[ExI] Words don't mean what they used to mean.

[Dan TheBookMan]

> On Jul 4, 2022, at 12:16 PM, BillK via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> 
> The Constitution was written about 250 years ago by US colonists
> rebelling from the rule of UK King George.
> I thought I understood what Thomas Jefferson meant by -
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
> equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
> Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
> Happiness".
> But I was mistaken. That's why Amendments had to be added in later years.
> 
> At that time, 1776, slavery was permitted, women had very few rights
> and Native Americans almost no rights at all.
> So it seems that Jefferson wasn't talking about individual liberty or
> equal rights for all.
> Rather, what the Founders declared was that American colonists, as a people,
> had the same rights to self-government as other nations.
> The modern idea of individual rights came much later in civilisation.
> 
> See this article by Stanford historian Jack Rakove for more explanation.
> <https://news.stanford.edu/press-releases/2020/07/01/meaning-declaratnce-changed-time/>
> 
> Rather a big change in meaning!

You’re mixing the Declaration and the Constitution. The former was written in 1776 CE by Jefferson; the latter over a decade later by a committee not including Jefferson. (Jefferson was ambassador to France at the time and not a member of the committee. I believe his sentiments at the time were anti-federalist.) 

An earlier version of the Declaration included anti-slavery rhetoric. But that was rejected. The ‘all men are created equal’ was, I believe, truly meant and kind of a common view at the time, especially among Whigs and fellow travelers. Jefferson went through an evolution though — not I think solely because he couldn’t imagine a multi-ethnic or multi-racial society. (If he couldn’t, let’s chalk that up to him really having a narrow reading of history and forgetting about ancient Rome, the Islamic empires, etc.) I believe it had much more to do with his enjoying a comfortable lifestyle and discovering slavery was profitable enough to keep him in wine, fine foods, books, art, furniture, and such. See:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-dark-side-of-thomas-jefferson-35976004/

I’ve mentioned this here before in a discussion with Spike.  Anyhow, it seems clear Jefferson understood that his view on individual rights contradicted his continued reliance on slavery. That explains his reticence here. And he became more reticent the more profitable it was. I don’t think it requires any major conceptual shift to understand his motives or his hypocrisy here.

Overall, too, I think individual rights had a similar meaning to that used today. Yes, there was the rival notion of corporate rights — meaning rights of a group of people, usually in context of a people being free to determine their own laws and customs. But the Declaration is trading on both: that individuals are equal and so are peoples. And that both have a right to rebel when things get tyrannical. (This is typical problem too for rights theories. Most theories of rights lead to anarchism and except for anarchists everyone else fears anarchism (usually equating it with lawlessness and social chaos), so it has to be a long train (how long?) train of abuses. It’s sort of like telling someone they must put with spousal abuse for a long long time before contemplating divorce.)

Another problem is many people then and now with accept a bromide like ‘all men are equal’ but that’s like the Christian who nods approvingly at the Sunday sermon and can even state emphatically the main points in it, but the rest of the week practices what’s most comfortable. In other words, people aren’t doctrinally determined. They can very easily state a doctrine and claim it as their master value and then go on to contradict it in their everyday life. That’s not a difference between 1776 CE (or 1789 CE for the COTUS) and now. (A problem arises for many US-Americans who tend to treat the Founders as demigods rather than politicians and activists — little different than today’s politicians and activists.

Regards,

Dan