Hey folks, am I off my rocker here?

[Husky23]

Of the meaning of the word "Men" from the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

What do you believe the founder's intended definition of the word "Men" represents within the context it is written and from historical time period the document was prepared?

If you would be so kind to provide some type of evidence and corroboration to substantiate your claim. Or come clean and indicate it is just what you personally 'feel'.


Answers:
- An adult male human?
- A human regardless of sex or age; a person?
- A white aristocratic Anglo Saxon male?
- A person or group felt to be in a position of power or authority? “Da Man b
- An expletive to indicate intense feeling? “Man, that’s terrible.”

This originates from an HM comment of regarding, of the same above, the initial portion of the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these Truths of be self-evident, that all
Men are created equal, that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of
Happiness.

She added:

[glow=red,2,300]This citation above needs some analysis. When this was written, the word "men" literally meant adult white males, preferably of the least acceptable amount of owned property. Females and children had no defined rights, written or unwritten.[/glow]

I kindly asked her to provide proof; give me reference that indeed proved the founders true intent for usage of the word “men” was intended to mean as she accused; "White Anglo Saxon males". Of course I never received anything but a histo-gram of how we as a nation have not been able to subscribe to those words throughout our history – over and over again.

To the point I said:

I've proven my point; shown references to current and historical dictionaries, the illustrated etymology of the word and demonstrated its usage in that time period. YOU, have done nothing but rail against this nation and its "idea" on your bias hate and contemptible bitterness.

[dustdevil28]

husky23 said:

Of the meaning of the word "Men" from the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

What do you believe the founder's intended definition of the word "Men" represents within the context it is written and from historical time period the document was prepared?

If you would be so kind to provide some type of evidence and corroboration to substantiate your claim. Or come clean and indicate it is just what you personally 'feel'.


Answers:
- An adult male human?
- A human regardless of sex or age; a person?
- A white aristocratic Anglo Saxon male?
- A person or group felt to be in a position of power or authority? “Da Man b
- An expletive to indicate intense feeling? “Man, that’s terrible.”

This originates from an HM comment of regarding, of the same above, the initial portion of the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these Truths of be self-evident, that all
Men are created equal, that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of
Happiness.

She added:

[glow=red,2,300]This citation above needs some analysis. When this was written, the word "men" literally meant adult white males, preferably of the least acceptable amount of owned property. Females and children had no defined rights, written or unwritten.[/glow]

I kindly asked her to provide proof; give me reference that indeed proved the founders true intent for usage of the word “men” was intended to mean as she accused; "White Anglo Saxon males". Of course I never received anything but a histo-gram of how we as a nation have not been able to subscribe to those words throughout our history – over and over again.

To the point I said:

I've proven my point; shown references to current and historical dictionaries, the illustrated etymology of the word and demonstrated its usage in that time period. YOU, have done nothing but rail against this nation and its "idea" on your bias hate and contemptible bitterness.

Ah HM. She proves time and time again the futility of arguing with a fool.

For myself, I believe that they meant an adult human male at the time that the framers wrote it.

This is not to say that women, or children, did not have rights, it's just that the world back then was run by men while women were subjugated to raising children until they could contribute to the family.

[MARIO]

Abraham Lincoln said it best:

"They intended to include all men, but they did not intend to declare all men equal in all respects. They defined with tolerable distinctness in what respects they did consider all men created equal -- equal in certain inalienable rights. They did not mean to assert the obvious untruth, that all were then actually enjoying that equality, nor yet, that they were about to confer it immediately upon them. They meant simply to declare the right, so that the enforcement of it must follow as fast as circumstances should permit."

[jaber1]

I would tend to go with "white adult male freemen".

I was tempted to add "landowner" or "landholder" but I think either would be too restrictive given that, even then, those in secessionist power would have wanted to use the "founding" document to rally support for army and militia and, for that, they needed commoners and non-landed individuals as well as the landed gentry.

