Actually, you're not even doing that - you haven't even accomplished your stated point. The whole basis for race-based slavery was that the enslaved weren't "men" in the same way that the enslavers were - an attitude that has deep, deep historical roots (going as far back as the ancient Greeks, including those of Athens). Since, by the hypothesis of the day, the enslaved weren't "men," then it would necessarily follow from that hypothesis that those rights did not apply to the enslaved, no matter how self-evidently they applied to the enslavers.
It was, and is, that secondary hypothesis concerning the status of the once-enslaved as "men" that was in error, not the self-evidentness of the rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.
As for the rest of it - I can start from stated assumptions and draw the conclusions they are supposed to imply, which is why I am disputing your premises, stated and unstated, rather than playing the fools' game of granting your assumtions and premises and trying to argue on a biased field. That is a classic Alinsky tactic.
Perhaps you ought to take up golf instead?
