Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (15503)	1/4/2002 3:28:49 AM
From: Snowshoe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

excuse me for giggling at the pretentiousness and wacky ideas of the founding idea. Maurice, The words are beautiful and you should not be poking fun at them. Ultimately, these words helped free the slaves. You may not be aware of it, but a significant number of Americans were resolutely opposed to slavery and pointed out this hypocrisy from the beginning... 1783 Quaker Anti-Slavery Petition to the United States Congress rootsweb.com P.S. I discovered this because one of the signers appears to be an ancestor of mine.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (15503)	1/4/2002 6:24:26 AM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 281500

Mq - at the time the Constitution was adopted, not all white men could vote, either, but when the founders said that they were all endowed by their Creator with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, they did not mean voting. One of the great stories of the early 19th century was the adoption, state by state, of universal suffrage for all white men. Then attention was turned towards freeing the slaves, in the mid-to-late nineteenth century, and then to giving women the vote, in the early 20th century. The Constitution served as inspiration, as something that poor, landless white men could point to, and then blacks, and then women. People don't always live up to their ideals, but that doesn't make the ideals wrong.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (15503)	1/4/2002 12:44:58 PM
From: Uncle Frank	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>> And aren't they inalienable rights rather than unalienable? No, my dictionary confirms that both are acceptable. Keep in mind that the bright folks who penned the Declaration of Independence lived in the 1700s, and that the the English language has changed a bit in the ensuing 250 years. If we drop back a few centuries earlier, written English is virtually uncomprehensible, though the sentiments they portray still hold true. The firste vertue, sone, if thou wilt lere, Is to restreine and kepen wel thy tonge. uf