Niall Ferguson in 'Empire' [Penguin; ISBN 0-141-00754-0] at page 94 says of the War of Independence: "This was indeed a civil war which divided social classes and even families." and proceeds to illustrate this with the case of Benjamin Franklin, who joined the Continental Congress, while his "... son, William, Governor of New Jersey, remained loyal to the crown " "during the war. The two never spoke again."

At page 93 he gives a nice description of the DOI ending with "It bears all the hallmarks of a document heavily revised by an outsize committee. It is Jefferson's preamble that people remember today." [then quotes the subject of this topic].
He continues later on that page with: "But Jefferson's preamble ensured that the American republic would be fashioned in the language of the Enlightenment: [referring to Paine's Common Sense] "in terms of natural rights - above all the right of every individual to 'judge for himself what will secure or endanger his freedom'."

I did add the term 'freemen', however, to distinguish indentured men - of any colour - from non-indentured.
I refer to a few sites on the use of this term, as well as to Ferguson's comment about the DOI revisions:

www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/jeffdec.html
" Thomas Jefferson sent copies of the Declaration of Independence to a few close friends, such as Richard Henry Lee (1732-1794), indicating the changes that had been made by Congress. Lee, replied: "I wish sincerely, as well for the honor of Congress, as for that of the States, that the Manuscript had not been mangled as it is. It is wonderful, and passing pitiful, that the rage of change should be so unhappily applied. However the Thing is in its nature so good, that no Cookery can spoil the Dish for the palates of Freemen." "

douglassarchives.org/adam_a29.htm
"Samuel Adams, "American Independence," 1 August 1776
Occasion: Speech delivered at the State House in Philadelphia."

From paragraph 25:
"Such, it is possible, may, some time or other, be the state of Great Britain. What will, at that period, be the duty of the colonies? Will they be still bound to unconditional submission? Must they always continue an appendage to our government and follow it implicitly through every change that can happen to it? Wretched condition, indeed, of millions of freemen as good as ourselves!"
and
"This day we are called upon to give a glorious example of what the wisest and best of men were rejoiced to view, only in speculation. This day presents the world with the most august spectacle that its annals ever unfolded, — millions of freemen deliberately and voluntarily forming themselves into a society for their common defense and common happiness."

And to the final verse of the Star Spangled Banner:
"Oh thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation!"

So - no mention of women or children. Returning to free versus indentured men, Adams [ibid] says in paragraph 26: "Here no man proclaims his birth or wealth as a title to honorable distinction, or to sanctify ignorance and vice with the name of hereditary authority. He who has most zeal and ability to promote public felicity, let him be the servant of the public. This is the only line of distinction drawn by nature."

But this was not the only line of distinction in the colonies, nor I venture in the new republic to begin with and hence falling outside the original scope of the preamble.
Ferguson when discussing migration from Europe at page 69 says: "Between half and two-thirds of all Europeans who migrated to North America between 1650 and 1780 did so under contracts of indentured servitude; for English emigrants to the Chesapeake the proportion was closer to seven out of ten."
On pages 70-71 he gives the story of John Harrower, a 40-year old Scot who migrated to Virginia for 4 years "in service" as a school teacher in 1774, but who took ill and died in 1777 before he could pay for his wife and children to join him.

Back to the topic and to Lincoln's statement put up by Mario.

As I read this, I see a well crafted statement specifically aligned to his policy and the northern politics in vogue at the time. Yet again, Jefferson's preamble was being "mangled" [interpreted, if you will] for political expediency.

I didn't mention slaves anywhere above because I didn't need to - they simply did not count until Lincoln came along and rent the country asunder, and in many places even for 100 years after he had gone. But an interesting article on the subject - apropos this topic - may be found at:
www.policyreview.org/fall95/thdso.html
We the Slaveowners: In Jefferson's America, Were Some Men Not Created Equal?
Dinesh D'Souza
Policy Review
Fall 1995, Number 74

With the passage of time, of course, together with concomitant changes in what may be expedient at any one point in time, the preamble has been mangled and flogged by whoever needed it, so the original intent is merely an interesting academic exercise.
To me, a more relevant question would be "What will it mean tomorrow?"

