tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1763883859696167228.post3952869129000888931..comments2023-11-03T03:37:02.548-05:00Comments on WEBSTER'S BLOGSPOT: What is meant by Jefferson's declaration in the Declaration?Terry Morrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00166609562028309038noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1763883859696167228.post-86228643568979319952007-11-14T10:40:00.000-06:002007-11-14T10:40:00.000-06:00John, of course I agree. I'm not as hard on Bush ...John, of course I agree. I'm not as hard on Bush and his administration as I probably should be. One reason is because I never counted him much of a conservative to begin with, so I never expected much more than what we got from him. I think he's a nice guy and all that, and he's probably sincere in these beliefs. But people can be sincerely wrong. And I certainly think he is on this point.<BR/><BR/>Nowhere in biblical Christianity does it teach that all men deserve to be free. Nowhere in the Declaration of Independence does it say that all peoples and cultures deserve or desire to be free. No truly educated mind could ever assent to this doctrine. So essentially I think that Condoleeza Rice misuses the term "educated mind" in this instance because apparently to her and people like her a mind filled with liberal hogwash is an educated mind. Quite so.<BR/><BR/>-TerryTerry Morrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00166609562028309038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1763883859696167228.post-70960314476379862892007-11-14T10:19:00.000-06:002007-11-14T10:19:00.000-06:00Anytime someone speaks of what people "deserve" th...Anytime someone speaks of what people "deserve" the way Rice does, it sets off my little Marx alarm. It reminds me of the survey in which some high percentage of Americans said they believed that "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" came from one of our founding documents.<BR/><BR/>Rice's statement also has a faint whiff of playing God in it, as you've suggested. It's as if God has told the Bush administration to go spread freedom. As you've said, that's disrespectful to God!John Savagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09204911551117542124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1763883859696167228.post-42196357570677123652007-11-14T09:25:00.000-06:002007-11-14T09:25:00.000-06:00Very interesting discussion you have going here Mr...Very interesting discussion you have going here Mr. Morris. May I extend my compliments to mild colonial boy, esq. It's been a long time since I had to get out the big dictionary to look up a word. Exordium has been added to my vocabulary and I thank you.<BR/><BR/> As you can see from my recent post the AFB, I have been thinking about the use of language and how it affects our government and society. If we refuse to acknowledge and honor the original intent of those who framed our founding documents, then they mean nothing.Call Me Momhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17420259973871484926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1763883859696167228.post-26648131714808704162007-11-14T07:52:00.000-06:002007-11-14T07:52:00.000-06:00(Blogger is acting nutty again this morning. Let ...(Blogger is acting nutty again this morning. Let me try again...)<BR/><BR/>Mild Colonial Boy,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for making me aware of Bradford's article. I have a book written by M.E. Bradford, <I>A Worthy Company, Brief Lives of the framers of the United States Constitution</I>. It's a nice reference material that I've gone to many times since I've owned my copy of it.<BR/><BR/>I'll have to check out more of Bradford's articles. Good to see you here.<BR/><BR/>John, <BR/><BR/>I missed Tancredo's appearances altogether last night. I actually did make the effort to turn the tv to FNC when Hannity and Colmes came on, but I still missed Tancredo somehow. I was doing other things at the time so they could have slipped him in without my being aware of it. As for CNN, well, that's another story altogether. I can barely tolerate FNC at times.<BR/><BR/>-TerryTerry Morrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00166609562028309038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1763883859696167228.post-2205050505300105182007-11-13T23:23:00.000-06:002007-11-13T23:23:00.000-06:00I believe this question is addressed in M.E. Bradf...I believe this question is addressed in M.E. Bradford's article "The Heresy of Equality:<BR/>Bradford Replies to Jaffa"(http://www.mmisi.org/ma/20_01/bradford.pdf).<BR/><BR/>For instance:<BR/>"The exordium of the Declaration begins<BR/>this appeal with an argument from history<BR/>and with a definition of the voice addressing<BR/>the “powers of the earth!” It is a “people,”<BR/>a “we” that are estranged from another<BR/>“we.” The peroration reads the same:<BR/>“we,” the “free and independent states,”<BR/>are united in our will to separation-and<BR/>prepared to answer to high and low for that<BR/>temerity. They act in the name (and with<BR/>the sanction) of the good people whose several<BR/>assemblies had authorized their congregation.<BR/>This much formally. No contemporary<BR/>liberal, new or old, can make<BR/>use of that framework or take the customary liberties with what is contained by<BR/>the construction. Nor coming to it by the<BR/>path I have marked, may they, in honesty,<BR/>see in “created equal” what they devoutly<BR/>wish to find. “We,” in that second sentence,<BR/>signifies the colonials as the citizenry<BR/>of the distinct colonitis, not as individuals,<BR/>but rather in their corporate capacity.<BR/>Therefore, the following “all men”-<BR/>created equal in their right to expect from<BR/>any government to which they might submit<BR/>freedom from corporate bondage,<BR/>genocide, and massive confiscation-are<BR/>persons prudent together, respectful of the<BR/>law which makes them one, even though<BR/>forced to stand henceforth apart: equal as<BR/>one free state is as free as another.