Year: 1862

The Louisville Democrat thus combats the
Abolition idea of the equality of men as stated in
the Declaration of Independence:


"AlI men are created free and equal " What
did the authors of the Declaration of Indepen-
dence mean by this declaration? We NAV take
it for granted that they didn't mean that individ
ual men were equal physically or mentally, or
that all races of men were equal in physical or
intellectual endowments. We may take il for
granted, too, that they did not mean to stultify
themselves before all mankind, by asserting that
their negro slaves were free and equal to them
selves, or we're entitled to the same freedom and
equality. If they meant that believed and as
serted il, then they stand the most self-con-
demned body of men in all history.


What they did mean, their condition and cir
cumstances show plainly enough. They met to
assert their right to govern themselves and to
deny the right OF Great Britain to govern them.
The English Government that claimed their al
legiance was founded on hereditary rights The
sovereign was born with the right to rule The
House of Lords was hereditary in its claims of
power in the legislative department of the Gov
eminent The whole of the Governments of the
world at that day were built upon slender foun-
datiOn.


right to rule derived from birth; it defed the
whole system of such Government King George
4 Co. have no more right to rule than we have
One class of men are not born with boots and
spurs to ride the rest. This was about the mean
ing of Jefferson and compeers; and they meant
no more.


This meaning suited them. their condition and
circumstances, and the great purpose in hand. To
carry the meaning :urthsr does not accord W ith
the opinions or practices of the men who made
the Declaration of Independence.


Tho States all oxcant onQ uo-hana racoOni-
zed African slavery when the Declaration of In
dependence signed, although a msjority who
signed it were anti slavery men. If they had un-
derstOOd the Declaration 10 be directed against
the institution of African slavery, it would not
have been signed by majority of the Conven-
ton, if at all. No one will suppose that the
men of sexenty-six intended to raise the slavery
question; il is, therefore, absurd to quote their
Declaration, and apply it as they evidently did
not intend to apply II.


The men of seventy-six understood this mat
ter of government and the constitution of society
well as any men that ever lived. They knew
that the white man, the negro, and the Indian
would never hive upon a condition of equality in
the same community, upon the sane soil. They
all saw the necessity of African slavery at the
time. None proposed to abolish it Immediately,
although they were desirous of some plan to get
rid of what they held to be an evil-that is, they
NaDteu 70 get Fiu OF the negro race I'D cOmmuni-
ties of white men. 1t was not, however, because
African slavery was inconsistent with the declar-
alton we have quoted. They had made good
that declaration, as far as they meantit- Subse-
quently they made Federal Constitution for
more perfect Union, and recognized slavery in
the States where il existed; and the most anti
slavery amongst them never thought of quoting
the Declaration of Independence to show that
they must, to carry it out, abolish slavery.


Such men Washington. jefferson, Hamilton
and others would have been amused at the sug-
gestiOn of freeing all the slaves without the con
sent of the States They would have compre
hended its preposterousness in all its length and
breadth at glance. Even with the consent of
the States, they would have stood appalled, at the
task of colonizing four millions of negroes. No
statesmen Of the world ever undertook to accom-
plish such an undertaking. They would say at
once, let Divine Providence do that, il it is to be
done: il is out of mans reach.