You'll get a circle-jerk answer from the Natural Rights/Laws bunch. But Natural Mysticism, which was so loved in the days of the founders wasn't loved by everybody.
"The Granddaddy of Natural Rights" says:
Sec. 22 (Second Treaties of Civil Government - Pub. 1689)
The "natural liberty" of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of nature for his rule. The liberty of man, in society, is to be under no other legislative power, but that established, by consent, in the commonwealth; nor under the dominion of any will, or restraint of any law, but what that legislative shall enact, according to the trust put in it.
Now....
Locke differentiated between legitimate and illegitimate forms of slavery.
Locke said:
"The only way slavery can be legitimate is for an unjust aggressor to be defeated in war and his victor to place him under his absolute rule. This is allowable because the aggressor violated the laws of nature by committing some transgression and did not emerge victorious when the wronged party sought restitution through force. The cause for enslavement is just and can end when the conqueror and the conquered negotiate new terms of obedience and leniency for their relationship.
By contrast, illegitimate slavery is when an absolute and despotic ruler exercises complete control over someone without any just cause. This is conspicuous in an absolute monarchy because there is no cogent reason for the individual to hold total power over every man. Slavery can never occur with a contract and is completely illegitimate if it is accomplished using bare force and conquest."
Gosh, seems like our founders who LOVED NATURAL RIGHTS and LAW - selectively skipped the above in order to safeguard their wealth and status, sustained by using slaves.
How convenient to deny that black slaves were persons...and considered them property. What a contraction of natural law/rights. :roll: