Thomas Jefferson's view on slavery Research Paper

Thomas Jefferson's view on slavery - Research Paper Example In his life, Jefferson appears to have contradicted his writing, views, deeds and thoughts on the issue of slavery (Bernstein 56). Jefferson as an opponent against slavery As a young legislator and president, Jefferson took actions that he thought would aid in ending slavery. As a young legislator in Virginia, he had tried to advocate the private land owners to free their slaves. This was, however, unsuccessful as private land owners viewed this as a way towards economic downfall. They used slaves as cheap labor in their plantations and thus, if they had supported Jefferson in his advocacy for slavery end, they would have suffered economically. Although he failed in his advocacy for slavery abolishment by private land owners, Jefferson later returned to draft a bill barring freed blacks from staying in Virginia. He drafted a Virginia law prohibiting the importation of enslaved blacks into the state (Zinn 120). He was successful in the passage of this bill. Nevertheless, it is viewed that the private land owners in his state passed the bill to raise the price of slaves who were already their captives. In 1784, Jefferson forwarded a proposal to ban slavery in the newly created territories of the northwest. As the principal author of the land ordinance of 1784, he called for an end to slavery and involuntary servitude in these territories. Jefferson wanted a line to be drawn depicting the north and south at which slavery should not be extended westwards of the impassable line. This bill, however, was defeated by a single vote. Jefferson also proposed in the mid 1770s for a means through which those born into slavery could be freed. He referred to this as gradual emancipation by which after a certain date, those who were born into slavery became freed. In his advocacy for gradual emancipation of slaves, Jefferson wanted slaves to be resettled out of the United States, or they be returned to Africa (Spahn 65). He believed that once slaves were freed, the oppression they had suffered under their masters would breed hatred for their masters. He saw to it that the slaves would instigate violence on their former masters. It is in this thought that he believed the best plan would be to resettle slaves out of America. These actions show the efforts by Jefferson, while still a legislator, to end and stop slavery at the time. As president, in 1807, Jefferson signed an act which prohibited importation of slaves. This act helped to outlaw international slave trade in the United States although it took effect almost a year later. Jefferson was also the chief author of the declaration of independence in which he strongly argued against slavery (Zinn 49). Through the declaration of independence, he noted that slavery opposed nature which calls for every human being to be treated and respected equally. He called the institution to be immoral and not just. In his first draft of the declaration, he noted that every man was equal, and slavery did not replicate this but only caused oppression and death to those held captive. These statements represent Jefferson’s stance on slavery which he opposed. Thomas Jefferson’s views on slavery also became noted through his use of strong words in which he called for an end to the institution. Through his writing and correspondence with political and business associates, his strong words against slavery stood out. His

Civilian courts and military courts Research Paper

Civilian courts and military courts - Research Paper Example The judiciary in particular, is vested with the sole power to conduct judicial review and in such inferior courts as Congress may establish. â€Å"A juridical system operating free from interference  and pressure from other branches of government, guarantying the rule of law in all fields of statecraft, is vital for the democratic governance of a country† (Marshall, 2007). Military Court â€Å"The military establishment of a country serves as an instrument of politics and is part of the executive power bestowed with the cloak of authority to use violence  under the supremacy of policy. The special task of the military and its embodiment of force make it particularly necessary that the military operates within the boundaries of the  constitutional and legal framework of the state† (Marshall, 2007). In the democratic system, the Constitution has vested the military courts to provide for trial and punishment for offences committed within the navy and the military as defined in Article I, section 8, 12, 13 and 14 of the US Constitution. â€Å"The purpose of the military courts is to administer courts-martial and the jurisdiction of such courts is limited to the trial of military personnel† (May and Ides, 2007). ... uthority of military commanders and leadership personnel and does not immediately influence the military jurisdiction in  the sense of establishing military courts† (Marshall, 2007). The rationale of the law in delegating to the military and navy to power to hear and decide cases within the scope of their authority is for the simple reason that â€Å"the nature of the duties of military personnel differs among the civilian code of law because being soldiers and being part of the defense personnel, they are subjected to a disciplinary system that covers all the peculiarities of military duty which covers defection from the troops, abuse of leadership authority among others† (Marshall, 2007), which are not expected of ordinary citizens. In the event that military and navy personnel shall be adjudged guilty of any violation, they shall be given the right to appeal their case to senior levels of military authority and any other independent body, which include the militaryà ‚  ombudsman, or the civilian administrative courts, for relief and redress. The designated military judges comprises of the military personnel who are still on active service. These are the â€Å"subordinates to their respective commanders and subject to the principle of hierarchical obedience† (Marshall, 2007).  It has been observed that the role of the military courts shall only restricted to the enforcement of the Military Code of Justice, in relation to military discipline and the performance of a military mission. These offenses are being punished in order to instill military discipline, such as the abandonment of post and dereliction of duty. Schulhofer (2008) has stated that the â€Å"military commissions are designed to try terrorism suspects under rules of procedure and evidence crafted specifically