Onto the Enlightenment & mercantilism!
Your readings this week are Adam Smith (p.165), Declaration of the Rights of Man (p. 170), and Olaudah Equiano (p.182). These readings are a little bit denser than the past two weeks, so read carefully, and make sure to ask me any questions you might have.
THINGS TO CONSIDER FOR SECTION:
1) Adam Smith starts out by describing a feudalist society. What were the characteristics of feudalism? What does he think changed the system? What were the characteristics of the new system?
2) In the Declaration of the Rights of Man, where does the government get its powers from? What type of rights does it say man has? What limits do those rights have?
3) According to Olaudah Equiano, why should the British take up the cause of abolition? How will it benefit Britain and Africa economically? How about morally?
ACTIVITY - if you have not done one so far, you MUST do this one by 11:59pm on Wednesday, 9/26
Pick one of the three questions above and answer all three parts. Then, tell me one question you have about one thing that was unclear to you after doing the reading.
See you all on Thursday!
Your readings this week are Adam Smith (p.165), Declaration of the Rights of Man (p. 170), and Olaudah Equiano (p.182). These readings are a little bit denser than the past two weeks, so read carefully, and make sure to ask me any questions you might have.
THINGS TO CONSIDER FOR SECTION:
1) Adam Smith starts out by describing a feudalist society. What were the characteristics of feudalism? What does he think changed the system? What were the characteristics of the new system?
2) In the Declaration of the Rights of Man, where does the government get its powers from? What type of rights does it say man has? What limits do those rights have?
3) According to Olaudah Equiano, why should the British take up the cause of abolition? How will it benefit Britain and Africa economically? How about morally?
ACTIVITY - if you have not done one so far, you MUST do this one by 11:59pm on Wednesday, 9/26
Pick one of the three questions above and answer all three parts. Then, tell me one question you have about one thing that was unclear to you after doing the reading.
See you all on Thursday!
In the Declaration of the Rights of Man, the government in all cases gets it's powers directly from the people. Nothing can be done by any "political authority" unless the people approve or unless it is in the people's best interest. It is the nation as a whole that has all sovereignty, not any individual or group of individuals. In the Declaration, man has many "imperceptible" rights. These rights are life, liberty, property, security, and resistance from oppression. It goes on to describe rights to free speech/religion (as long as it does not harm anyone else), due process in when dealing with the law, and merit based "honours, places, and employments," among many others. In the declaration, there is repeated mention of rights with the stipulation that it is not harmful to others, which is very interesting. The main limit to these rights has to do with who is granted these natural rights. There is no reference made to women or slaves. It makes you wonder if they purposefully left them out because of how society was at the time, or if it is just an omission due to no people of that nature being involved in drafting the document.
ReplyDeleteMax Johnston
In reading on the description of a feudalistic society, it sounds as though the barons and landowners had most of the power instead of a government entity because people were wholly dependant upon the estates on which they lived in order to maintain their existence. The author compares soldiers obeying a prince because he controls their salary to the same instance as these people depend on the barons and landowners moreso than the king. So the loyalty of these groups was largely to each other and to the owner of the land.
ReplyDeleteHe later goes on to state that mans fascination with his own self, mainly in useless materials, was a driving factor as the landowners no longer needed to rely on hundreds of people to farm as agricultural technologies advanced and foreign materials could be acquired. With the departure of these people depending upon the landowners for existence, they lost their power over them for material wealth and more centralized government institutions gained power. The new system afforded these new landowners more baubles and trinkets but in exchange for their power.
Question, I was confused during the description of the landowners giving up power when the author told of how he could exchange food/wealth for goods but at the cost of someone else's livlihood... How did they get away with that and maintain their power?
John Brundage (10:20 Thurs)
Alex Smith describes the feudalist society as one in which landowners cannot use surplus produce for anything but to employ additional servants because the society had no foreign commerce, so the foreign trade value of the surplus was obsolete. This institution was gradually changed by foreign commerce and manufacturers, as they provided the proprietors with something to exchange for the surplus. Under this new mercantilist system, proprietors reduced their number of servants to the most advantageously concise amount so that they could maximize the profit of their cultivation. This then led to the development of long-term leases between servants and proprietors, with a portion of profit given in exchange for the long-term labor commitment.
ReplyDeleteJonathon Williams
According to Olaudah Equiano, the British should take up abolition because it's the right thing to do and the British shall be named and praised for their abolition of slavery. He talks about how abolition will benefit Britain economically because the now freed slaves and the people of Africa will adopt British fashions and customs and the demand for British manufacturers will rise. Morally, the abolition benefits Britain because they will be so blessed, those who free their slaves, and that by their good deed of freeing the slaves, God will essentially shine his light on Britain first and then all other nations second.
ReplyDeleteSarah Petersen 10:20
Question about readings: What was the second part of the feudalism reading (pg. 167-169) really saying? It was a little difficult to discern what the writing really meant.
The National Assembly, in the Declaration of the Rights of Man, stated: "Considering that ignorance, neglect, or contempt of human rights, are the sole causes of the public misfortune and corruptions of Government..." (pg. 171). According to this quotes, the main cause collapsing the former government was disregard of the equally distributed individual rights of people, so the government actually harvested stability form the support straightforwardly from people. One of the rights saying: "Law ought to prohibit only actions harmful to society" (pg. 172) revealed a governing system based on the interests of all the citizens; however, individuals, at the same time protecting their rights, should for no reason try to establish "arbitrary orders" or settling political authorities.
ReplyDeleteThe details of the Declaration of the rights of Man listed basic "gifted", "imprescriptible" and "incontestable" rights of people. Rights guarantee, liberty, property, security and resistance of subjugation were the most basic rights for citizens, and these rights extends to freedom of religious beliefs and communication of thoughts, freedom of doing things without harming others, and free voice of determining "the necessity and appropriation of public contributions. Besides the rights of the individual citizens, the Declaration of the Rights of Man sculpted a principle of constructing and obeying the laws with all citizens' interests taken into consideration, and simultaneously uniformity of eligibility not only to the citizens but also to all "honors, places and employments".
Throughout the Decoration of the rights of man, the restrictions were mainly embodied by the absence of mentioning the application of these rights to slaves and women. Moreover, as far as I am
concerned, there were obscurities and insufficiency in the declaration of citizens' rights such as "Political liberty consists it the power of doing whatever does not injure each other " (pg. 171). National Assembly was really unclear about the definition of injury to others because it could be both physical and spiritual hurts and could level up to different degrees. Would spiritual injuries be taken into account?
One question reasoned throughout my process of reading the declaration is: Would the kind of power fortressing the foundation of the "imprescriptible" rights be another kind of authority through its process of growing?
According to Oluadah Equiano,the British should take up the cause of abolition for a number of reasons. From an economic standpoint, both Britain and Africa would thrive from this action, by the British gaining all of those now freed slaves to join their work force, and have thousands of workers at their disposal for all the booming manufacturing jobs that are starting to appear at this time. Coming from nothing, the Africans could work for a small wage as well, giving the British maximum profit from their workers. Once Africa's civilizations start to flourish, not only could Africa start to bargain in the market with their goods they exclusively have, but now Britain has those new goods to their availability due to the advancement of African civilizations. From a moral standpoint, abolition would benefit the British by giving them names of high praise and honor, and stood up for the rights of humanity, liberty, and good policy. God would honor those who went through with this with glory, honor and peace to them and their nation, and would receive many blessings for their good deed. My question about this is how did the British react to this once they read it, and how was it perceived at that time?
ReplyDeleteAccording to Olaudah Equiano the British should take up the cause of abolition because it will benefit their manufacturers. The abolition of slavery will allow them to sell their products to Africa, opening another rapidly expanding market. In addition to this benefit, it would behoove both Africa and Britain to trade with each other because the increased commerce and exchange of valuables would benefit both societies. Beyond an economic standpoint, Equiano also discusses how inhumane it is to treat other slaves so harshly. Equiano comments on the morality of slavery when he states that he prays it will be abolished. Beyond seeing it as immoral, this comment also suggests that his religion opposes slavery as well.
