This has nothing to do with bad police .... or good police ... or in between police. Your government has repeatedly stated in quite certain terms the police are not responsible for your individual protection and I believe them. ............I don't dislike police
I believe the quote they are referencing was
"It would be nice if the police were there to protect us, it simply is not so."
I believe the quote they are referencing was "It would be nice if the police were there to protect us, it simply is not so."
I believe the preceding references provided in my post containing the original statement are sufficient to justify it. Those references and many others describe a formal government policy that the police are not responsible to protect you. You may not like it but it is borne out by the facts. If you believe I am wrong, cite a ruling that proves it.
jmd_forest
1% of their activities are related to fighting crime. What about the other 99%? Dealing with your due process rights either getting a warrant or showing up in court over whether the officer had the right to question the suspect’s wife about a domestic disturbance he was told to investigate? I wonder how much tax payer time and money was wasted on this officer having to show to court, the appeals court and the supreme court of Indiana, being questioned by his supervisor and writing reports over responding to one domestic dispute. How are the police supposed to protect our welfare when they keep getting hauled into court or having to go to court for warrants? It doesn’t look like they have much time to do anything else.
I believe the preceding references provided in my post containing the original statement are sufficient to justify it. Those references and many others describe a formal government policy that the police are not responsible to protect you. You may not like it but it is borne out by the facts. If you believe I am wrong, cite a ruling that proves it.
The point is that you contradict yourself, when you deem appropriate.
The point is that you contradict yourself, when you deem appropriate.
Facts please. If I contradicted myself, please specify where. I believe no contradiction exists.
I wonder how much tax payer time and money was wasted on this officer having to show to court, the appeals court and the supreme court of Indiana, being questioned by his supervisor and writing reports over responding to one domestic dispute.
I agree, that was a total waste of taxpayer time and money. It could have been completely avoided if the officer did not act UNLAWFULLY in the first place, as acknowledged by both the majority and dissenting judges on the Indiana Supreme Court.
Or the judges can change laws, which they did, when it gets this ridiculous so it doesn’t waste the taxpayers’ money again.
The 4th Amendment was written in 1791 when the US was an agrarian nation with 4 million. Now, it’s an industrialized nation with over 300 million people. Times have changed in over 200 years. Terrorists have become ruthless. Society has changed. Those laws weren’t designed for this day and age and need to be updated.
If you don’t like the Pax Romana, move to another country where you have more rights. Sorry, there’s no other country on this planet with as many rights for their citizens? You want to see a real police state, move to the middle east to a country like Iran. I heard Russia and South America is overrun by the mafia. You can be taxed to death in Europe with brutal income taxes, food cartels, and $10 a gallon gas. Perhaps you’d prefer England where there’s a total gun and long rifle ban. Japan has a total gun ban, suffocating cost of living, it’s dominated by the Yakuzi mafia. What other country still has more freedom. Times have changed.
Or the judges can change lawsJudges are not empowered to change laws. That is the job of the legislature.
Those laws weren't designed for this day and age and need to be updated.We have a process for that, its called an amendment to the constitution. The founding fathers thought of that in 1791.
You may like losing you rights little by little, but I think the destruction of liberty and concentration of power in the hands of the state is antithetical to what this country is supposed to be. Although I agree with you that this country is currently the most free in the world, I believe it is unfortunate that so many are willing to trade liberty for “safety” as we will all end up with neither (to paraphrase Ben Franklin).
Judges are empowered to change the laws through interpretation to fit the times and have been doing so for hundreds of years.
And, yes it is unfortunate. But, the reality is that this is a democracy and the will of the majority is that they don’t want to trade their “safety” anymore for more liberty after seeing the country being continually infiltrated by Al Qaeda suicide bombers who are persistently hellbent on wiping out mass civilian areas in the country over the past decade. If giving the police more power to effectively do their job means I don’t have to worry about a dirty bomb going off in my neighborhood or getting killed by a hijacked plane, then I’ll gladly let them have the power to do their job effectively.
