By all men, they meant all free men, for starters.

That issue actually did come up, as the seeds of the abolitionist movement were germinating when that declaration was signed.  The founding fathers decided not to tackle it for many reasons.  Keep in mind that in the early days there was no effective central leadership.  The continental congress couldn't even collect taxes, and had to beg for money from the individual states under the articles of confederation.  It was essential that the colonies were united during the war, and the issue of slavery would have most certainly divided them.  This division would have been the end of the revolution.  It would have certainly failed.  It was decided that the issue would be left to future generations, hopefully in a country established enough to survive a civil conflict.

It's a difficult issue.  If we'd have lost the war, it's likely that slavery would have ended long before 1865.  We'd have probably been made part of Canada when it became a commonwealth of Britain, and racism wouldn't be as big of an issue today.  I often wonder how different our society would be if we lost the revolutionary war.

Racism is a direct result of northern aggression and economic conditions during "reconstruction."

If the Confederacy had won the War of Northern Aggression, I contend that slavery would have ended on its own as it had slowly in the northern states, and there would have been little of the venom that fed the racial hate machine later on.

Your premise is wrong, so your conclusion is invalid.

 

Racism existed long before the United States or the Civil War.

I meant the specific case of large scale racial violence between former slaves and poor whites who had no reason to hate them, and were pretty much manipulated into it in a similar fashion to Hitler feeding anti-Semetic opinions in Germany.

But it's all speculation, so it doesn't matter.

uh huh. *raises eyebrow*

That's probably the first time I've ever heard someone say that "if the south had won the Civil War slavery and racism would have ended on its' own"...of course, you didn't say 'Civil War', and thus substituted 'War of Northern Aggression' which means you're not too far removed from {random racists hick from Mississippi}...

Your premise is completely lacking. Reconstruction as it was originally planned by Lincoln was actually full of promise. His assassination by Booth sealed the deal to the course that it actually took - but in reality it actually did wonders through the first part of its' tenure when it had northern federal troop backing (freedman voted, republican legislatures established public school systems, and Mississippi actually elected 2 black senators during this time period (Hiram Revels and Blanche Bruce)...

It wasn't until Hayes pulled out the troops and support was lost for the financial cost (during an economic downturn and subsequent renewed feeling of ethnocentrism during the large scale immigration frenzy) that support was lost in the north to continue the progress.

So, in reality, you are completely backwards. If the north had forced the south to become educated and not allow elements like the Klan to run amuk (you sure you're not a member?) then the entire element of the racial divide would be a non-issue. To actually think that somehow the rural hick south would just magically abolish slavery and racial divides (without any truth except your own warped reasoning) is preposterous. Lets not forget, this is the same south that actually went through a coup d'etat is Wilmington, NC, where whites dragged the blacks in government out into the streets and killed them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmington_Insurrection_of_1898

It didn't say it would just magically happen.

For the most part, oxen and horses for pulling plows have been replaced by tractors, and you don't see us organizing into hooded racial cults to lynch the outdated tillage equipment, or burn crosses over it.  Likewise, if slavery had been allowed to run its natural course to obsolescence, there would have been little reason for the bigotry to extend outward to the degree it did.  I am not saying that the world would be wonderful and covered in daisies if the South had won their war of independence, but I am saying that the common view of the Civil War's causes, motivation of the politicians, officers, and soldiers, and ultimately the inherent "goodness" of its fated(There was slim chance that the South could fight the commercial-industrial pre-fascists of the Union with an army of farmers who couldn't even get their hands on shoes.) conclusion.

In any case, it was as Marcus Lucanus wrote.

Victrix causa diis placuit sed victa Catoni

Ultimately, we can't change the past, so we'll never know.

And for the record, I'm not a Klansman.  I'm a redneck, no doubt about it, and damn proud, but I'm not particularly racist or sexist or any of those nasty "ist" words that people like to whine about.  I am proud that a few thousand men from my state crossed the line and fought under the Dixie flag, though!

I agree, slavery would have ended on its own in the US had the south won, but it would have ended much, much later than 1865 and would have been a result of farm mechanization and international pressure. 

Also, keep in mind that it wasn't slavery that is responsible for the conditions of the poor black inner city, it is the decades of racist laws that prevented black families from generating wealth to pass on to future generations.  If you think about the rich in this country, how many of the wealthiest are self-made?  There's a few, but there are a lot more who inherited money from their families.  In my opinion, slavery didn't truly end until the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964.

