Hi everyone, first OP. :)
So today in my introduction to American History class, my professor (who I suspect to be either Marxist or severely social-democratic) talked about the American revolution. He described it and the underlying Republican ideology as anti-capitalistic and anti-individualistic. He said that there was an underlying belief in the need for the individual to sacrifice himself for the 'greater good' as represented by George Washingtons wearily accepting the function of president and as represented by the need for good citizens. He also painted Jefferson as a anti-capitalist, using a quote of his from the note on the state of Virginia talking about that agriculture is good and cities are bad. (very roughly paraphrased)
I challenged him in class and afterwards on these points. (I think this is very far fetched) For example I talked about Paine conveying the need for free trade instead of mercantilism, and about Jeffersons opposition to Hamiltons Federalist pro-mercantilist position. He deflected this partly by saying that Paine was not a good representative of the republican tradition, and that Jefferson was very inconsistent during his lifetime and held different positions in time. I wasn't able to press on unfortunately.
So this brings me to my question. I want to follow up on this discussion with my professor and send him a well reasoned email telling him that I disagree with him, and the reasons behind that. Do you guys agree with me on this? Do you have any good sources which I can use in my rebuttal? Any good sources or quotes to show that Jefferson was not an agricultural anti-capitalist? Or just any other good points about this subject I can learn from or use in my discussion with my professor?
Thank you. :)
ps. just as a disclaimer, I'm Dutch so excuse my non-perfect knowledge of American history
I think Ess is absolutely right. How can you believe in natural law, that all men are created equal, and yet own slaves and continue to buy slaves after the war? These were elites who covered themselves in the veil of populism. Sure it was great that they abolished the rule of a monarch, but it was only to establish an even closer one. Paine was right. They were all betrayers, liars and scoundrels.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Laughing Man:I think Ess is absolutely right. How can you believe in natural law, that all men are created equal, and yet own slaves and continue to buy slaves after the war?
It's quite simply really, refuse that the group of people you're enslaving really are "men" (human?). Now don't get me wrong, I don't actually believe this, but that's certainly a valid way for one to maintain advocacy of natural rights whilst keeping slaves.
Of course, as much as that sounds somewhat absurd to somebody in today's society I can imagine that it seems perfectly reasonable to one who was raised practising slavery. Just as one might look down on slavery from the perspective of a 21st Century westener, I can imagine that there are people who frown upon 21st Century westeners for the institution of private property. Of course, once again, I'm not saying this is the correct view (I don't think it is). Just that it's not entirely unreasonable.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
GilesStratton: Just that it's not entirely unreasonable.
Just that it's not entirely unreasonable.
Simply because we can understand and make reason of an event doesn't mean I need to conflate my reasoning with the slave owners reasoning and think any kind of reasoning is ok. There is right and wrong reasoning in any given action. And I'm not going to argue what is right and wrong in any number of hypothetical cases, but I do know that slavery is wrong. And a slave-owner and want-to-be slave-owner might argue with me over that, but I would think the slave-owner and want-to-be slave-owner are/is wrong. Of course the slave-owner or want-to-be slave-owner might think I'm wrong, but that's why he or she is a slave-owner or want-to-be slave-owner and might advocate slavery and I would be against their position.
You might challenge the professor on the notion of the "revolution". You can claim it was actually a conservative movement against British "innovations" such as tariffs and central banks. It wasn't about a new political order or a wide scale property redistribution.
If I hear not allowed much oftener; said Sam, I'm going to get angry.
J.R.R.Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings
John Ess:Yes. That's why they made people pay them taxes, killed the Indians, enslaved blacks, didn't think property ownership applied to women, thought contracts (the social contract) which no one signed apply, etc.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
GilesStratton:It's quite simply really, refuse that the group of people you're enslaving really are "men" (human?).
Of course, as much as that sounds somewhat absurd to somebody in today's society I can imagine that it seems perfectly reasonable to one who was raised practising slavery.
John Ess: didn't think property ownership applied to women
Are you sure?
True, married women had limited ownership rights under the Common Law. Or, rather, the property was shared with her husband. That's not the same as no property laws at all.
Or, rather, the property was shared
Natalie:That's not the same as no property laws at all.
It depends how technical you want to get. If we go with the no third solution approach, then compromised property rights, are not property rights. Rights typically are defined as absolutes.
Islam generally had a better conception of property rights almost 1000 years later. While women have always been treated badly in primitive cultures, and certainly many sects and regions of Islam have fallen under this, the reversal of the dowry into a gift to the wife, marriage as a contractual relationship, and separate finances, as well as inheritance rights for women were a big step forward at the time, even if it was more conceptual than applied.
liberty student:It depends how technical you want to get. If we go with the no third solution approach, then compromised property rights, are not property rights.
The original statement was very vague, so I thought to qualify it.
Rights typically are defined as absolutes.
In theory. In practice, especially with centralised government, the rights are always somewhat compromised. So it makes more sense to talk about the nature of limitations than simply saying that women had no property rights.
Juan:What part about "the property of married women was under total control of their husbands" you don't understand ?
It wasn't total. It differed in practice, such as setting up the separate trust for the married women by her family.
Maryland, 1674: required a private interview between a judge and a married woman to confirm her approval of any trade or sale by her husband of her property.
New York, 1771: Act to Confirm Certain Conveyances and Directing the Manner of Proving Deeds to Be Recorded: required a married man to have his wife's signature on any deed to her property before he sold or transferred it, and required that a judge meet privately with the wife to confirm her approval.
Massachusetts, 1787: a law was passed which allowed married women in limited circumstances to act as femme sole traders.
Connecticut, 1809: law passed permitting married women to execute wills