Maybe what you’re saying may have had more clout and greater relevance pre-9/11, but times have changed since then and I think the majority of people welcome the decisions of the Indiana Supreme Court, which lets the police effectively do their jobs. It’s not like the officer was corrupt or had malicious intent. Neighbours had a concern and the officer responded with concern and intent to serve the public good. If we have a corrupt or malicious officer, there are still plenty of ways of dealing with it, quite unlike a police state.
[quote author=jmd_forest link=topic=49689.msg244969#msg244969 date=1306522681]
You may like losing you rights little by little, but I think the destruction of liberty and concentration of power in the hands of the state is antithetical to what this country is supposed to be. Although I agree with you that this country is currently the most free in the world, I believe it is unfortunate that so many are willing to trade liberty for "safety" as we will all end up with neither (to paraphrase Ben Franklin).
You may be right, BUT, if you are… then lets be honest about it, and get rid of the Constitution (or, the amendment).
If people honestly think the Constitution is outdated and old news, and our RIGHTS that we had 200 years ago shouldnt exactly apply to todays world, thats fine. Lets have the discussion. Get rid of the Constitution, or not.
But… Im REALLY sick and tired of not having a honest discussion about the Constitition. EVERYBODY says they support the Constitution, but then they support horrible gun laws or laws like this in Hoosierland.
OPEN debate is needed. Either we’re going to follow the Constitution, or get rid of it. Lets stop acting like we care about it when we dont. If the Constitution is really outdated, lets get something new. I personally am a huge fan of the Constitution, and want it follow strictly, but thats just me…
[quote author=davewindsor link=topic=49689.msg244976#msg244976 date=1306542388]
Judges are empowered to change the laws through interpretation to fit the times and have been doing so for hundreds of years.
And, yes it is unfortunate. But, the reality is that this is a democracy and the will of the majority is that they don’t want to trade their “safety” anymore for more liberty after seeing the country being continually infiltrated by Al Qaeda suicide bombers who are persistently hellbent on wiping out mass civilian areas in the country over the past decade. If giving the police more power to effectively do their job means I don’t have to worry about a dirty bomb going off in my neighborhood or getting killed by a hijacked plane, then I’ll gladly let them have the power to do their job effectively.
Maybe what you’re saying may have had more clout and greater relevance pre-9/11, but times have changed since then and I think the majority of people welcome the decisions of the Indiana Supreme Court, which lets the police effectively do their jobs. It’s not like the officer was corrupt or had malicious intent. Neighbours had a concern and the officer responded with concern and intent to serve the public good. If we have a corrupt or malicious officer, there are still plenty of ways of dealing with it, quite unlike a police state.
Yes, I think the Constitution is outdated and should be rewritten. A lot of countries do that. France, for example, has done it multiple times to suit the changing times. The most recent constitution was written in 1958, typically called “the Constitution of the Fifth Republic of France” and there’s been 18 amendments to it to deal with the changing times since then and I’m sure they’ll be rewriting their constitution again.
[quote author=Hoosier4life2005 link=topic=49689.msg244978#msg244978 date=1306544284]
You may be right, BUT, if you are… then lets be honest about it, and get rid of the Constitution (or, the amendment).
If people honestly think the Constitution is outdated and old news, and our RIGHTS that we had 200 years ago shouldnt exactly apply to todays world, thats fine. Lets have the discussion. Get rid of the Constitution, or not.
But… Im REALLY sick and tired of not having a honest discussion about the Constitition. EVERYBODY says they support the Constitution, but then they support horrible gun laws or laws like this in Hoosierland.
OPEN debate is needed. Either we’re going to follow the Constitution, or get rid of it. Lets stop acting like we care about it when we dont. If the Constitution is really outdated, lets get something new. I personally am a huge fan of the Constitution, and want it follow strictly, but thats just me…
See… no problem. You openly do not think the Constitution should be followed (the way it currently is) and we should live under a new form of Government… I disagree with you (I am in favor of following the Constitution even STRICTER) but thats fine, im happy to have the debate.
The people who say “I support the Constitution.” But then their views dont reflect that… thats what makes me angry (like 80% of todays politicians really).
[quote author=davewindsor link=topic=49689.msg244979#msg244979 date=1306545118]
Yes, I think the Constitution is outdated and should be rewritten. A lot of countries do that. France, for example, has done it multiple times to suit the changing times. The most recent constitution was written in 1958, typically called “the Constitution of the Fifth Republic of France” and there’s been 18 amendments to it to deal with the changing times since then and I’m sure they’ll be rewriting their constitution again.
People are scared so poopless of Al Qaeda they are willing to turn over their “safety” to the very organization who has repeatedly told them they are not responsible for their safety.
How do the odds of dying in a terrorist attack stack up against the odds of dying in other unfortunate situations?
The following ratios were compiled using data from 2004 National Safety Council Estimates, a report based on data from The National Center for Health Statistics and the U.S. Census Bureau. In addition, 2003 mortality data from the Center for Disease Control was used.
• YOU ARE 8 TIMES MORE LIKELY TO BE KILLED BY A POLICE OFFICER THAN A TERRORIST
• You are 17,600 times more likely to die from heart disease than from a terrorist attack
• You are 12,571 times more likely to die from cancer than from a terrorist attack
• You are 11,000 times more likely to die in an airplane accident than from a terrorist plot involving an airplane
• You are 1048 times more likely to die from a car accident than from a terrorist attack
• You are 404 times more likely to die in a fall than from a terrorist attack
• You are 87 times more likely to drown than die in a terrorist attack
• You are 13 times more likely to die in a railway accident than from a terrorist attack
• You are 12 times more likely to die from accidental suffocation in bed than from a terrorist attack
• You are 9 times more likely to choke to death on your own vomit than die in a terrorist attack
• You are 8 times more likely to die from accidental electrocution than from a terrorist attack
• You are 6 times more likely to die from hot weather than from a terrorist attack
So…now that Bin Laden has been neutralized its great to realize that the liberties usurped in the Patriot Act and other laws will be returned to the people. … What? … Now we need even more “protection” from the organization that tells us they have no obligation to protect us so we must give up even more rights?
Yes, I think the Constitution is outdated and should be rewritten. A lot of countries do that. France, for example, has done it multiple times to suit the changing times. The most recent constitution was written in 1958, typically called "the Constitution of the Fifth Republic of France" and there's been 18 amendments to it to deal with the changing times since then and I'm sure they'll be rewriting their constitution againPlease .... move to France. It seems you'll be much happier there.
The Constitution is designed to protect the people from the government. When we allow the government to overstep the boundaries defined by law, that protection disintegrates little by little. As Hoosier noted in an earlier post:
“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.” - Thomas Jefferson
But I do have to agree with davewindsor on his observation that more and more people are willing to trade their liberties for the perception of safety. As numerous strong Americans have noted before me, they deserve, and will receive, neither.
Well said JMD, well said.
<3 the Constitution (too bad we dont follow it anymore)
Well, I haven’t heard of any successful hijackings, skyscrapers crashing down or dirty bombs going off in the US since 9/11, so I guess your “police state” is doing a good job of protecting you against terrorists.
If you think the removal of Bin Laden caused all his generals to retire, you’re completely delusional. That’s really a false of security and the majority of people who are normal and rational don’t believe that either.
Again, the rant with Thomas Jefferson who is not a man of this time. He’s also the biggest hypocrite. Did you know that Thomas Jefferson had hundreds of black slaves on his 5,000 acre plantation? What kind of freedom does a black slave get vs. a black citizen today? His use of state sanctioned slavery is dated too. You can’t have it both ways. He relied heavily on slave labour to support his luxurious lifestyle. When Jefferson died, his remaining 130 slaves at Monticello were sold to pay the debts of his estate in 1827. They weren’t given their freedom. So how can you take the word of Thomas Jefferson as a defender of freedom??? He was just a cunning and manipulative politician.
I have a rock that keeps tigers away from my property. I don’t see any tigers so the rock must be working … the same warped logic that believes the police state keeps us safe from terrorists.
