[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.e., natural law, divine law, and popular sovereignty) areacknowledged and brought to bear on the issue of the legislation ofmorality.VIRGINIAVirginia begins its Bill of Rights with the topic of the nature of humanbeings.That all men are by nature equally free and independent, andhave certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into astate of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive ordivest their posterity, namely, the enjoyment of life andliberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property,and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.cxxxviNotice that this is not a claim that human beings are unqualifiedly freeand independent.They are only equally free.Human beings cannot doanything they want to do.cxxxvii There is a relative freedom andindependence that each person has by nature, the boundaries of whichare defined by the certain inherent rights of other human beings.Theprinciple that each person in a community has these rights createsboundaries within which every other person must exercise his or herown rights.In relation to other human beings, each individual is freeand independent, with the right to identify what contributes to his orher happiness and to pursue it.The question of whether all Virginians are understood to haverights such as freedom of religion arises in light of the slave-owningculture in that state.The famous Virginian founding father, ThomasJefferson, seems to conclude that certain rights are inherent in peopleof color as well as Europeans.It is for this reason that he suggests that The Nature of Man in Early American State Constitutions 75black slaves would be justified in rebelling against the whites at somepoint.Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God isjust: that his justice cannot sleep for ever: that consideringnumbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of thewheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possibleevents: that it may become probable by supernaturalinterference! The Almighty has no attribute which can takeside with us in such a contest.cxxxviiiIn light of the following statement made in Virginia s constitution, theslaves in Virginia would be justified in rebelling: All men are bynature equally free and independent. cxxxix If the slaves are consideredto be free by nature, they are being unjustly treated in Virginia to sucha degree that rebellion would seem to be even more justified than theAmericans rebellion against BritainWhereas there are examples of states being very specific aboutgranting and withholding political rights to specific kinds of people,Virginia s language is surprising in its lack of distinction between therights of freemen and the rights of slaves.As will be addressed below,many other states make clear distinctions by granting full rights only tofreemen or white men, while granting limited rights to other groups.Virginia s constitution mentions the category of freeholder twice butonly as a requirement for serving in the state legislature.cxl Suffragerights in Virginia are not limited in principle to freemen or whitemen. Its Bill of Rights states, All men, having sufficient evidence ofpermanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community,have the right of suffrage. cxli Thus, on the issues of both property andsuffrage, rights that other states will limit to freemen, property owners,or white men, Virginia makes no distinction.In doing so, it seemsthat enslaved people in their society were and would continue to havetheir rights violated in spite of Virginian s recognition of those rights intheir constitution.One wonders if the representatives who drafted the constitutionhad hopes that the constitution would become a self-fulfillingprophecy, or whether they made an assumption that other states did notseem to make slaves were not men at all.The latter interpretationmight be plausible, except for the inclusion of a statement by Virginia Faith, Reason, and Consent76addressing this issue when justifying its revolution from British rule.Among a list of grievances, Virginia includes the following statement: By prompting our negroes to rise in arms against us, those verynegroes whom, by an inhuman use of his negative, he hath refused uspermission to exclude by law. cxlii King George refused to allowVirginians to exclude the slave trade from bringing African slaves intoVirginia.This refusal is viewed as inhuman by the constitution.Why?It is not inhuman towards the whites, since they benefited from havingfree labor, allowing them to increase their profits and wealth.It isobviously inhuman to the slaves.If African slaves were viewed merelyas animals, then the King s actions would not be inhuman.Who wouldcall the transportation of livestock from Africa to North America forthe use of their labor inhuman? The inhumanity is due to the fact thatthe African slaves imported to Virginia are human beings with all therights of any other human beings.One conclusion that follows from recognition of the generalequality of mankind is that no particular group of people has ahereditary right to privileged status, or a right to rule over others.That no man, or set of men, are entitled to exclusive orseparate emoluments or privileges from the community, but inconsideration of public services; which, not beingdescendible, neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator,or judge to be hereditary.cxliiiNo group can justly claim higher status than any other group on thebasis of their pedigree.One may argue that this principle was intendedto apply to different classes of whites in Virginia, but not blacks.If thisprinciple was meant to address the relationship between would-bewhite aristocrats and low-class whites, it is illogical for it not to beapplicable also to the black man or woman in bondage on a plantation.If the plantation owner deserves no more privileges or rights than thewhite blacksmith struggling to make a living, the black man plowingthe cotton fields ought to have equal rights with both.That is the senseof the language of Virginia s Bill of Rights because it does not do whatother southern states did it does not make a clear distinction betweenslave and free, or black and white.The Bill of Rights of Virginia grants the rights to enjoy life andliberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and The Nature of Man in Early American State Constitutions 77pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety to all men bynature. cxliv It asserts, in section 4, that no group of people is superior toany others by virtue of their family lineage.Regardless of the motivesof those who were influential in drafting Virginia s constitution, itscontent is surprisingly universal in its assertion of rights, given thesocial conditions present in the state in 1776 [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl centka.pev.pl
