Mr. Dixon:  I apologize that this has nothing to do with Jefferson and
the question of paternity and so adds little to that on-going discussion.
But in your recent post I think you are wrong in your conception of the
compact form of government in the British colonial world -- first, there
were no colonies (not New England or Pennsylvania or any of them) where
slavery was not legal; therefore your point about slavery not being a
defining issue in the land of Adams, Otis, or Dickinson is weak.
Slavery, or non-freedom, was everywhere a factor in political thought.

It was not merely that liberty was understood in stark juxtaposition to
slavery; liberty was relative and as such, slavery (non-liberty) was a
recognized limit to the scale. When 17th and 18th century political men
discussed the sovereignty of the "people" they were clear that this
collective included some but not all of the people: women were obviously
excluded, but in most places so were the poor and propertyless.  In
Massachusetts, property qualifications varied for voting for different
public offices: voters of a certain economic standing could vote for
representatives but not senators or for the governor.  In other words,
the sovereign people were not a monolith -- there were distinct
gradations.  When Jefferson wrote "all men are created equal," he knew
well the ambiguity of his words: in the Enlightenment sense, "men" were
all mankind (and which could include all races and stations), but in the
Anglo-American political universe, "men" were those who participated in
civil society; not just any and all males.

David Kiracofe

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html