Despite Jefferson’s flaws, particularly regarding his utilization of slavery, I defer to this description of Jefferson by Margaret Thatcher, at the 1996 Founder’s Day Ceremonies, “…in the history of liberty [Jefferson is] a great figure everywhere in the world.”
Many more such references available upon request.
And I guess that explains why the FBI and Homeland Security keeps arresting Al Qaeda terrorists in the US. There was a foiled airplane bombing on a plane that was destined for the Detroit airport a couple months ago. Today, I picked up the USA Today and it stated that 9 Nato Security forces were killed in a terrorist bombing in Kandahar. 7 of those were from the US forces. The Talaban immediately claimed responsibility.
But, but, the terrorists are gone according to you.
Oh, and so an endorsement by Margaret Thatcher automatically cleans up Jefferson’s record?! Is that so? Let’s examine that one. She also endorsed and thanked the former Chilean fascist Dictator General Pinochet for bringing democracy to Chile, after being tried and convicted for war crimes for torturing 30,000 of his country’s people, imprisoning 80,000 citizens in intern camps, and embezzeling tens of millions of dollars, etc. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/304516.stm You want to see a real police state, review General Pinochet’s reign.
Thatcher’s endorsement of Thomas Jefferson means jack sh-it.
Keep your faulty, conspiracy blogger logic coming…
Funny how the all the government efforts that limit our rights FAILED to detect the Detroit airplane bomber before he boarded the plane. Only the bombers own incompetence saved the plane and passengers, further strengthening my point that the government policies stripping us of our rights do nothing to enhance the public safety. He was overpowered by passengers and crew who took responsibility for their own safety rather that waiting for the government to protect them. These policies also FAILED at keeping the NATO forces you reference in Kandahar alive because they are security theater rather than actual effective security.
As John Adams noted, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
Limiting the rights of American Citizens has done NOTHING to enhance the safety of American Citizens in the USA. You might want to try and reference activities where the policies stripping Americans of their rights were SUCCESSFUL in thwarting an attack, if there are any.
If you don’t like the Margaret Thatcher reference endorsing Jefferson, as I mentioned, there are many more available upon request:
1912 April 14. (Woodrow Wilson, Jefferson Dinner). “Monopoly, private control, the authority of privilege, the concealed mastery of a few men…He [Thomas Jefferson] would have moved against them, sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly, sometimes openly, sometimes subtly; but whether he merely mined about them, or struck directly at them, he would have set systematic war against them at the front of all his purpose. As regards the economic policy of the country it is perfectly plain that Mr. Jefferson would have insisted upon a tariff fitted to actual conditions, by which he would have meant not the interests of the few men who find access to the hearings of the ways and Means Committee of the House and the Finance Committee of the Senate, but the interests of the business men and manufacturers and farmers and workers and professional men of every kind and class…He would have known that the currency question is not only an economic question, but a political question, and that, above all else, control must be in the hands of those who represent the general interest…In the general field of business his thought would, of course, have gone about to establish freedom, to throw business opportunities open at every point to new men, to destroy the processes of monopoly, to exclude the poison of special favors, to see that, whether big or little, business was not dominated by anything but the law itself…”[1]
1916 April 13. (Woodrow Wilson, A Jefferson Day Address). “The immortality of Thomas Jefferson does not lie in any one of his achievements, or in the series of his achievements, but in his attitude towards mankind and the conception which he sought to realize in action of the service owed by America to the rest of the world…Thomas Jefferson was a great leader of men because he understood and interpreted the spirits of men…It is not a circumstance without significance that Jefferson felt, perhaps more than any other American of his time, except Benjamin Franklin, his close kinship with like thinking spirits everywhere else in the civilized world. His comradeship was as intimate with the thinkers of France as with the frontiersmen of America, and this rather awkward, rather different man carried about with him a sort of type of what all men should with to be who love liberty and seek to lead their fellow men along those difficult paths of achievement. The only way we can honor Thomas Jefferson is by illumining his spirit and following his example. His example was an example of organization and concerted action for the rights of men, first in America and then, by America’s example, everywhere in the world. And the thing that interested Jefferson is the only thing that ought to interest us…If you are ready, you have inherited the spirit of Jefferson, who recognized the men in France and the men in Germany who were doing the liberal thinking of their day as just as much citizens of the great work of liberty as he was himself, and who was ready in every conception he had to join hands across the water or across any other barrier with those who held those high conceptions of liberty which had brought the United States into existence.”[2]
