I agree with you, Harold, about the universal quality that emerged in Enlightenment anti-slavery thought--I just think it marked a more significant break. The idea that prevailed before it was that slavery was unfit for whites, which had evolved from the earlier idea that slavery was unfit for christians. Turks and Indians did indeed hold whites as captives and slaves in the 17th century and vice versa. Indian slaves were not uncommon in South Carolina as late as the 1720s. What was different was the definition, and legalization, of racial slavery that came in the late 17th century. It was, unlike religion or culture, not something that could be changed; hence it called forth the more universal rejection of slavery that came in the Age of Revolution. I should have qualified my observation : there was no anti-racial slavery ideology existent at Jefferson's birth. And as for Aristotle's "natural slaves and natural masters," Jefferson's famous letter, at the end of his life, declaring that most of mankind were not born with saddles on their backs and a few born with boots and spurs to ride them would be one of the most stirring replies were it not limited to white males. So, yes, one and half cheers for TJ. Jim Hershman To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html