[cameron]

Good post Jaber I particularly enjoyed the article by Dinesh D'Souza.

[LorSpi]

The issue of slavery was discussed from the very beginning. At the time of the establishment of the nation, too many other issues were far more critical to the very survival of the young republic - like its very survival - and the issue of slavery, even women's rights, were put off until later. www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/july-dec04/historians_07-05.html Compromise permitted the establishment of the United States. Slavery dominated its political discourse until the Civil War.

Now, as a direct descendant of a signer of that document, I have been brought up to believe that "men" was the generic word used - as in mankind. Mankind does not exclude women.

English grammar - and indeed the grammar of the European languages I know - will use the male form when there are a mixed group. There can be feminine plural pronouns - but when the group is male and female - the male plural is used. One can tell grammatically when there are only females present (not in English - they is neuter - used for male, female and neutral objects, the plural of he, she and it) but one cannot tell, except by preceding nouns, if the plural masculine pronoun refers to an all male group or male and female.

There was no neutral plural form. No neutral over riding grammatical structure. Mankind - includes both genders. Men was the word used to describe masculine and mixed masculine/feminine. This usage prevailed up until the end of the 20th century. Chairman - male or female. It is still prevalent. Actor can be either male or female (while actress is female, actor carries no gender distinction).

There was no question that politics were dominated by men at the time. But women had played a vital role in the history of the colonies (Anne Arundel of Maryland got a county named for her). Tradition - and law - limited their role. Again - the Founding Fathers were dealing with immediate problems - and slavery ranked as a more difficult problem for them than suffrage for women - though even that was suggested by Abigail Addams. But let's not forget that suffrage was limited even among men. Even among white men. Even among white property owning men.

The Declaration of Independence began with the philosophical argument establishing a justification for the break with Great Britain. As such, that argument should be read in its broadest context - men = mankind = all people.

The implementation is another matter. The US began with the Articles of Confederation and ended up with the Constitution. That Constitution was immediately amended with ten articles - the Bill of Rights. And has time passed, more amendments ensured suffrage for an ever widening group of people.

The predominate issue was the balance of strong central government versus the powers of the individual states. Many - most - believed that questions of suffrage should be a state issue. The central government should be kept weak. The Articles of Confederation failed because the central government was designed too weak. The Constitution set up a balancing act that continues to this day.

This site provides a nice breakdown of positions on various issues. odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/D/1776-1800/federalist/antixx.htm

My answer: the essence of human. Adult and independent.

[jaber1]

cameron said:

Good post Jaber I particularly enjoyed the article by Dinesh D'Souza.

Thanks Cam.
I haven't put one of those together for a long time and it was a refreshing change to stimulate the remaining grey cell and get away from the pervasive left-right mumbo-jumbo.

I am starting to like this place. Its got good editing facilities and, unlike THC, at least I can get more than two posts done without the site closing down on me. The people aren't that bad either

I wonder if TJ is still worried about my nerve?

[101ABN]

I'm with Lor on this one.

"Men" is generic, here.

(Lor I modified your post to activate the live link, FYI)

The assertions by HistrionicMinor previously cited are commonly used by the far left to paint our founding fathers as a pack of racists instead of visionaries in the arena of human rights. Straight out of Howard Zinn, revisionist extraordinaire.

See item 30 in "The Communist Agenda -1963"

"Discredit the American founding fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the common man."

[cameron]

Hamilton's life long opposition to slavery, and his founding of the New York Manumission Society is in fact proof that there was debate over the institution of slavery at the time of our nations founding. Washington is also known to have worried what would befall the nation due to slavery. It was a festering sore that eventually resulted in a civil war. Jabber is more or less correct however, for at the time of our founding "men" meant white propertied men. After all at our founding the only ones who had the franchise were white propertied men. That is not to say that there were not those around who disagreed with that definition. Lorspi and 101 if you follow the link to the article by Dinesh D'Souza I think you will find it very well reasoned and informative. I know I am being a little lazy here in not making my argument more comprehensive. Sorry just a little tired but please do read the article.

