Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Repeal The 17th

The Declaration was not written to include the groups you mention but it embraces them none the less.


79 posted on 07/04/2010 12:20:24 PM PDT by Artemis Webb (DeMint 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies ]


To: Artemis Webb

“...but it embraces them none the less...”
-
Really?
How so?


80 posted on 07/04/2010 12:42:58 PM PDT by Repeal The 17th (If November does not turn out well, then beware of December.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies ]

To: Artemis Webb
“The Declaration was not written to include the groups you mention but it embraces them none the less.”

As I understand history, negro slavery was controversial, and remained so until the Civil War and later. It was NOT the subject of the DoI.

The DoI was about freedom from a “divine” King of Great Britain and Ireland, who taxed colonists against their consent.

“All men” meant citizen and King alike, it meant native Englishman and colonist abroad alike. It meant those of high class and of low class alike.

Consistent with our DoI, we did not wind up with our own King after the revolution. And we didn't wind up with a class structure of titled noblemen.

Britain outlawed slaver in 1807 and we did somewhere in the 1860s, depending on your reading of history.

Huck is correct to a point; if the rights were “self-evident” we sure shed a lot of unnecessary blood in our Civil War to finalize those “self-evident” rights.

83 posted on 07/04/2010 1:22:45 PM PDT by truth_seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson