The labor journal. [volume] (Everett, Wash.) 1909-1976, 1915-07-02
BORN FREE AND
EOUAL"-TO WHAT?

/
Long after the Declaration of indie
pendence," class distinctions in Am
erica were as glazing as ever, and the
mass of working people were politi-
caIly either disqualified or entirely
DISTINGUISHED
There was not a workingman in
any of the legislative bodies of the
thirteen colonies. The fifty-one men
who assembled in Philadelphia in
1776 to agree on a common proclaim
alton to the American people, were
all gentlemen" Not one working
man signed the Declaration of indie
pendence. There were at that time
about two million inhabitants in the
colonies, but only a few thousand
gentlemen" started all the fuss that
led to the revolution.
How was it possible that these gen
tlemen, proud of their social privi-
leges and not in the least inclined to
| give them up, should declare that
'all men are born equal?" What
did they mean when they wrote that,
or did they mean anything at all by
it? Was it, perhaps, simply one of
those misleading phrases with which
politicians are so liberal whenever
they need the working people to pull
the chestnuts out of the fire for them?
Just think that phrase over a lit
| tie. In what respect are all men
born equal? Are they born physical
ly and Intellectually equal? No one
is silly enough to believe that? Are
they born economically equal? We
have seen that they were not so in
colonial days, and we know that they
are not today. Are they born so
cially equal? 1t would be absurd
to thing of any social equality with
out economic equality. Were they
born politically equal? Not at all.
Great masses of working people were
politically disfranchised in colonial
days, just as they are in this 'glo-
rious republic" today. The signers
of the Declaration Of Independence
did not have the least desire to give
them equal political rights with
gentlemen" Of course the entire
female sex was barred from politics.
They did nothing, absolutely moth
ing, to back up their paper declara-
ton by deeds. On the contrary, they
did everything in their power to keep
men in inequality. Not only did they
perpetuate and secure the privileges
of the gentlemen, but they also took
strong measures to prevent the work
ing people from interpreting the De
claration of independence too liter
ally"
! Washington Land-Grabber.
incidentally it may be remarked at
this point that the gentlemanly heroes
of the American revolution were by
no means such paragons OF virtue as
the historians painted them, Wash
ington, the man who could not tell a
lie, had stolen about 10000 acres OF
| land from the English government
while he worked as a government sur
veyor. And when his possession was
endangered by the Quebec Act" he
sent another gentleman, Benjamin
I So, H. ,-,-
of squaring thing by seeing certain
government officials. This certainly
shows considerable business ability
on the part of Washington, and man
who could steal in this business-like
manner must have also possessed that
other indispensable qualification for
! business success, an ability for lying
From the point of view Of the bust
ness class, Washington may have been
an ideal gentleman, and when they
nominated him for president, they evil
IDENTIFY knew what they were doing
But from the standpoint of working
men he was a shrewd and calculating
exploiter. He tried to import Ger
mans from the Palatine to work on
his lands, but the conditions which
he imposed on them were so hard that
even those German farmers, who
were accustomed to oppression, refus-
ed to go to America and work for the
Father of Our Country"
Jefferson's Democracy.
Jefferson was a typical southern
gentlemen of the most aristocratic
/ tastes and habits. His democracy
was of the kind that stood on the
shoulders of the disfranchised whites
and slaves He was as INSCRIPTIONS
a laAd-grabber as Washington, Frank
/ lin Hamilton and the other gentle
men. John Hancock was to have been