4 ms·

Also, "all men" is referring specifically to white males, since at the time women were not treated equally and, you know, they had slavery back then. It's impo

Also, "all men" is referring specifically to white males, since at the time women were not treated equally and, you know, they had slavery back then. It's important to keep in mind the spirit of these historical documents and how that spirit can be applied today, but it's also important to remember that these are imperfect documents from an imperfect time and that they can't be treated as gospel. Even the founding fathers believed that, which is why they built in mechanisms for updating the Constitution.

kbenson 10y ago
> Also, "all men" is referring specifically to white males, since at the time women were not treated equally and, you know, they had slavery back then. Different people involved with the writing of that document had different ideas, and there were many drafts, and it was a creation of compromise. That it was left as open as it was, when prior revisions had specific clauses critical of the slave trade removed[1], is a testament to how contentious it was. That it was still used as later evidence for the abolition of slavery is to the credit of those that fought for a more inclusive wording. That it didn't include specific reference to women... well yeah, that sucks, but at least you can argue later that "man" was meant in the sense of (or should be interpreted as) "humanity". 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_men_are_created_equal#Slavery_and_the_phrase https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_men_are_created_equal#Slav...