[LorSpi]

cameron said:

Hamilton's life long opposition to slavery, and his founding of the New York Manumission Society is in fact proof that there was debate over the institution of slavery at the time of our nations founding. Washington is also known to have worried what would befall the nation due to slavery. It was a festering sore that eventually resulted in a civil war. Jabber is more or less correct however, for at the time of our founding "men" meant white propertied men. After all at our founding the only ones who had the franchise were white propertied men. That is not to say that there were not those around who disagreed with that definition. Lorspi and 101 if you follow the link to the article by Dinesh D'Souza I think you will find it very well reasoned and informative. I know I am being a little lazy here in not making my argument more comprehensive. Sorry just a little tired but please do read the article.

But it is yet another example of someone picking and choosing examples to prove a point - and ignoring other contradictory elements.

Let me tell you something about Latin American slavery. It was nasty. Nothing remotely family friendly about it. And its discrimination and practices continue today.

One simple element the author completely ignores. The Spanish in Peru - and the rest of Latin America - retained the custom of demanding villages provide labor for projects as the Inca had done. But the Spanish never released those men and women - and kept increasing the numbers of workers villages had to provide. The Spanish declared the "end" of slavery - the buying and selling of Africans - but never stopped the practice of taking a % of work age men (and sometimes women) to use in mines (in Mexico mines were not mechanized until the 20th century because of this labor pool that killed 10,000 Indians a year at one mine alone).

The Declaration of Independence was not a document designed to create a system - but to itemized a complaint. It should be examined not in the light of the Article of Confederation or the Constitution - but in the light of the writings that inspired it. Rousseau. Locke. And these writers also spoke of mankind in generalities. This men had no problem articulating exactly what they meant. And the second link I provided (thanks for fixing that 101 - I saw it but was too lazy to do anything. My bad) shows the range of opinion on this matters - and the simple fact that the the majority of the Founding Fathers saw the implementation of a general concept occurring at a STATE level. Not federal.

It is revision - and nothing else - that would recast 18th century political philosophy into the ideological rhetoric of 20th century Stalinism designed to undercut the idea of rule by law and constitutionalism.

The argument by D'Souza is old hat - been around the block so many times that I feel I need a penicillin shot after reading it. Why there is the need to romanticize the horrors of Latin America that continue to this day (and are the main cause of the millions of illegals in the US) I have yet to figure out.

Oh - as to the "no need to mark slaves because they were all black" bit - that is bullshit pure and simple. There were black freedmen (yes - and that means women as well) as well as white slaves. DC has a long antebellum history of black middle class citizens, as do some northern cities.

I am not sure why there is this sudden "need" to scribe some hidden motives to our Founding Fathers when they clearly articulated their thoughts at the time. There is no doubt when they feared the mob, preferred educated men, question whether non propertied citizens were capable of making proper fiscal decisions. So when these folks say "men" or "mankind" that's what they mean. Not white or propertied or males. They use those words in their writings while discussing exactly how the government should work.

But the Declaration of Independence? The best damn thing ever written.

[cameron]

I luv you lor ;D you are a most worthy opponent. I intend to give you a well reasoned and thoughtful reply just not tonight, to tired and lazy tomorrow OK?


I have been mulling this over in my mind. I do intend to respond I just haven't had the time to really do it justice and today I start a new job. Just wanted to let you know I have not abandoned the discussion.

[jaber1]

lorspi said:

The issue of slavery was discussed from the very beginning. At the time of the establishment of the nation, too many other issues were far more critical to the very survival of the young republic - like its very survival - and the issue of slavery, even women's rights, were put off until later. www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/july-dec04/historians_07-05.html Compromise permitted the establishment of the United States. Slavery dominated its political discourse until the Civil War.

Now, as a direct descendant of a signer of that document, I have been brought up to believe that "men" was the generic word used - as in mankind. Mankind does not exclude women.

English grammar - and indeed the grammar of the European languages I know - will use the male form when there are a mixed group. There can be feminine plural pronouns - but when the group is male and female - the male plural is used. One can tell grammatically when there are only females present (not in English - they is neuter - used for male, female and neutral objects, the plural of he, she and it) but one cannot tell, except by preceding nouns, if the plural masculine pronoun refers to an all male group or male and female.

