Alexandria advertiser and commercial intelligencer. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1800-1803, 1803-09-12

Of Rights thcmieiyes ARIES the wno n, suu
Of conpuldons and rcariStlons. Clod'us
,akrs fancy to wear the back part Of
his,pantaloons foremoif, TO dfefs ike MIR.
Punch in the pupet lilow, with his eoa'
next his body and his fhirt outiide. his
Is matter Of total indifference. 10 tociety;
and therefore he has right to exerclie
his difcretion bur il Clodius takes
fancy to go naked aud inaalges it BY
walking into the ffreets in paris natura-
Hbus, the magiaraes will ihcw him thai
he has no right 10 indulge himtclf by OF
feuding Others, and will puniih hin TOR
doing 70. :,
A. 3. and C. are born into the world
with equal advantages and disadvantages
Of fortune. But the natural inequality
with which they come into it, gives a.
SO decisive an advantage over B. and 6.
that he is in high respect and influence
while they are in poverty and contempt.
Nature which gave them unequal powers
has rendered them completely unequal, IN
every thing. Would our democratic mn
yal,as by an agrarian sweep rob A. OF two
thirds of bis right to equalize him with
b. and C.-they would ROB him but
could they make him equal impossible !
So far it is from being true, that men
are all created equal, that We see the me,
qualisies of fortune, and rank, and long
concentrated power, superseded by the IN
equalities Of nature. How often do we
see the superior natural talents OF men
bearing down every obstruction, and
marching from the very lowest to the
highest statlons in life on the other
hand, inferiority Of haturai powers sinking
wealth and prize to the kennel. Had
they beer created equal, the Duke OF
! RICHMOND would not have had il in his
power to taunt Lord THURLow with the
insinuation s. that new made Lords, the
| offspring of the peasantly, took more up
| on them than old Peers - nor would
| THuRLow have been able TO retort.
that it he (the Duke OF richmond
| had been born peasant he would have
| remained a peasant to the end OF his
| life But is it fair for any writer to
quote passage in sense different from
| that in which the original authors meant
it; when that body, very justly styled
ilIustrious made the Declaration or hide
pendence, they were speaking of the rights
| of two nations, or associations, not of the
individuals of either. The whole decla.
| ration refers to England in bulk, and A.
merica in bulk, as separate communities,
having equal rights they did not mean
that Peter Pig and Edward Elephant
were created equal, but that the commu
| nifty called Alnerica, was equal to that
called England. 1t is uncandid to wress
| it from that sense; and the superstruc-
ture raised upon that uncandid quotation
is worse.
When they are talking then Of natural
rights, and natural equality, or any equa-
lily but that Of which the laws Of fociety,
founded on natural juliice, neatare out,
| il may at leaf be fufpeaed tina, they do
| not believe themfelyes. Men have form
| ed fociety only for mutual fafe,y, advan-
| vantage and happineis Whatever is con.
neefed with, or conduces TO this Object,
! becomes the right Of all, and the duty Of
! all; and the enjoymen, Of thofe rights is
| fenced in, and the performance Of that
! duty enforced under pains and penalties
| by human laws. In lhort, the rights of
one man cannot cIah with or be dsiruc-
tive Of the rights Of another if they DO
they cannot be rights. This is the length
70 which the doctrine of the rights Of man
would go--and this is what its advocates
aim at--namely, to reduce that plain,
obvious, iimple, yet important fabric OF
truth and morality, now laid down, 70
heap Of unintcIllgiblc jargon and incon-
!ittency. But thoie men ought TO fehett,
that before they Unfit upon it that man