“All men are created equal,” as advanced in the Declaration of Independence was NOT a grasp at asserting “equality of opportunity,” or “equality of outcome,” as those ideas are advanced today in the name of equality. To read “All men are created equal …” as such is to import our ideas of egalitarianism back upon the Founders. All men created equal merely meant then that all had ontological equality since all were CREATED. In our language today in the Church we might say that all men are equal because all men are the image of God. That the Founders did not believe that all men were equal in the sense of equality of identity is seen later in the Declaration when they can complain about “savages.”
“He (King George III) has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.”
Certainly no one believes that our Founders believed those “savages” they reference were equal to themselves as Englishman in terms of “equality of identity.”
So, I do not agree with those that insist that the Founders had the type of equality in mind that moderns seem to think that they had. That kind of equality was foreign to them and was an import of Enlightenement Romanticism that came in during the Jacksonian rise of the common man and eventually flowered into Transcendentalism which set the Northern Yankee armies marching to pillage, rape and burn under the flag of “French Revolution equality.”
Being a “Founder American” I am against notions of “equality of opportunity” for the simple reason that it intrudes the State into areas it has no business in. How can the State make sure that a McAtee newborn can have the same opportunity that a newborn of Jesse Jackson, or Colin Powell can have? Can’t happen and so the myth of equality of identity as believed by the Enlightenment Americans (and nowhere enshrined in the Declaration of Independence) should be silenced.
It turns out that the “equality” referred to in the Declaration covers a bit of ground, it is not as narrow as you claim it is, and it is not as broad as you claim I think it is. We need to read the Declaration as a kind of mission statement and justification for the revolution already in progress, and as a political document that served to a degree as a memorandum of understanding among the American leadership itself. If equality was defined more narrowly, some of the parties involved in this might not have committed themselves.
Anyway, the two aspects of equality everyone could agree with was equality before the law and God, which was to say that a lot of class distinctions were to be removed from court proceedings, and the accused would stand in the dock without regard to his connections with the existing power structure. This was one of the “inalienable rights” that these people signed on to defend; overall it is a statement of their world view. A number of them say as much, at the same time and later on, and boy, did they pay for it as a group!
It can be argued that the franchise they declared was limited in scope, we can agree that it did not include the “savages”, especially when those “savages” were fighting with the British. They were not interested in extending these rights to slaves, although as a group they wanted to end the slave trade, as much to choke off profits to the British as any other motivation. Surely they were as interested in preserving and extending commercial liberty as personal, because they saw a path to both power and prosperity. They were idealistic enough to invoke Locke and others, but pragmatic enough to walk away from the table if their regional interests were not included.
Some events have taken place since then which have redefined things a bit (a bunch of Amendments, the Civil War, two or more world wars, huge increases in land area and population, immigration, unimagined advances in technology and commerce, etc.), but I do not feel we have changed the spirit very much, and perhaps we can agree that’s a good thing to remember. Whatever franchise was stated and formalized in the Declaration and subsequent documents has been broadened considerably and applied to a much more complex and variated society than these people ever visualized, even though they expected that it could be improved on (to create “a more perfect union”). I feel that few of them would understand or easily accept many aspects of our world.
But that has not prevented each generation from interpreting and expanding upon the original ideas, something Jefferson had in mind and wanted to formalize. This concept of equality has been a big piece on the game-board of history; We can agree that is is important to understand what it really means nowadays. I don’t know exactly what you think I understand it to mean, and I feel that you may be too sure about the meaning.
I feel it is necessary for me to ask you what a “Founder American” is. You don’t have to explain, in fact it might be best if you could refer me and other readers to a website (or sites) where we can read about just what this term means. Narrowly, I can infer that it is a group that believes in a particular definition of words like “equality”, and wishes to keep that definition strictly in tune with what some of the original revolutionaries may have believed it to mean. In that spirit, I am interested in the whole belief system and interpretation of what the American revolution means to Founder Americans.