There was no neutral plural form. No neutral over riding grammatical structure. Mankind - includes both genders. Men was the word used to describe masculine and mixed masculine/feminine. This usage prevailed up until the end of the 20th century. Chairman - male or female. It is still prevalent. Actor can be either male or female (while actress is female, actor carries no gender distinction).

There was no question that politics were dominated by men at the time. But women had played a vital role in the history of the colonies (Anne Arundel of Maryland got a county named for her). Tradition - and law - limited their role. Again - the Founding Fathers were dealing with immediate problems - and slavery ranked as a more difficult problem for them than suffrage for women - though even that was suggested by Abigail Addams. But let's not forget that suffrage was limited even among men. Even among white men. Even among white property owning men.

The Declaration of Independence began with the philosophical argument establishing a justification for the break with Great Britain. As such, that argument should be read in its broadest context - men = mankind = all people.

The implementation is another matter. The US began with the Articles of Confederation and ended up with the Constitution. That Constitution was immediately amended with ten articles - the Bill of Rights. And has time passed, more amendments ensured suffrage for an ever widening group of people.

The predominate issue was the balance of strong central government versus the powers of the individual states. Many - most - believed that questions of suffrage should be a state issue. The central government should be kept weak. The Articles of Confederation failed because the central government was designed too weak. The Constitution set up a balancing act that continues to this day.

This site provides a nice breakdown of positions on various issues. odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/D/1776-1800/federalist/antixx.htm

My answer: the essence of human. Adult and independent.

[PIQUE]
Gee, Lorspi, if there was one thing I really wanted in my Christmas stocking this year it was an English lesson on pronouns - now my kids will have to buy me something else.

And while the subject of slavery may induce a discussion on pluralism, I somehow doubt that many would promote pronouns - plural or otherwise - as their leading argument.
[/PIQUE]

Pique aside, and to return to respectful conversation, I am sure that your parents and immediate forebears - all being good 20th Century souls - would promote such an interpretation of the preamble to you. After all, they had good reason to, probably being very familiar with Jefferson's autobiography - part of which is inscribed in his memorial in Washington:
"Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people [the slaves] are to be free".

The autobiography, however, continues that 'the two races' are divided by 'indelible lines of distinction between them.'

That he should feel this way is no surprise being a Virginia landowner owning some 200 slaves of which he freed no more than seven.
[Source: Ferguson; 'Empire'; page 100]

It may be very likely that your signature ancestor felt similarly. Unfortunately, unless you have some sealed and framed family heirloom to the contrary, he would not have been able to tell you this himself.

My point here is that Husky specifically asked

"What do you believe the founder's intended definition of the word "Men" represents within the context it is written and from historical time period the document was prepared?"

Had Husky not placed "context" and "period" limitations then I would probably have responded in a similar vein to yourself because that is what we would like it to have meant, and I can very well understand why any American, but especially one with a prestigious lineage, would desire a 20th Century interpretation of such a phrase in an 18th Century document of such national and international importance.
However, to me it does not ring true within the limitations imposed in the question.

Even Jefferson's autobiography is no more enlightening about anyone other than freemen being included within the ambit of the term "men" in his preamble and, is at best prescient of actions - notwithstanding all the intervening discourse, political or otherwise - roughly eighty years later that still took yet another century to bear fruit in the short-lived Kennedy/King era.

Let me now pick up on a few other points - on and off topic:

But let's not forget that suffrage was limited even among men. Even among white men. Even among white property owning men.

This being the case, and it is my understanding also so I am not challenging the statements, how can one argue that such inequality is not perpetuated down the social hierarchy of the time - especially to slaves at the lowest level?

To that I daresay that you would counter with:

The Declaration of Independence began with the philosophical argument establishing a justification for the break with Great Britain. As such, that argument should be read in its broadest context - men = mankind = all people.

