalized slavery after the revolution thing.
I'm afraid not. That's literally the point of the civil war, and the perpetual tension between the slave and free states. It's why the founding fathers tried to abandon their slaves. It's why Jefferson had to get rebuked about declaring slavery to be inherently immoral in the Declaration of Independence. It's why there was a Christian schism between the slave and free states. The very fundamental basis of the Civil War is sewn into the fact that a Liberal society can not tolerate slavery at any length, and a Slaveocracy will always have to resort to unlimited force to resist the pressure of Liberalism. It's no surprise that the Abolitionist movement starts in the heart of Liberalist thought in England.
It's why even the slave states argued that blacks could enjoy the benefits of rights and citizenship, but slavery was needed to civilize them as a race first. It's a paternalistic argument, but it's paternalistic argument rooted in Liberalism. A very Progressive notion of uplifting a people by making them dependent, and providing them with welfare.
Slavery itself was not even race-based. In all of human history slavery was almost never race based. Most people enslaved their own peoples, particularly those of a criminal or under class. In the US, there was no restriction that slaves could only be black, as there were still white slaves and indentured servants; as well as black slave masters. The only reason that slavery became more racialized in the US is because African slaves were cheap. The triangle trade had allowed African kingdoms to sell great swathes of people, and these were kingdoms whose economies existed for the purposes of slavery, including the now more infamous Kingdom of Benin demonstrated by the response to "Woman King". Slavery was, of course, not a racial issue to the Africans. If the Portuguese or Arabs were paying, then buy god, the Africans were going to provide them.
As far as the Liberals and the Christians were concerned, all people could embrace liberty & individualism if they a) were free from dependency, b) accepted a Christian ethic. The Slaveocrats argued that all people could still do it, but just not yet, they need to wait until their 99 year lease came up.
Back to the question that took this discussion here, when was America truly founded? You never answered. I don't even know WTF you are trying to do here. You have been asserting that a nation is defined by its values, yet you are discussing deeply rooted and widespread violations of said values. I don't see how, for example, indentured servitude helps your case. You are just acknowledging that there were violations of America's supposed values that I left as of yet unmentioned in this conversation.
It's also odd that your bring up Jefferson. He believed blacks to be inferior to whites in many ways. His views on race and slavery were complex and contradictory. You cite his stated opposition to slavery, but he owned slaves himself.
Really? When was this? It couldn't be before the Civil War and the abolition of slavery, at the earliest.
That is literally the basis of the American revolution.
This is actually what Dickenson referred to in his statement regarding the need for The Olive Branch Petition.
The HBO series basically borrowed and combined his statements on the matter into a speech that went:
This was exactly the problem. Every time the English had previously asserted their rights, it was as the "restoration of our ancient rights and liberties as Englishmen".
The horrible truth of the colonies is that the British government did not, and would not see them as English. They were not living in England, and therefore could not be English. Therefore, there were no ancient rights and liberties for anyone to appeal to. Only the English could be free. Instead, the political rights of the colonies were constructed by the British parliament and the crown regardless of how, and regardless of correctness.
Dickenson, and all the other colonists, saw themselves as English, and therefore wanted to appeal to those rights, which were a continuation of the Crown's promise to it's citizenry. Hence, the Crown must be appealed to.
Jefferson and Adams were screaming about "natural rights", which simply did not exist within English law. It was an assertion, apropos of nothing but the words of intellectuals and liberal philosophers whom declared it to be so. The English had no "natural rights", they only had rights which they had previously had, as an appeal to tradition. But Dickenson saw that there was no such tradition to appeal to for the colonists.
Once it became clear that the Crown had joined with Parliament to execute every single person in the colonies 13 governments that had petitioned to a stop of the military rule over the colonies, it also became clear that the only legitimacy the colonists had left was to declare independence and assert their "natural rights", in the construction of a new nation of "Americans". In so doing, the concept of English rights and liberties that had been relied on as tradition in England, were now separated from England and asserted as a Universal concept within "Natural Rights", and that would be the basis of the American national government and character as a nation.
That's neat and all, professor, but you seem to be overlooking a major snag in your claim that the US universalized rights. You know, the whole nearly 100 years of legalized slavery after the revolution thing.
I'm afraid not. That's literally the point of the civil war, and the perpetual tension between the slave and free states. It's why the founding fathers tried to abandon their slaves. It's why Jefferson had to get rebuked about declaring slavery to be inherently immoral in the Declaration of Independence. It's why there was a Christian schism between the slave and free states. The very fundamental basis of the Civil War is sewn into the fact that a Liberal society can not tolerate slavery at any length, and a Slaveocracy will always have to resort to unlimited force to resist the pressure of Liberalism. It's no surprise that the Abolitionist movement starts in the heart of Liberalist thought in England.
It's why even the slave states argued that blacks could enjoy the benefits of rights and citizenship, but slavery was needed to civilize them as a race first. It's a paternalistic argument, but it's paternalistic argument rooted in Liberalism. A very Progressive notion of uplifting a people by making them dependent, and providing them with welfare.
Slavery itself was not even race-based. In all of human history slavery was almost never race based. Most people enslaved their own peoples, particularly those of a criminal or under class. In the US, there was no restriction that slaves could only be black, as there were still white slaves and indentured servants; as well as black slave masters. The only reason that slavery became more racialized in the US is because African slaves were cheap. The triangle trade had allowed African kingdoms to sell great swathes of people, and these were kingdoms whose economies existed for the purposes of slavery, including the now more infamous Kingdom of Benin demonstrated by the response to "Woman King". Slavery was, of course, not a racial issue to the Africans. If the Portuguese or Arabs were paying, then buy god, the Africans were going to provide them.
As far as the Liberals and the Christians were concerned, all people could embrace liberty & individualism if they a) were free from dependency, b) accepted a Christian ethic. The Slaveocrats argued that all people could still do it, but just not yet, they need to wait until their 99 year lease came up.
Back to the question that took this discussion here, when was America truly founded? You never answered. I don't even know WTF you are trying to do here. You have been asserting that a nation is defined by its values, yet you are discussing deeply rooted and widespread violations of said values. I don't see how, for example, indentured servitude helps your case. You are just acknowledging that there were violations of America's supposed values that I left as of yet unmentioned in this conversation.
It's also odd that your bring up Jefferson. He believed blacks to be inferior to whites in many ways. His views on race and slavery were complex and contradictory. You cite his stated opposition to slavery, but he owned slaves himself.