ReplyDeleteOne question that I had was trying to determine the sincerity of Equiano. While he is suggests it is the right thing to do to abolish slavery, he seems almost overly excited by the pure business potential of trade with Africa.
In the Declaration of the Rights of Man it says that government power comes from the inherent nature of man, specifically the "sovereignty" of the nation as a whole. Stating that no individual or any body of men are entitled to authority over the nation. The declaration states that the main goal of any political association is to preserve certain "imprescriptable rights." These rights include liberty, property, security, and resistance of oppression. These rights are stated along the belief that men are born free and equal in respect of their rights. Other rights that are stated include religious tolerance, due process in the court of law, and as well by stating that the law is representative of the desires of the nation as a whole. What is not addressed though is slavery and gender differences. While the ideas of the enlightenment are present in this document, it doesn't necessarily apply to all individuals.
ReplyDeleteSam Meyung
Question: I am confused on how this document is a representation of the Nation as a whole when it was written by a group of individuals. If I am understanding this correctly, the document said that they were against this very principle. Why is this?
Olaudah Equiano was clearly a persuasive piece written to convience those in power in Britain to back the abolition of slavery. Equiano states both economical and religious benefits to the end of slavery. From a moral standpoint, ending the "barbarity and iniquity... practiced upon the poor slaves" would would bring about God's blessings on the British people. From an economical view, allowing the growth of the Africas will create a safe and profitable trading partner. Manufacturing, with a now adequate population as workforce, will expand and the demand for European goods will rapidly increase. When considering the audience, I believe that the most persuasive part of this passage would be the economical benefits. This is written to those in power, those profiting from the slaver trade and slavery. In order for this argument to gain support, those in power would need an alternative way to gain the wealth they would lose if the profitable slavery was ended. Also, correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe that the Church of England had much say in the government decisions at this time? Therefore, the moral points would not have much effect besides pulling on the heartstrings of those in power and making them look good if they did abolish slavery. @Jon Martin: This could possible be a reason Equiano emphasized the business potential of abolition.
ReplyDeleteThe Declaration of the Rights of Man lays down many viewpoints that directly effect the enlightenment and helps to shape freedom and liberty as we know it. In the Declaration of the Rights of Man, the government gets its power from the people. Article 3 states this and states that not any one person or any group of people can have and absolute control over the state. The Declaration also makes a case for the rights of man. Men are to be free and equal with the privilege of their natural rights, resistance of oppression, liberty, property and security. Though the Declaration states that men are free and equal, it does not address women or other races. This doctrine was meant to apply to only a certain group of men, not truly all of them.
ReplyDeleteRyan Taylor
In the feudalistic society that Smith starts out describing, those with the most surplus of produce from their land had nothing to do with their surplus because there was no foreign commerce. These people are referred to as proprietors. The proprietors had no use for their surplus other than to allow others to live on their land and work for them in exchange for some of their surplus produce. These retainers and dependents living on the land of proprietors had no choice but to obey the proprietors.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Smith, this system was changed with the introduction of extension of commerce and manufactures in Europe. Having the opportunity to trade their surplus with others for other goods, allowed proprietors more options. They no longer had to only share with tenants. They could use their surplus to benefit themselves alone, and not share.
The new system more so supported the idea of every man for himself. Those proprietors, who once shared their surplus with others, now would only use their surplus to benefit themselves. They were able to have fewer workers/tenants living on their land that they had to support. Proprietors raised the rent for those living on their land which lead to extended leases because those living on the land would have to stay longer to work longer, in order to pay what they could not afford.
I am still confused about the King’s role in the feudalistic society. The source touched briefly on the King, but what was Smith describing regarding the King’s power?