Again, I can understand the desire to apply the "broadest context" extrapolation, but being slave-owners themselves, and representatives of others, who "collectively owned some 400,000 black slaves - roughly a fifth of the total population of the ex-colonies and nearly half of that of Virginia" [Ferguson; Ibid], I would suggest that even the most philosophical among them were hardly philanthropic when it came to "property".

I also come back to my view of the likelihood that the DOI was as much a recruiting poster domestically as it was an obscene gesticulation to the British. I do not recall hearing or seeing anything about black brigades or slave squadrons in the Continental Army or militia.

Finally, Husky also requested:

"If you would be so kind to provide some type of evidence and corroboration to substantiate your claim.
Or come clean and indicate it is just what you personally 'feel"

Unfortunately, while interesting in their own right, and unless I missed something, neither of your submitted sites spoke to the question raised.

I am no way denigrating your upbringing nor your lineage, but I am not sure that your assertion "Now, as a direct descendant of a signer of that document, I have been brought up to believe that "men" was the generic word used - as in mankind." constitutes either evidence or corroboration.

To respond to your supporter

101: I sincerely hope you do not regard my posts in this thread as being in any way defamatory of your 'Founding Fathers', nor revisionist.

[LorSpi]

[PIQUE]
Gee, Lorspi, if there was one thing I really wanted in my Christmas stocking this year it was an English lesson on pronouns - now my kids will have to buy me something else.

And while the subject of slavery may induce a discussion on pluralism, I somehow doubt that many would promote pronouns - plural or otherwise - as their leading argument.
[/PIQUE]

Pique aside, and to return to respectful conversation, I am sure that your parents and immediate forebears - all being good 20th Century souls - would promote such an interpretation of the preamble to you. After all, they had good reason to, probably being very familiar with Jefferson's autobiography - part of which is inscribed in his memorial in Washington:
"Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people [the slaves] are to be free".

The autobiography, however, continues that 'the two races' are divided by 'indelible lines of distinction between them.'

That he should feel this way is no surprise being a Virginia landowner owning some 200 slaves of which he freed no more than seven.
[Source: Ferguson; 'Empire'; page 100]

It may be very likely that your signature ancestor felt similarly. Unfortunately, unless you have some sealed and framed family heirloom to the contrary, he would not have been able to tell you this himself.

My point here is that Husky specifically asked


Had Husky not placed "context" and "period" limitations then I would probably have responded in a similar vein to yourself because that is what we would like it to have meant, and I can very well understand why any American, but especially one with a prestigious lineage, would desire a 20th Century interpretation of such a phrase in an 18th Century document of such national and international importance.
However, to me it does not ring true within the limitations imposed in the question.

Even Jefferson's autobiography is no more enlightening about anyone other than freemen being included within the ambit of the term "men" in his preamble and, is at best prescient of actions - notwithstanding all the intervening discourse, political or otherwise - roughly eighty years later that still took yet another century to bear fruit in the short-lived Kennedy/King era.

Let me now pick up on a few other points - on and off topic:



This being the case, and it is my understanding also so I am not challenging the statements, how can one argue that such inequality is not perpetuated down the social hierarchy of the time - especially to slaves at the lowest level?

To that I daresay that you would counter with:


Again, I can understand the desire to apply the "broadest context" extrapolation, but being slave-owners themselves, and representatives of others, who "collectively owned some 400,000 black slaves - roughly a fifth of the total population of the ex-colonies and nearly half of that of Virginia" [Ferguson; Ibid], I would suggest that even the most philosophical among them were hardly philanthropic when it came to "property".

I also come back to my view of the likelihood that the DOI was as much a recruiting poster domestically as it was an obscene gesticulation to the British. I do not recall hearing or seeing anything about black brigades or slave squadrons in the Continental Army or militia.

Finally, Husky also requested:

"If you would be so kind to provide some type of evidence and corroboration to substantiate your claim.
Or come clean and indicate it is just what you personally 'feel"

Unfortunately, while interesting in their own right, and unless I missed something, neither of your submitted sites spoke to the question raised.