Now, in practical terms, there cannot be equality when large segments of the population are faced with serious disadvantages that they cannot fix, and that non-governmental agency will not fix. Here’s a regional example:
In the 1920’s and 1930’s it was clear that the Pacific Northwest could become a gold mine and economic powerhouse, but it was lacking something important in order to modernize: Reliable and inexpensive electric power. The power companies in the region were not interested in a regional development plan, even though it would make each of them more secure and increase their value to shareholders. At the same time, farmers in the region were suffering due to lack of water, while periodic flooding inundated the land and killed many people, while property was devalued or destroyed.
Eventually, the Federal Government stepped in and invested billions in dams and related river management projects, which prevented most flooding and reduced the flooding that took place in the aftermath of their construction, while providing farmers in the region with plenty of cheap irrigation water for farmers. The system has paid for itself, plus interest and more by selling the hydropower from the dams, and the environment has been preserved to a great degree; salmon fishing and other activities are as plentiful in the Columbia river basin today as they ever were, and the region is economically resilient and prosperous. Oh yes, and the power companies are doing quite well, by the way, buying power from the system and using it to transmit the energy they produce as well. Is everything perfect? Not exactly, but the stakeholders work together to ensure the best possible outcome for the region overall.
The Constitutional and Legal underpinnings of this effort are very clear and well-defined, and it gives the people in the region advantages, largely placing them on par with other regions, that they otherwise would not have. They enjoy the practical benefit of a better life and liberty as a result, even if no outcome is guaranteed for them. Is this opposed as well?
“In fact official American belief regards the Declaration of Independence as the beginning of an endless process of active movement toward an ever more egalitarian and universalist society. This is because of the intervention between us and the Founding Fathers of that sea-change in the thinking of men that is summed up in the term ‘the French Revolution.”
Dr. Clyde N. Wilson
From Union To Empire
Wilson’s thesis is that American Nationalism has undergone a series of transmutations, the degree of which, has left the successive American Nationalism incomprehensible to the previous American Nationalism. Wilson suggests that the taking of the Declaration of Independence as a document that insures a endless process of active movement toward an ever more egalitarian and universalist society, is the consequence of the second American Nationalism, as crafted by the French Revolution and birthed in America through the war of Northern Aggression. Wilson seems to suggest that the American commitment to the idea that all men are created equal with certain inalienable rights was a far different stripe from the French Revolution egalitarianism that came to be eventually accepted in the American Nationalism that was successive to the form of Nationalism of the Founding Fathers. It would seem that the difference between these two competing notions of equality is the difference between the older belief that men are equal in respect to the application of law and the newer belief that men should be equal in opportunity and outcome.
Wilson goes on to note that there was another American Nationalism that was propelled during the Progressive era and consolidated during the after WW II.
“During and after WWII American society for the third time made a perilous leap into the cauldron of history, boiling down its existing consensus in the optimistic prospect of molding itself into a newer and more daring form. The Civil Rights revolution and a revolutionary alteration of the immigration laws were simultaneously undertaken in the 1960′s. It was as if the Melting pot, having proven itself able to boil down all of Europe, was now to test its capacity to do the same for the whole world.”
The question that Wilson raises is whether or not such a stripped down American Nationalism that is posited only upon unitarian notions of egalitarianism provides enough ingredients in order to make a cultural glue by which a culture may find cohesion.
In a culture where there exist no communitarian mystic chords of memory that includes either a shared ethnicity, a shared literature, a shared music, a shared religion, a shared history, or a shared language there exists nothing that can bind a people together except a shared prosperity. The question that begs being asked is whether or not a nation can stay together when national prosperity turns to national adversity except by brute force as used by the State.
