I'm sure it kept them up late at night, and took all the fun out of their parties.
Seriously, I don't know how to respond to this. The fact that they kept slaves places them overwhelmingly in the practicality over principle category.
Some of those same signers went home and supported emancipation in their states. Others voted to keep slavery out of the Northwest Territory.Others voted to keep slavery out of the Northwest Territory. Jefferson had a hand in that himself.
You give him too little credit. Jefferson gave a massive boost to the whole movement. The insertion of those five words, unnecessary to the main point of the document, were the impetus that propelled Abolition into the majority. Jefferson was the midwife of abolition.
The Declaration of Independence wasn't a legal document in the same sense that the Constitution or the Bill of Rights are.
No, it wasn't. It was the mother of the other two governing documents. It was on a different, higher plane of authority. If the Declaration had not been true, the Articles of Confederation and the US Constitution would not exist. If it be not true, then the nation's very existence is illegitimate.
You can't go to court and demand the unhindered pursuit of happiness -
It first mentions the more tangible rights of "Life" and "Liberty".
But because the statement of purpose isn't legally binding in that sense, interpretation about what it means can be and is freer than a formal and binding legal agreement would be.
The Declaration is nothing like that. It is a foundational statement. It is a "cognito ergo sum" of legal documents. It is the principle under which all subsequent and inferior legal documents acquire their authority. It is the creation of the US Legal system. It is the "let there be light" of a nation's existence.
In other words, just because "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" were written by adult, White, propertied men of British Protestant heritage, perhaps with those like themselves in mind. It doesn't follow that the phrase is restricted to people like that and doesn't have a broader meaning applicable to other classes of people.
It doesn't follow from the specific words, but it axiomatically follows from their subsequent deeds and concurrent behavior.
As Jefferson said of the US Constitution:
"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
Should we not apply his own dictum to his own creation?
.
Alright, then, but let's interpret the document narrowly all the way around, and not assume that it proposes a right of anyone anywhere to sever relations with an existing government just because they are unhappy.
.
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
"Legitimate Reasons" are in the eye of the beholder. What may appear legitimate to one person may not appear legitimate to another, but it stands to reason that it should be the opinions of the people who wish to leave, rather than the opinions of those who want to force them to stay, that carry the weightier position. The British didn't think much of the Colonists reasons either, but we adhere to the precedent they established in not concerning ourselves with what the larger body felt were good reasons, and accepting the Colonists opinions as the stronger argument.
If you want to argue that the Declaration doesn't provide an argument, say, for slaves to rebel against those who deprive them of their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, don't automatically assume that the document justifies slave owners in secession or rebellion or revolution for grievances that are a lot less pressing -- especially when those slave owners have the vote and representation in the legislature that was denied to the colonists of the 1770s or the slaves later on.
The Declaration, as a statement of principle, very much supports the slaves right to throw off their masters. I think this is why it was so effective in spurring the Abolition movement to greater popularity.
But your argument is a tu quoque. That one person in doing evil, does not justify another person in doing evil.
But you are rushing off in two opposite directions. You're praising the Declaration as the "let there be light" of a nation's existence" and arguing that its meaning is circumscribed by its origins as a narrow, shallow document signed by slave owners.
You're admitting the great impetus that the Declaration of Independence gave to emancipation movement, yet somehow arguing that it was illegitimate or irrelevant. But clearly, if the Declaration did encourage anti-slavery movement, one can't argue that whatever it was that encouraged opposition to slavery somehow wasn't a part of its meaning.
You're admitting that the Declaration gives support to slaves who would seek freedom. You're not making reference to any support secessionist slaveowners would derive from the Declaration. And you're assuming that this leaves you with of an argument, because you can throw out a Latin phrase like "tu quoque."
I don't know if I missed the beginning of the argument and don't know just what it is that you're talking about, or if you're irrational and just talking in circles.