.e., natural law, divine law, and popular sovereignty) areacknowledged and brought to bear on the issue of the legislation ofmorality.VIRGINIAVirginia begins its Bill of Rights with the topic of the nature of humanbeings.That all men are by nature equally free and independent, andhave certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into astate of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive ordivest their posterity, namely, the enjoyment of life andliberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property,and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.cxxxviNotice that this is not a claim that human beings are unqualifiedly freeand independent.They are only equally free.Human beings cannot doanything they want to do.cxxxvii There is a relative freedom andindependence that each person has by nature, the boundaries of whichare defined by the certain inherent rights of other human beings.Theprinciple that each person in a community has these rights createsboundaries within which every other person must exercise his or herown rights.In relation to other human beings, each individual is freeand independent, with the right to identify what contributes to his orher happiness and to pursue it.The question of whether all Virginians are understood to haverights such as freedom of religion arises in light of the slave-owningculture in that state.The famous Virginian founding father, ThomasJefferson, seems to conclude that certain rights are inherent in peopleof color as well as Europeans.It is for this reason that he suggests that The Nature of Man in Early American State Constitutions 75black slaves would be justified in rebelling against the whites at somepoint.Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God isjust: that his justice cannot sleep for ever: that consideringnumbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of thewheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possibleevents: that it may become probable by supernaturalinterference! The Almighty has no attribute which can takeside with us in such a contest.cxxxviiiIn light of the following statement made in Virginia s constitution, theslaves in Virginia would be justified in rebelling: All men are bynature equally free and independent. cxxxix If the slaves are consideredto be free by nature, they are being unjustly treated in Virginia to sucha degree that rebellion would seem to be even more justified than theAmericans rebellion against BritainWhereas there are examples of states being very specific aboutgranting and withholding political rights to specific kinds of people,Virginia s language is surprising in its lack of distinction between therights of freemen and the rights of slaves.As will be addressed below,many other states make clear distinctions by granting full rights only tofreemen or white men, while granting limited rights to other groups.Virginia s constitution mentions the category of freeholder twice butonly as a requirement for serving in the state legislature.cxl Suffragerights in Virginia are not limited in principle to freemen or whitemen. Its Bill of Rights states, All men, having sufficient evidence ofpermanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community,have the right of suffrage. cxli Thus, on the issues of both property andsuffrage, rights that other states will limit to freemen, property owners,or white men, Virginia makes no distinction.In doing so, it seemsthat enslaved people in their society were and would continue to havetheir rights violated in spite of Virginian s recognition of those rights intheir constitution.One wonders if the representatives who drafted the constitutionhad hopes that the constitution would become a self-fulfillingprophecy, or whether they made an assumption that other states did notseem to make slaves were not men at all.The latter interpretationmight be plausible, except for the inclusion of a statement by Virginia Faith, Reason, and Consent76addressing this issue when justifying its revolution from British rule.Among a list of grievances, Virginia includes the following statement: By prompting our negroes to rise in arms against us, those verynegroes whom, by an inhuman use of his negative, he hath refused uspermission to exclude by law. cxlii King George refused to allowVirginians to exclude the slave trade from bringing African slaves intoVirginia.This refusal is viewed as inhuman by the constitution.Why?It is not inhuman towards the whites, since they benefited from havingfree labor, allowing them to increase their profits and wealth.It isobviously inhuman to the slaves.If African slaves were viewed merelyas animals, then the King s actions would not be inhuman.Who wouldcall the transportation of livestock from Africa to North America forthe use of their labor inhuman? The inhumanity is due to the fact thatthe African slaves imported to Virginia are human beings with all therights of any other human beings.One conclusion that follows from recognition of the generalequality of mankind is that no particular group of people has ahereditary right to privileged status, or a right to rule over others.That no man, or set of men, are entitled to exclusive orseparate emoluments or privileges from the community, but inconsideration of public services; which, not beingdescendible, neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator,or judge to be hereditary.cxliiiNo group can justly claim higher status than any other group on thebasis of their pedigree.One may argue that this principle was intendedto apply to different classes of whites in Virginia, but not blacks.If thisprinciple was meant to address the relationship between would-bewhite aristocrats and low-class whites, it is illogical for it not to beapplicable also to the black man or woman in bondage on a plantation.If the plantation owner deserves no more privileges or rights than thewhite blacksmith struggling to make a living, the black man plowingthe cotton fields ought to have equal rights with both.That is the senseof the language of Virginia s Bill of Rights because it does not do whatother southern states did it does not make a clear distinction betweenslave and free, or black and white.The Bill of Rights of Virginia grants the rights to enjoy life andliberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and The Nature of Man in Early American State Constitutions 77pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety to all men bynature. cxliv It asserts, in section 4, that no group of people is superior toany others by virtue of their family lineage.Regardless of the motivesof those who were influential in drafting Virginia s constitution, itscontent is surprisingly universal in its assertion of rights, given thesocial conditions present in the state in 1776 [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]