<BR/>Nothing is maintained concerning the<BR/>abilities or situations of individual persons<BR/>living within the abandoned context of the<BR/>British Empire or the societies to be formed<BR/>by its disruption. No new contract is<BR/>drawn. Rather, one that exists is preserved<BR/>by amputation. All that is said is that no<BR/>component of a society can be expected to<BR/>agree, even though it is part of that society<BR/>by inheritance, that it is to be bereft of<BR/>those securities that make life tolerable simply<BR/>by geographical remoteness. And, if<BR/>even the Turk and infidel would not as a<BR/>people submit to a government such as<BR/>George I11 proposes to impose through<BR/>Lord Howe’s army, how can Englishmen<BR/>be expected to agree to that arrangement?<BR/>So much is “obvious” to everyone, in other<BR/>words, “self-evident.” Thus even if the law<BR/>of nature and of nations is drawn into our<BR/>construction of “endowed by their Creator,”<BR/>what is left to be called “inalienable”<BR/>with respect to American colonials and<BR/>demonstrative of a certain minimal equality<BR/>of rights in their collectivities is not so<BR/>much. What happens in the remainder of<BR/>the Declaration, following sentence two, is<BR/>even more depressing to the contemporary<BR/>Jacobin who would see in the new beginning<BR/>a departure from the previous<BR/>political history of Western man. Note particularly<BR/>the remarks concerning the part<BR/>played by the king’s servants in encouraging<BR/>a “servile insurrection,” the xenophobic<BR/>objections to the use of foreign mercenaries,<BR/>and the allusion of the employment of<BR/>savages as instruments of royal policy. Note<BR/>also Jefferson’s ironic reference to “Christian<BR/>Kings” and anger at offences to the<BR/>“common blood.” These passages draw<BR/>upon a received identity and are not “reasonable”<BR/>in character. Certainly they do not<BR/>suggest the equality of individual men. But<BR/>(and I am sure Professor Jaffa will agree<BR/>with me on this), even though racist,<BR/>xenophobic, and religious assumptions have<BR/>no place in the expression of philosophic<BR/>truth, they can readily operate in an appeal<BR/>to prescriptive law. And therefore, I say,<BR/>in our Declaration of Independence."Mercurius Aulicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05130901970855873480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1763883859696167228.post-53184173515504103772007-11-13T19:17:00.000-06:002007-11-13T19:17:00.000-06:00Actually I won't be able to see Tancredo. They fin...Actually I won't be able to see Tancredo. They finally figured out how to cut off my access to the cable channels I wasn't paying for, which includes CNN and Fox News. But the video will probably be on Tancredo's official blog in the morning, so I'll go see it then.John Savagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09204911551117542124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1763883859696167228.post-57162560532616559452007-11-13T18:00:00.000-06:002007-11-13T18:00:00.000-06:00BTW, Tancredo's scheduled to be on both Wolf Blitz...BTW, Tancredo's scheduled to be on both Wolf Blitzer (CNN) and Hannity & Colmes tonight (Tuesday).John Savagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09204911551117542124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1763883859696167228.post-45603211473167787042007-11-13T13:31:00.000-06:002007-11-13T13:31:00.000-06:00Interesting point on the term "consensual governme...Interesting point on the term "consensual government." I hadn't thought of that in this context.<BR/><BR/>Also, I would remind folks that the DoI is headed with these terms: "The Unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America." Which is to say that though Jefferson is credited with authorship of the DoI, and though he is a very important figure in American history, the Declaration of Independence is not <I>his</I> declaration in any exclusive manner whatsoever. It is, as it plainly says, <I>The Unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America</I>, which means that to correctly interpret the concepts contained therein, one must understand how the <B>whole</B> founding generation interpreted them, not just Jefferson. Sorry liberals.<BR/><BR/>-TerryTerry Morrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00166609562028309038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1763883859696167228.post-49581808369675126062007-11-13T12:37:00.000-06:002007-11-13T12:37:00.000-06:00Yes, that was a great post. I have to wonder, too,...Yes, that was a great post. I have to wonder, too, if the terms are poorly defined, particularly "consensual government". If the term is defined broadly enough, then I could probably agree that people everywhere are for it. Most Iranians probably "consent" to their sharia regime. Maybe some don't, but the exception doesn't invalidate the broadly "consensual" nature of the regime. But Jefferson's meaning probably has to be understood in a far different context, from which it's been separated by today's democratists. If we understood "consensual government" the same way Jefferson did, we'd immediately reject the idea that Muslims wanted it. But most of us <I>don't</I> understand the term that way.<BR/><BR/>It reminds me of an old post somewhere where the author pointed out that one of the Islamic declarations on human rights was phrased in almost the exact same language as a Western declaration, but it was clear when you read between the lines that "liberty" didn't include the freedom to choose a religion other than Islam, for example. The actual meaning was totally different, though the words were almost the same. Hence we've written a "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" that's interpreted entirely differently in different parts of the world, although it uses the same words. (Add to that the difficulty that translations are inexact, too.) I wish I could find that post.John Savagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09204911551117542124noreply@blogger.com