ca. 1938. (Frank Lloyd Wright on the Jefferson Memorial). “Thomas Jefferson? Were that gentleman alive today he would be the first to condemn the stupid erudition mistaken in his honor…in terms of the feudal art and thought that clung to him then, deliberately to make of him now, a fashionable effigy of reaction instead of a character appreciated by his own people as a noble spirit of progress and freedom.”[4]
(Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Address at the Jackson Day Dinner). “Thomas Jefferson is a hero to me despite the fact that the theories of the French Revolutionists at times overexcite his practical judgment. He is a hero because, in his many-sided genius, he too did the big job that hen had to be done-to establish the new republic as a real democracy and the inalienable rights of man, instead of a restricted suffrage in the hands of a small oligarchy. Jefferson realized that if the people were free to get and discourse all the facts, their composite judgment would be better than the judgment of a self-perpetuating few. That is why I think of Jefferson as belonging to the rank and file of both major political parties today.”[5]
(Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Address at the University of Pennsylvania). “With the gaining of our political freedom you will remember that there came a conflict between the point of view of Alexander Hamilton, sincerely believing in the superiority of Government by a small group of public-spirited and usually wealthy citizens, and, on the other hand, the point of view of Thomas Jefferson, an advocate of Government by representatives chosen by all the people, an advocate of the universal right of free thought, free personal living, free religion, free expression of opinion and above all, the right of free universal suffrage.”[6]
1943 April 13. (Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Address at the Dedication of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial, Washington, D.C.). “Jefferson, across a hundred and fifty years of time, is closer by much to living men than many of our leaders of the years between.”[7]
1945 April 13. (Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Undelivered Address prepared for Jefferson Day). “In this historic year, more than ever before, we do well to consider the character of Thomas Jefferson as an American citizen of the world. As Minister to France, then as our first Secretary of State and as our third President, Jefferson was instrumental in the establishment of the United States as a vital fact in international affairs. It was he who first sent our Navy into far-distant waters to defend our rights. And the promulgation of the Monroe Doctrine was the logical development of Jefferson’s far-seeing foreign policy. Today this Nation which Jefferson helped so greatly to build is playing a tremendous part in the battle for the rights of man all over the world.”[8]
(Dumas Malone). “…in youthful presumptuousness I flattered myself that sometime I would fully comprehend and encompass [Jefferson]. I do not claim that I have yet done so, and I do not believe that I or any other single person ever can. Nobody can live Jefferson’s long and eventful life all over again, and nobody in our age is likely to match his universality.”[9]
(Ezra Pound). “‘You the one, I the few’ said John Adams speaking of fears in the abstract to his volatile friend Mr. Jefferson.”[10]
1962 April 29. (John F. Kennedy, Remarks at a Dinner honoring Nobel Prize Winners). “I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone. Someone once said that Thomas Jefferson was a gentleman of 32 who could calculate an eclipse, survey an estate, tie an artery, plan an edifice, try a cause, break a horse, and dance the minuet.”[11]
1963 April 16. (Martin Luther King, Jr. “Letter from Birmingham City Jail”). “…I gradually gained a bit of satisfaction from being considered an extremist…Was not Thomas Jefferson an extremist - ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’”[12]
1989 September 20. (George H. W. Bush). “…Jefferson surveyed a horizon that no one else could see.”[14]
1990 February 21. (Vaclav Havel). “When Thomas Jefferson wrote that governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, it was a simple and important act of the human spirit. What gave meaning to that act, however, was the fact that the author backed it up with his life. It was not just his words; it was his deed as well.”[16]