I am no way denigrating your upbringing nor your lineage, but I am not sure that your assertion "Now, as a direct descendant of a signer of that document, I have been brought up to believe that "men" was the generic word used - as in mankind." constitutes either evidence or corroboration.

To respond to your supporter

101: I sincerely hope you do not regard my posts in this thread as being in any way defamatory of your 'Founding Fathers', nor revisionist.[/quote]

As to the grammar lesson - standard philosophical discourse. And the Declaration of Independence is using the political philosophy discourse mode in its opening. Again - those writers were MORE than capable of expressing themselves - and they used the broadest terminology - mankind in the Platonic "essence" meaning. They did not say - us white guys with hundreds of acres of land. An option - that they did not choose. Unlike the barons and King John, the Founding Fathers of the United States fired their opening round with theory. Good theory that quite frankly has never been matched.

As to blacks participating in the fight against the British - try doing a little more reading next time. Every American school child reads of Crispus Attacus. There were Freedmen who fought against the British. Not a lot to be sure. But the denial of the part American blacks played in our history is more typical of the KKK revisionist history. Or - and the CP.

My family history is quite basic to the argument because indeed it my Goddamn legacy - not yours. How's that? Clear enough? Your folks did squat. Mine built the US. From scratch. Cherokee, English Catholics, German settlers - and later marriages pretty much covers the entire ethnic spectrum. Entire. Catholics and Jews were excluded in many instances - which is why the the language of the Declaration is important. It spoke of mankind. AND IT BLOODY WELL MEANT MANKIND. It did not say - except for black female slaves. It did not embrace the Church of England. It did not point out that Catholics were not really who they had in mind when speaking of Mankind. The word "Christian" is NO WHERE mentioned in that document.

This was a document addressed to a higher vision - and the US started out with a goal it has yet to attain. It has never ceased to strive for that goal - and has lead the world in the pursuit of these very lofty goals.

Europe gave the world World War One and World War Two. And the Holocaust. And the GULAG.

It seems the only point in trying to rewrite the Declaration of Independence, is to some how find an excuse for why Europe's contribution to the world after it - was the massive slaughter of the Napoleonic Wars, which had followed the slaughter of the Reign of Terror which resulted from the French Revolution. The Communist Manifesto led directly to Katryn Forest Massacre and Kolyma.

All too human men wrote this magnificent Declaration. They saw beyond their petty lives and gave the world a vision unmatched to this day. Men whose live were hard - because live in the colonies was hard. You seem unable to understand that even wealthy landowners in the colonies had to work for a living - unlike the ruling classes in Great Britain.

The Declaration was NOT PR - and that is a typical sour grapes remark from a European. One day when someone over there actually has a thought that doesn't result in the massacre of men, women and children whose bodies are then tossed in a mass grave - well then maybe you'll understand.

Both sites I linked detailed the issues confronting the Founding Fathers when deciding their course of action in the 1770s. Monday Morning Quarterbacks are a dime a dozen. At the time, however, hard choices had to be made that would decide the eventual fate not only of this nascent country, but of the men and their families who put their name to paper. They chose wisely. The weaknesses you - and every other second rate scholar who needs to publish or perish - detail were dealt with under the eventual Constitution that was drawn up. A record unsurpassed to this day by any other country.

Private letters - and misgivings - really go to the heart of the matter: these men - and in the exclusively masculine - created a document whose like had never been seen and whose equal has yet to be written. They set aside misgivings to create a statement that transcended material concerns and addressed the longs and rights of all mankind - no matter gender, race, economic status or social class.

The fact that the only way second rate scholars can approach this lofty document is to attempt to project the personal worries of its authors onto it, bespeaks not only of the strength of the Declaration of Independence, but of its philosophical purity as well.

One day others may come close to achieving such a universal statement of the worth of mankind. In the meantime, the wannabes are reduced to picking their nits and presenting them to the world as something of value.

Like the primates in a zoo.

[101ABN]

HUA!



And Bravo!

[Husky23]

Same ,Same Lor - I come to the exact same conclusion.

Course you present the case more eloquently than I [Dammit]