Indiana State sentinel. (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1862-03-31
EauaIify.

In what sense did Thomas Jefferson declare
and the Congress of '76 unanimously resolve that
"All men are created equal?" If he meant that
all were equal in wit or wisdom, sense or intel
gence thrift or prudence, he asserted manifest
le If he declared all equal in size or stature
strength or Skill science learning, he affirmed
what every ene's experience will emphatically
contradict. But jefferson and that Congress ut
tered only weighty and practical truth. They
never meant to assert that black skin was as
desirable white one, not even that blacks as
race were as wise, as effective, as provident as
whites. They meant precisely this: In spite of
all diversities of race, color, culture, sex. wisdom,
virtue, strength skill efficiency, each adult hu-
man being is endowed by his Creator with the
free and full enjoyment and use of his o Sn limbs
and faculties, intellect and judgment, so than no
one is by nature subject serf or slave of another,
and can only by crime forfeit his equal right to
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Such
is the real doctrine of Jefferson and the fathers
doctrine which they hoped to see universally re-
duced to practice through the ultimate infiuen-
ences of the revolution they inaugurated.-N. Y.
Tribune.
The above, from the Tribune, is a strange in
stance of the approximation which may be made
to truth without actually reaching it. 1t is I'M
questionaby true that the declaration was not in
tended to imply either physical or mental equai-
ty, nor that black skin was as beautiful as
white By what authority does any one profess
TO say that the declaration had any special refer
ence to the condition of slavery, then existing in
the country. If we confne the forced interpreta-
ton of the Tribune to the words "by nature - and
the implied consequences of such limitation,
it might indeed appear that the fathers intended
TO say that by nature men could not be slaves,
although by circumstances the relation might
be brought about, and then become legally and
morally correct. The nation was a slaveholding
nation at the date of the declaration, and nothing
be clearer than the fact that the trainers of the
instrument did not intend to include the slaves of
America in any of the privileges which they claim
ed in their statement of grievances against the
British Crown is there anything to intimate that
they intended to say, as our contemporary asserts,
that adult human being only by crime for
felt his equal right to life liberty and the pur
suit of happinessY' Surely not; for we at once re-
call score Of cases in which they could not have
inteaded such an idea. They did not intend that
a man of twenty years old was entitled to liberty
! in equality with a man of twenty one, They did
not intend that an Indian of this country was en-
ttl,d TO enjoy the pursuit of happiness in his own
way freely white citizen. They did not
intend that a slave of Mr. Jefferson was entitled
equally with Mr.. Jefferson to representation in
the Congress OF the Colonies. No one win con-
tend that any of these. or many other cases, were
within the operation OF the "gtte1ing generality"
which is arbitrarily Interpreted to admit of but
one exception, and that case of crime.
The intent OF the wise men who thus stated
their views, was not to declare any general truth
in morals or in religion which should have a
sounding ring and be destitute of practical
truth They were not preaching, nor teaching,
nor making an grafton, nor editing paper
And this consideration lies at the bottom of
all the misunderstanding of their sentiments.
They we're not declaring all the principles
i mi
were cutting loose the existing governments in
America, from the sovereignty which up to that
moment had been acknowledged in the crown of
England, and in doing so they had no intestion
to overthrow any of the principles of established
law which were Their. recognized in the American
colonies Their entire declaration was intended
TO be taken as subject to the existing principles
of law which regulated the relations OF man TO
man. Life was an inalenable right, subject to
law. Liberty was right then, as now, of com
lparative Specification, and the liberty which they
decls red inalienabe was the liberty which result
ed from and was regulated by wholesome law,
and which was by no means uniforms among men.
The pursuit of happiness was right which like
liberty existed only az subject to the restraints of
law, aud il WAS not intended to declare that any
man had a right to pursue 1t in any manner for
hidden by existing law.
The intention of the declaration was to state
the rights which every man had, in his own
place and position, and TO suppose that there was
any design 10 overthrow the relations then exist
ING among men, the relations established by law
and custom which had grown to be law, would be
70 suppose that instead of the founders OF a gov
enment the Congress then assembled were the
apostles Of anarchy, designing 70 aproot the
foundations of society.
i To adopt our cotemporary's Interpretation
would be equivalent to supposng that Mr.. Jeffer-
eon infondcxI tn oo home lrotn Cunorps5 and re-.