1992 July 4. (Carl Sagan, Independence Day Ceremonies at Monticello). “Jefferson was a childhood hero of mine, not because of his science, but because he, more than anybody else, was responsible for the spread of democracy throughout the world. And the idea, breath-taking, radical, revolutionary at that time - and some places in the world, it still is today - is that not princes, not priests, not kinds, not big city bosses, not dictators, but the people are to rule. And not only was he a leading theoretician of this cause, he was involved in the most practical way, for the first time, bringin git about in the American experiment that has been copied, amplified, longed for, all over the world since.”[18]
1993 January 17. (Bill Clinton, Independence Day Ceremonies at Monticello). “Thomas Jefferson was one of our greatest presidents and perhaps our most brilliant president…He believed in the power of ideas which have made this country great…Jefferson believed in public service.”[19]
1993 April 13. (Mikhail Gorbachev, Founder’s Day Ceremonies, University of Virginia). “For myself I found one thing to be true: having once begun a dialogue with Jefferson one continues the conversation with him forever.”[20]
1994 July 4. (David McCullough, Independence Day Ceremonies at Monticello). “All honor to Jefferson in our own world now, in 1994. We can never know enough about him. Indeed we may judge our own performance in how seriously and with what effect we take his teachings to heart. When he wrote the Declaration of Independence, he was speaking to the world then, but speaking to us also, across time. The ideas are transcendent, as is so much else that is bedrock to what we believe as a people, what we stand for, so many principles that have their origins here, with the mind and spirit of Thomas Jefferson.”[21]
1996 June 7. (Ken Burns). “[Jefferson] is a kind of Rosetta Stone of the American experience, a massive, tectonic intelligence that has formed and rattled the fault lines of our history, our present moment, and, if we are lucky, our future. The contradictions that attend the life and actions of Thomas Jefferson are played out and made manifest in the trial, the trials of the unfolding pageant we call American history.”[23]
1996 June 7. (Garry Wills). “…the thing to remember from Jefferson is the power of the word. That ideas matter. That words beautifully shaped, reshape lives. That a person who has certain disadvantages and flaws and even crimes, like holding slaves, can transcend his imprisonment within reality by casting out words that take you into a new reality.”[24]
1997 July 4. (Colin Powell, Independence Day Ceremonies at Monticello). “…the man who captured in words, better than anyone before or since, the essence of what makes America special.”[25]
Again, as I mentioned before, even more references are available upon request.
Of course, your opinion is much more substantial than any of these unaccomplished individuals.
First off, the terrorist wasn’t searched by a police officer, but by airport security who don’t have the same level of training or it was an inside job, which begs the question of whether security and security clearance needs to be increased at airports. In fact, I had an aunt who used to work airport security at the Detroit airport before she passed away from cancer. She didn’t need a lot of training for the job. She never got further than a high school education. In fact, prior to that she worked a decade as a fitness instructor, but this job paid twice as much so she took it. Perhaps they should do strip searches on every passenger instead of sending them through metal detectors and questioning people. Boy, that would make you steam about rights and the police state, wouldn’t it?
Yes, the terrorist was tackled by a Dutch passenger who saw him first, but he was also handcuffed before the plane landed. Who do you think handcuffed him? One of the air marshals, which we didn’t have on planes before 9/11.
The fact is that there are Al Qaeda terrorists still out there in the US that we need to be concerned about and it would be a lot worse without increased security and that’s why we need it.
Security forces still getting killed in Kanadahar proves that the terrorist threat is still out there and would be a lot worse if we reduced police powers and protection.
Once again, you ramble about Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson was a hypocrite who manipulated people for political and personal gain. He did what he did politically to promote his own business interests and win support of his friends who also owned plantations. How can you say you support human liberty on the one hand, yet make profits off of the loss of human liberty on the other? ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS. His Monticello plantation had the most slaves in the region. He used slaves to build Monticello. The profits helped pay for his huge private library and his luxurious lifestyle. He posted 10 pound bounties on slaves that ran away from his plantation.