According to Olaudah Equiano, the British should take up the cause of abolition because of several economic and moral benefits. Economically, both Africa and Britain would reap the benefits of abolishing slavery because of an increase in the size of the workforce; Equiano says “the abolition of slavery will give a most rapid extension of manufactures.” Also with Africans being exposed to European customs and thus adopting these customs, they will produce products needed in the European market. For example, cotton and indigo grow in most parts of Africa so the production of clothing would be greatly increased. Ultimately, Africa could become a trade partner for Britain. Morally, Equiano says “actions like these are the just and sure foundations of future fame.” He goes on to say those who abolish slavery will be given glory, honor, and peace. In doing the “right thing”, God will shine his light on Britain and give them many blessings for their good deeds.
ReplyDeleteMy question is how was Equiano’s request taken by the British? And did it have any effect on the slave trade?
David Lawrence (Th 12:40)
Olaudah Equiano argued that the British should take up the cause of abolition because it would be a “universal good,” benefiting Britain and Africa both morally and economically.
ReplyDeleteMorally speaking, Equiano made many biblical references as to how the British would be honoring God in ending the slavery of the African people. He wrote "May the blessings of the Lord be upon the heads of all those who commiserated the cases of the oppressed Negroes." He also wrote of a time in the future when he thought people would look back respectfully on the British government for their benevolence. He said, "then shall those persons particularly be named with praise and honor, who generously and stood forth in the cause of humanity, liberty, and good policy."
Economically, Equiano stressed that a new system of commerce between Europe and Africa would greatly benefit Britain. He said that a freed Africa would adopt British fashion and customs, creating a large demand for British goods in Africa. He considered the potential for “inexhaustible wealth brought to the manufacturing interest of Great Britain” that would result from this commercial interaction. Additionally, he noted that if Africans were allowed to stay in their home countries, their population would boom and thus demand for British goods would be even greater.
One thing that I did not understand in the reading was when Equiano said that “The abolition of slavery, so diabolical, will give a most rapid extension of manufactures, which is totally and diametrically opposite to what some interested people assert.” I understand that he was saying that the abolition of slavery would have economic benefits, and that this was contrary to what some people thought. I did not really understand why he was referring to it as “so diabolical,” whether he was rhetorically/sarcastically, or if he was referring to something else.
According to Olaudah Equiano, the British should take up the cause of abolition because in the end it will benefit them economically and morally. Great Britain would benefit economically because it leads to a safe and stable trading between the two nations. Equiano explains that "the hidden treasures of centuries will be brought to light and into circulation. Industry, enterprise, and mining, will have their full scope, proportionably as they civilize. In a word, it lays open an endless field of commerce to the British manufacturers and merchant adventurer."Olaudah further explains that Africa grows a lot of cotton and indigo, which can be traded and manufactured in Britain, so both nations would benefit economically. Britain would benefit morally because they would be helping put an end to torture of innocent people. Equiano says, "tortures, murders, and every other imaginable barbarity and iniquity, are practiced upon the poor slaves with impunity." He further explains that friendlier exchanges and trading will take place if slavey is abolished.
ReplyDeleteMy question is how soon did the British respond to this request? How did manufacturing and trade between these two nations change?
Anne F. (11:40)
Olaudah Equiano believed it was a necessity to abolish slavery. Not just because it was morally right but also because the abolishment of slavery would be economically advantageous for the british as well. Olaudah believed the economy would benefit greatly if the slaved people would become free and contribute to the purchasing of goods. This concept, he believed would make both races of people happy. For one, Africans would feel like a part of society and not like degraded human beings and two the british would receive the money they wanted and with that money earned, establish themselves as a powerful nation.
ReplyDeleteI did not understand the first reading. Period.
12 40 class
In the Declaration of the Rights of man, the government gets it’s power from the people. It states that men are “born and always continue free and equal in respect of their rights.” (pg 171) Which means that those rights include liberty, property, security and resistance of oppression? The limitations were that it only applied to white men. It does not address to slaves and women.
ReplyDeleteTran Nguyen
11:30
The government gets it's power from the people. The people are relatively free and have a large amount of control over what they can and cannot do. The intent was to make sure the crown did not hold too much power, so the people took the law into their own hands.
