Response from an Elder about "inalienable rights"?

"To alienate any person is to bring a sure division between that person and another who are expected to receive the same judicial treatment in a humane way as is defined by the Constitution..."

Dear friends,

Below, is a brief response about last week's piece called " 'Inalienable Rights' and gay marriage", from my Mother (who just turned "84" the day before President Obama's inauguration). She mentions the fact that the principles upon which this country was founded ignore the reality that there were many "captive workers" (so-called slaves) here, and the injustices did not stop there.

I think that it is extremely important to note here that slavery was a class institution, not a "race" one. As a matter of fact, many of the so-called "slaves" were European American or "white", albeit mostly "indentured servants" or temporary slaves. As well, at least as early as 1656 in Boston, we know that there were also a number of Black slave masters. In the 19th Century, there were, in fact, thousands of Black slave masters controlling many more thousands of "slaves" - both Black and "white". Also, thousands of Blacks fought on the Confederate side, during the Civil War, to expand slavery. In order to investigate my assertions, please simply go to your Web browser and/or the local library; as well, if you live in either New England or the South, go to your town or city records department.

In any case, we have not heard from my Mom, in several months, on this blog. As always, I am both honored and pleased to share her thoughts with you.

One Love, One Heart, One Spirit,
G. Djata Bumpus
*****************************************
Dearest #5 son Djata,

Let me tell you what I see that is an integral part of the U.S. Constitution and its "inalienable rights" crap. It was written, while black men and women and their offspring were "slaves" in a system that legally used them as marketable commodities. Were these persons entitled to the same rights as their white officials and neighbors? The answer is an unequivocal "NO".

Need I say more? To alienate any person is to bring a sure division between that person and another who is expected to receive the same judicial treatment in a humane way as is defined by the Constitution. But, if that person has all the physical body parts in the right place and a mind that functions, then you allow him or her to toil laboriously equal to a mule, and not be treated as humanely as the law should allow, where are the "inalienable rights"? Sweet or correct words do not "cut the mustard". America is famous for words that do not match deeds.

Keep the Faith,

Love,
Mom