How can anyone believe what he says about human liberty when he’s been profitting from the slave trade his whole life. He didn’t believe in the public good with regards to human liberty. He was selfish and all he cared about was representing his own business interests and other business people who supported him. What he’s saying isn’t credible, and certainly not credible for this day and age as slavery has long been abolished.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson
"Views of slaves and blacks
In recent years, historians have focused on Jefferson’s attitudes to the enslaved people he held. His ambivalence was reflected in his treatment of those slaves who worked most closely with him and his family at Monticello and in other locations. He had inherited slaves as a child, and he owned upwards of 700 different people at one time or another.[111] Some biographers take the position that Jefferson’s debt prevented his freeing his slaves;[112] other scholars say that freeing slaves was “not even a mildly important goal”. Unlike Jefferson, some planters allowed slaves to “hire out” and pay off their purchase prices to gain freedom and generate income for the planter.[94] Finkelman notes that leading slaveholders, such as George Washington, Robert Carter III, and Henry Laurens, did find ways to free their slaves.[94] [113] Although many slaveholders took advantage of the 1782 manumission law to free their slaves, Jefferson was reluctant to free his slaves out of his concern of freed blacks living within white society and his personal financial debt. [114]
Isaac Jefferson, ca. 1847, a blacksmith worked as a slave on Jefferson’s plantation. He was interview and later it was published in 1842 as Memoirs of a Monticello Slave. His account provided details to historians about life at Monticello. [115]
According to historian Stephen Ambrose: “Jefferson, like all slaveholders and many others, regarded Negroes as inferior, childlike, untrustworthy and, of course, as property.”[116] He believed they were inferior to whites in reasoning, mathematical comprehension, and imagination. Jefferson thought these “differences” were “fixed in nature” and was not dependent on their freedom or education.[100] He thought such differences that created the “innate inferiority of Blacks compared to Whites”.
Jefferson did not believe that African Americans could live in American society as free people together with whites.[117] For a long-term solution, he thought that slaves should be freed after reaching maturity and having repaid their owner’s investment; afterward, he thought they should be sent to African colonies in what he considered “repatriation”, despite their being American-born. Otherwise, he thought the presence of free blacks would encourage a violent uprising by slaves’ looking for freedom.[118] Jefferson expressed his fear of slave rebellion: “We have the wolf by the ears; and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other.”[119]
In 1809, he wrote to Abbé Grégoire, whose book argued against Jefferson’s claims of black inferiority in Notes. Jefferson said blacks had “respectable intelligence”, but did not alter his views.[120][121] In August 1814 the planter Edward Coles and Jefferson corresponded about Coles’ ideas on emancipation. Jefferson urged Coles not to free his slaves, but the younger man took all his slaves to the free state of Illinois and freed them.[94][122]"
Despite the inconsistencies and contradictions of any one of, or all of, the founders and contributors to the U.S. constitution, the principals of limited government, including our God-given rights to pursue life, liberty, and happiness are still valid and to be cherished.
The problem comes when any segment of society does not consider limited government and/or God-given rights to be ideal. Or worse, do not value or respect personal freedom, life, or personal achievement. Of course, unfortunately there is a significant number of people who believe that these are not ideals.
Of course, too, this is exactly what progressives are all about. And “progressing” beyond the government-limiting constitution, if not transferring the source of our rights from God to government is so delicious sounding to them. Otherwise, the constitution MUST be obsolete in order justify its bastardization toward the progressive’ ideal.
Without the constitutional ideals outlined by the founding fathers, including Jefferson, woman and minorities would never be riding in the front of the bus to vote, much less enjoy the God-given rights to pursue life, liberty and a chance at success. The laws that were changed to make sure these rights were extended to all, did not require constitutional amendments.
We have a precious document that continues to theoretically limit government, protect us FROM government, and empower each of us to pursue life, liberty and happiness. At least it gives us the right to revolt, if the government oversteps it’s constitutional bounds.
Maybe enough of us can reconquer progressive government through the ballot box and push these freedom robbers back into their unhappy hell of an existence, or back to Greece …France …China …or Iran.
Either way, good riddance.
javipa,
Your post is much more eloquent and appropriate than any I could have produced.
Thank you.