Declaration of Independance - has you read this?

[OlympFan]

In the Declaration you read these words: "the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."

Yes, these men were great minds, great patriots, and were obviously thinking of the future.
I just think people need to realize many of them owned slaves, while signing that "all men are created equal."
That alone tells us they didn't really mean all men. Plus, calling the Natives (the rightful people of the land) savages also shows they saw themselves above others.

[son of corb]

Hate to break it to you but the "Indians" were savage and they did not fight according the any rule of warfare. They stunned the English, French, and Spanish with their savage treatment of captives, women, and children. Despite revisionist history, the Spanish, English, and French did nothing that wasn't already done here when they arrived. All of the indigenous peoples even practiced slavery.

Even in those words "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" were originally "life, liberty, and property" in a resolution passed by the 1st Continental Congress. That change was intentional because it would have maintained slavery were it not changed but it was subtle enough that the southern slave owning states would have little reason to argue against it. The compromise was needed or the union and revolution would have folded. It also postponed dealing with the issue until the country was strong enough to get past the British threat. It's an obvious blight on our history, but no doubt but it was a necessary compromise in a turbulent period.

[Ol' Buzzard]

The Patriots (minutemen), many of whom were veterans from the French and Indian War, were not exactly "fighting according to any rule of warfare." Many of them adapted the Indian-style of Guerrilla Warfare. Without these tactics, the Patriots would have have won some of the battles that they won (i.e. Battle of Lexington and Corcord).


(GOD, I LOVE WIKIPEDIA! )

[Ol' Buzzard]

Jul 5, 2008 20:36:42 GMT -6 son of corb said:

Even in those words "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" were originally "life, liberty, and property" in a resolution passed by the 1st Continental Congress.

I think you're thinking of the 2nd Continental Congress.

Also, I think you're jumping the gun. At the Continental Congress (1st and 2nd), I don't think Slavery was an issue just yet. They were all united by the greivances agasint their common enemy, that everything was cast aside. It wasn't until later, with the passage of the Articles of Confederation and the more notably the Constitutional Convention that you really see the emergence of slavery as a main issue. (and then you see those compromises that you mentioned.)

[son of corb]

No. It was a resolution in the 1st Continental Congress. It was adopted and changed in the 2nd. That said. It's good to find someone who has studied a bit.

[son of corb]

The original statement was actually a concept adopted by all English freemen. It was revolutionary in it's own right.

[Ol' Buzzard]

Jul 6, 2008 0:43:20 GMT -6 son of corb said:

No. It was a resolution in the 1st Continental Congress. It was adopted and changed in the 2nd. That said. It's good to find someone who has studied a bit.

I've never heard nor could not find the resolution you speak of.
In any case, I did a quick search of the delegates present @ the 1st Continental Congress and sure enough, Thomas Jefferson was present. (As the borrower of John Lock's concept of unalienable rights) it is possible that what you're saying might be true.

[Lemon_Fresh]

que wowee

you guys are history nuts like me

[Ol' Buzzard]

WIKIPEDIA!

[wp2003]

i'm gonna go edit that stuff right now..........