Tweet
Originally posted by molly bloom
Yet obviously they weren't- since the American Supreme Court could decide that 'negroes' weren't men, and neither, fairly obviously, were women.
The idea of 'all men' being 'created equal' leaves a lot of room for definition as to who or what is a man- and in fact it was declaration made in an age when classification by 'race' was being given a spurious scientific background.
You'll note as well that one signatory of the Declaration of Indpendence certainly wasn't equal to the others- Charles Carroll, being Roman Catholic, didn't have the franchise:
Yet obviously they weren't- since the American Supreme Court could decide that 'negroes' weren't men, and neither, fairly obviously, were women.
The idea of 'all men' being 'created equal' leaves a lot of room for definition as to who or what is a man- and in fact it was declaration made in an age when classification by 'race' was being given a spurious scientific background.
You'll note as well that one signatory of the Declaration of Indpendence certainly wasn't equal to the others- Charles Carroll, being Roman Catholic, didn't have the franchise:
As for what happened in the 19th century, your point? since the innovations are of the last 250 years inclusive of any modifications/refinements made in the intervening years.
If I wasn't clear please address the above or continue to illuminate the subject with as many nonsequitors as possible as you see fit.
Comment