The basic premise seems odd to me - why would the constitution not include language specifying that "the people" referred to white people if that was their intention? It's not as though different skin colours didn't exist then or were rare. There's examples of 18th century gentlemen in England having dark skin (quite rare as most of them would have been slaves, servants or sailors), so I find it difficult to believe that the constitution writers were not aware of the distinction.
palmfacehn · 6h ago
Good points. Although it should be easy to understand how Damsky would read his own ideology into the definition.
>"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."
Ultimately the founding documents are part of a tradition of liberal individualist thought. Racist ideologies and identity politics can be broadly characterized as collectivist and illiberal. Although the founders may not have explicitly condemned slavery, the seeds for individual freedom (self-ownership) were there.
>"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."
Ultimately the founding documents are part of a tradition of liberal individualist thought. Racist ideologies and identity politics can be broadly characterized as collectivist and illiberal. Although the founders may not have explicitly condemned slavery, the seeds for individual freedom (self-ownership) were there.