ReplyDeleteMan has several rights, including free speech, the ability to represent themselves when need be and to be held innocent until they are proven to be guilty. As long as every man is able to control the power they believe they hold, the freedom can remain. Man is only allowed to hold power that they have directly derived from, so everyone is equal.
The rights are somewhat limited by the laws. Man's actions cannot injure one another, or harm society. All expressions, although free to speech and publishing cannot tarnish society. Man is innocent until proven guilty and man has the opportunity to represent themselves when needed.
In a feudalistic society, the peasants were forced to maintain the land, as well as pay rent to the baron above him. The baron promised protection to the tenants, however he had complete jurisdiction over them, more so than the king. The king did not have much power at this time. He only had a standing militia, whereas the proprietors had each other and wealth to provide a stronger army.
ReplyDeleteWhat changed the system was global trade and commerce. Proprietors could now exchange their tenants surplus of crops to invaluable items. As an example that Adam Smith provided, 'a pair of diamond buckles' could provide more tending to a baron's land then before. With the exception that, the proprietor could now keep the say, diamond buckles, to himself rather then splitting the surplus of food as before. This made a more independent society.
The new system allowed for larger farms and less unnecessary people to uphold the farm. Yet, the tenants asked for a more suitable stay. According to Smith, they wished to be granted a 'secured' position and be able to earn some of the profit. Their autonomy grew from this agreement, which lessened the role of 'executor of justice' the proprietors had on their keep.
A question that surfaced was, where did the surplus of food or knickknacks end up being spent on? Was there a monetary system being set in place?
According to Olaudah Equiano, the British should take up the cause of abolition because it was the just and right thing to do, especially for men who held some sort of office or high place in society. If these people had "noble minds", as he put it, then it was their job to help the cause, because it was a "substantial good". And, given the British people's important place in the world during this time, it made the most sense for them to be at the forefront of the abolitionist movement; their involvement would have the most impact. Economically and morally, it would help the British to become more involved in Africa, the author says, because the native people who adopt the ways of the British. They would require the help of British manufacturers, which would be of service to the economy of Britain, and the British-Christian morals and customs would be passed along as well.
ReplyDeleteSarah May
Adam smith depicts feudalism as a caste system supporting landlords to become authoritative and influential controller toward tenants and residents living in the landlords’ barons. The inhabitants living in the barons should obey to the landlords as soldiers follow their prince in order to sustain or obtain their living environments.
ReplyDeleteHowever, as the foreign market and operations, including enhanced techniques of farming and cropping, gradually entered, , and people’s interests in foreign manufactures and increased, the landlords began to consume the products themselves and find the ways to keep the manufactures themselves, instead of sharing the imported commodities with tenants and retainers. As a result, the landlords started to cut off the number of occupants in their lands and maintained their farming or agriculture systems with reduced number of tenants, which indirectly stimulated the occupants to sustain abilities in conducting their lives well without the employers’, the landlords, help or aid.
While I read the papers, a question arouse in my mind that whether the foreign cultures and effects assimilated well without establishing any hesitations or negative reactions from the landlords, when they firstly experienced the cultures and the manufactures, or not.
The first reading was definitely a little "dense." Mostly I got from it that the king did not hold much power at all, mostly just his title. The barons and others holding land who seemed to "rent" it out to other people held most of the power in the feudalism society.
ReplyDeleteThe Declaration of the Rights of Man seemed to run parallel with the U.S. Declaration of Independence quite a bit. They both set forth "inalienable rights" and they both refer to a Higher Being. Things like the right to property, security, unlawful arrests, etc. are all considered basic rights of man (not women and not slaves who were considered property as we see later). While The Declaration of the Rights of Man acknowledges that men have these rights under the Supreme Being it also states that the power comes from the people.
Equiano makes his case that it would benefit Africa and Britain economically to stop the slave trade. The most interesting thing I found in this reading was that he based the book in the assumed vernacular that slaves and masters were equal.
