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