One can easily conclude given Wilson’ taxonomy that America as America no longer exists. Following Wilson we might say America died a slow death in 1861-1865 with the War against the Constitution. In 1913 the American coffin was nailed shut with Banksters achievement of the Centralized Bank. Finally, America’s burial was in 1964 with the work of the minions of the Banksters passing the Javits inspired Immigration act. What we see happening in America now with the disharmony of interests is merely the legitimate children and the cultural Marxist bastards fighting over the estate.
Conservatives know this, but refuse to admit it; the Cultural Marxists know it, and every evening on the Cultural Marxist media outlets are proclaiming it loud and clear. Unfortunately, the name “America” will not go away, and neither will the Constitution, because liberals and Marxists will always appeal to these for legitimacy. They covet the prestige by association, but have not a particle of the pedigree. The Frankfurt School is the perfect example. Very good people labored to establish America’s most honorable institutions, traditions, and customs. They built the buildings, endowed the trusts, and nurtured the culture. Once that very hard work was done, the Marxist Frankfurt cowbirds flew in and laid their eggs, always claiming to be the faithful philosophical heirs of the founders and the progressive realization of their ideals. Now, to take up the mantle of a “Original American” and remind the Christ hating Cultural Marxists and everyone else that they are impostors, frauds, and hoaxers is to bring down upon oneself an onslaught of venom, vengeance, hatred – the very intolerance the imposters attribute to and vilify in anyone who dares tell the truth.
Just one more testimony proving that the last vestiges of Christian Western civilization–which has been dying for decade upon decade–are gone from America. The leaves have all fallen, autumn is over and winter is here. Not only have we left the house of the Christian God who alone is our source of strength and where alone we have protection, but we have forgotten the way home.
Robert,
I do not believe many of the amendments you cite were constitutionally passed and therefore I do not hold them to be part of the Constitution.
And neither do Founder Americans.
And I do not even come close to agreeing w/ your analysis of the benefit of Statist work projects.
Finally, where equality is prioritized, liberty will always be that much diminished. The two can not co-exist together w/o redefining one or the other.
simple me always thought created equal just meant equally depraved. Unless your name be written in the book of life, you are doomed to this lower class forever. The only difference in the elect and reprobate is the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. From an egalitarian standpoint there are two classes of people according to the scriptures. And they are no where close to equal. One dead one alive. Thats very unequal.
hmmmm…. where to start….
I’ll quote you and then ask some questions.
“I do not believe many of the amendments you cite were constitutionally passed and therefore I do not hold them to be part of the Constitution.”
I believe you have the entire Federal judiciary against you in this regard, not just those who site now, but the great majority of those who have been on the bench since the dawn of the Republic.
But that’s not a question, merely an observation. My questions are:
Which Amendments are you referring to?
Why do you not consider them to have been constitutionally passed?
“And neither do Founder Americans.”
So are you a “Founder American” or only an ally of those who are?
Where can I find out more about them?
“And I do not even come close to agreeing w/ your analysis of the benefit of Statist work projects.”
That’s fine. What is your point of view and analysis of the example?
“Finally, where equality is prioritized, liberty will always be that much diminished. The two can not co-exist together w/o redefining one or the other.”
Can you explain this? I do not quite understand what this means. Honestly, at best, it is ambiguous. You don’t have to write something out if you can refer me to a source that explains this clearly.
Robert,
Your #1 Statement — One does not come to truth by counting noses. Not even Federal judiciary noses.
Amendments referred to that are not Constitutional,
http://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm
http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/
http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/seventeenth.aspx
Your question about Founder Americans was already answered in the quote from Clyde Wilson. There have been three Americas. The first of those three would be the founder America.
In terms of the problem of Statist Work projects I would recommend you to the very short book entitled, “Economics In One Lesson,” by Henry Hazlitt.
Here are some very good videos that discuss the book and so would give my general point of view and analysis.
http://www.cosmolearning.com/courses/economics-in-one-lesson/video-lectures/
In terms of the relation between equality and liberty see,
http://mises.org/document/3092
http://mises.org/daily/804