Jocossa Burson - 10:20
ReplyDeleteAccording to Olaudah Equiano it is both morally an economically beneficial for the british to take up the cause of abolition. He write this trying to persuade the "gentlemen in power". One of his methods os persuasion is the use of religious concepts. He even includes bibal verses to further link religion to the abolition.He says that it would benefit Britian as well as African because Africans, once freed would be able to "adopt British fashions, manners, customs, ect." (184) It would benefit Britian because it would open sources of wealth for British manufactors. Africa is full of treasures and goods that can be traded with Britain. When it comes to moral benefits, he says that murders and tortures only happen because the people are suffering from poverty. He hopes that with the abolishment of slavery, people will focus on better things and not commit those crimes.
one thing I did not understand is why Britain? why did he not ask the united states to abolish slavery?
Adam Smith describes a feudalistic society as a society where the elite owned vast estates. These estates had other people living on them who had to depend on the proprietors (property owners) for goods. The proprietors would give excess goods to his tenants in return for obedience. They would also act as judges and war leaders. A common person with land on the estate had to obey the proprietor just as much as a servant would have.
ReplyDeleteHe believes that feudalism was put out by foreign commerce. The globalization of the market made it so that proprietors could take their surplus and trade it for new things instead of trading it for services that they didn't necessarily need.
This new system was characterized by proprietors cutting down the number of tenants he had to make his farm more cost-effective. Tenants also would sign long term leases to secure their spots on the farm so as to keep an income.
Why didn't the king have very much power? It only seems logical that the king could enact some kind of regulations on these proprietors to make his control over the tenants greater than that of the proprietors.
Blair Lehmkuhl 11:19
Adam Smith describes that in a country without foreign commerce, the proprietor's best choice to utilize the surplus production was to share it with their retainers and dependents and maintain them. Thus, the people had nothing to "give in returen for their maintenance" but to obey the proprietor. And in this way, the more people the proprietor had, the more control power they can get, which led them to be "the judges in peace, and the leaders in war," even the king had no such sufficient authority.
ReplyDeleteIt would be totally different if the country can exchange with foreign commerce and manufactures. And this kind of free market changed the old system, because the proprietor had a better choice to use his extras to trade with foreigners, instead of maintaining people they had. That means the proprietor would not share, the dependents would be more or less independent than before, and thus the proprietor would had less controlling power.
So, in this new system with a free market, nobody had sufficient power to control the country, and the government can do its job.
I am a little confused that if the king has no real controlling power, why not the wealthiest proprietor, who had more power, take his place to be the next king?
2) In the Declaration of the Rights of Man, where does the government get its powers from? What type of rights does it say man has? What limits do those rights have?
ReplyDeleteIn the Declaration of the Rights of Man, the government gets its powers from the people. In the text it says, "ideas of natural rights- the idea that some rights are applicable to all people and are not dependent on local laws". This really shows that the government is integrating peoples' natural laws and not just forcing them to follow standard laws. The natural laws refer back to the Social Contract explaining that people shouldn't do things if they will cause hard to other people. The government allows people to be free, including rights to "liberty, property, security, and resistance of oppression". The only limitations really placed on people are that they are not permitted to do things that will be harmful to the rest of society. Although this sounds great, there are also other unsaid limitations. The government says nothing about different genders or race.
Q: I don't understand why they wouldn't include race or gender. In the text it says that slavery was illegal in France at the time, so why are different races still excluded from these rights?
In the Deceleration of the Rights of man the power the government has comes from the people that it serves. Although a divine being is mentioned this is no longer how people are seen to have access to power.
ReplyDeleteSome of the rights specifically mentioned within the document are the right to liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression, the right to speak, write and publish freely, the right to a free voice in determining the necessity of public contributions and so on.
The rights stated here are limited because they do not apply to groups like women and slaves. The specific rights themselves are also limited because much like our own laws people are entitled only so far as to where their individual rights do not interfere with the good of the society. Examples of such laws are those that apply to free speech and security.
Question: I know that the idea of power no longer coming from a divine right is an enlightenment ideal, but what exactly brought about this change? Why do people now see this as the best option when up until this point religion had been so critical in the political system?
Lindsey C 12:40
At the beginning of Adam Smith's narrative, he describes the foreign commerce, or lack there of, he characterizes feudalistic society. The "great proprietors" that he gives detail of are the barons or landowners. Unlike what we have been taught throughout most of our education, Smith describes that the landowners have most of the power instead of a King or centralized government. Feudalistic society worked so well because people were completely dependent upon the owner not just for pay but for food, clothing, shelter and perhaps most important at this time: protection. Smith explains why people were so loyal and stayed in the feudalism system with an example of a knight being loyal to a prince because the prince provides all of his income.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading one might ask what held all of this together and the answer is simple, the landowners were completely self indulged and their egocentrism kept it going. However, the feudalistic society did not last with the advancement of technology. The new technology that they were developing allowed less people to be needed for labor. As the landowners stopped needing laborers, the laborers stopped needing the landowners, which caused the people to turn to a more centralized government, ultimately leading to the downfall of the feudalistic society. The new system that came about was closer to our idea of mercantilism and had a strong emphasis on the desire of what goods others had. It allowed landowners to have more money for small baubles and ornaments like jewelry because they were not having to pay and care for as many workers. the new technology and system allowed a higher income with a much lower output. The relationship between workers and the landowners also changed, there was a greater respect for both parties and it sounds much more like indentured servants.
Question: What were the thoughts of the workers in regards to the landowners. I felt like Adam Smith was an outsider looking in and I questioned how people thoroughly involved in the feudalistic society felt about the change.
Leah Miller (11:30)
The Declaration of the Rights of Man claims that all of the government’s powers are expressly derived from the people; “Nor can any individual, or any body of men, be entitled to any authority which is not expressly derived from it.” The people must allow the government to take on any forms of power that it wishes to exercise. The declaration describes many natural and imprescriptible rights of man, including liberty, property, security, and resistance of oppression. The declaration frequently mentions equality, and goes on to describe other rights such as no man should be unjustly punished outside the tenants of a law, the right to a fair and due process of law, religious freedoms and freedom of opinions, free speech, a public force for security that benefits the citizens, a form of contribution from citizens to uphold the government, etc. The limiting factors on individual rights are such that there are no limits to the rights of men other than “those which are necessary to secure to ever other man the free exercise of the same rights,” determined by the law. Only actions that bring harm to society should be prohibited by the law.
ReplyDeleteOne question I had regards to the status of women and slaves. Did the framers of the Declaration truly not believe everything they wrote down, or did they know that it would be socially unacceptable at the time to clarify the rights of these two groups of people?
Jimmy McGuire (11:30)
I found the “Declaration of the Rights of Man” an interesting read since at the time the document was written it would have been seen as quite liberal and progressive, but today it isn’t viewed that way at all. These rights that are being demanded for “all men” are really only referring to white men, which today would be viewed as being quite far from equality. Even though my first instinct is to roll my eyes at this document, the idea that people should have unalienable rights, including the freedom of religion without persecution, would have been quite controversial. Women and minorities aren’t even mentioned in this document because the power coming from “the people” is assumed to actually mean only the white men.
ReplyDeleteTyler Savage 12:40pm Thursday
ReplyDelete3) According to Olaudah Equiano, why should the British take up the cause of abolition? How will it benefit Britain and Africa economically? How about morally?
He believes that it is unhumane and it seems to be against his religious beliefs. He believes that the enslaved Africans can add to society and help the British commerce as a whole. He goes on to say that Africa has much to offer and to take slaves would be looked down upon by all of Great Britain. The interest in manufacturing interests and landed interests are high, so abolition would cause a rapid expansion of manufacturers. This would help industry and enterprise in both areas and would lay the foundations of a great commerce center. Morally, this abolition would be universally good. The torture and murder will be gone which would help all of Africa.
What I wonder about is how well was Olaudah Equiano received in Great Britain? Since this is a first hand account and doesn't focus on that, I will never know, but it would be interesting to find out.