More or less agreed, with one important caveat:  Slavery has not ended, merely changed its face.  Much like many of the first European immigrants to the continent, tens of millions of Americans are indentured servants, economic slaves to transnational corporations.  We never freed the slaves, we only created provisions for far more Americans to be enslaved in a more representative fashion.

You don't think that any resentment would have existed between races if the Confederacy had won?

Not in the viral form that persisted and fueled organizations like the Klan.  Of course there would have been resentment between certain groups, but what reason did the common southern man have for hating blacks?  The men who fought for the Confederacy, for the most part, were poor farmers who had never seen a slave up close, and definitely couldn't have afforded one.  Many officers held opinions, though not terribly public, that slavery would and should end.  The reverse of that is that Grant kept his slaves until after the end of the war.

 They didn't lack the concept, nor terminology... and they were well aware of the stain of slavery at the time... So, if they meant free men, then why not say free men?

It has to have been implied.  To specify free men would have meant making void the overall sentiment of the letter.  If only free men are entitled to their rights, the argument could be made that colonial subjects are not necessarily entitled to be free men.

And for them to have literally meant all men, the documents themselves would be terribly hypocritical.

Therefore, the letters spell out all men, but the spirit of the document is addressed to free men.

Of course, it was primarily a condemnation of hereditary privilege, not specifically personal freedoms.

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." - Animal Farm, George Orwell

How this for a starting point for your answer?

The men themselves, when they wrote the words all those years ago, did not intend them to be carved in stone and worshiped like a sacred ancient text. They (mistakenly) expected future generations would have the foresight and courage completely rewrite it if necessary. I guess all you really need to do is remove the 'un' and it's all fixed.

Oh... as for our resident expert on racism. Perhaps she can enlighten us as to when exactly it did first appear in human history. ?

Otherwise... commenters show an interesting array of historical-revisionism, conjecture and well needed levity!

" Perhaps she can enlighten us as to when exactly it did first appear in human history. ?"

I'm pretty sure racism is older than human history.

It's at least older than the Civil War! LOL!

I disagree. We're talking about what our founding fathers considered to be truth. I can agree with you about the Constitution being such a document that wasn't supposed to be a sacred text, nor carved in stone. Very well known historic figures had their doubts about the Constitution, and thought it would merely do till something better came along.

I've got some conjecture about the beginnings of racism... I'd say it started when the first group of people met another group of people they could consider inferior... which would have been a very long time ago. In india, for example... their Caste system has been around since 1500 b.c... and it has to do with skin color. No doubt this isn't the first time such discrimination appeared.

And if it wasn't technically racism, it was ethnocentrism, or some other form of discrimination, such as Greeks vs. Non-Greeks (Barbarians).

But racism as we think of it probably did start with the modern slave trade, and that means around 1600 with the British Empire.

"But racism as we think of it probably did start with the modern slave trade, and that means around 1600 with the British Empire."

Anti-semitism dates back to the early middle-ages.

Antisemitism is more than just race discrimination, but ethnic and religious discrimination as well...  I don't see it as the root of racism as we think of it in the United States, in fact, I'd say it was largely religious and picked up race and ethnic discrimination as a result. That is hard to say for certain, though.

Well when you put it that way, I agree that the American "white power" racism had its start in the 1600s when the European nations began conquering primitive tribes in East Asia, Africa, and America. 

There's a difference between conquest and racism, though in this context, neither term justifies primitive biological warfare and mass oppression and enslavement of entire civilizations.

When all people are viewed as equals, it is much harder to wage wars, oppress, and enslave.

When all people are viewed as equals, and all view eachother as equals, we'll all have entered a vegetative state.

There is no way any sane, thinking individual can believe that all men are created equal.  Look around.  There are a lot of unproductive idiots running around.  The enlightenment comes in acknowledging that someone's worth is not hereditary, and does not depend on such superficial things as skin color.

The enlightenment comes in acknowledging that someone's worth is not hereditary, and does not depend on such superficial things as skin color.

 

Prejudice is superficial.  Imperialism and conquoring nations happens because a group of people feel another group of people aren't as important as they are because of whatever superficial reason they come up with. Attrocities against a group of people doesn't happen without some type of prejudice. Oppression doesn't happen without a group of people believing they are better than another. Jesse is absolutely correct. The fact that some people are unproductive idiots has nothing to do with the attrocities committed against a group of people.

My last comment was only addressing the fact that few, if any of us are equal.

As for one group believing anything, including their own superiority, if that many people can agree on it, it's generally wrong.

We are equal in God's eyes. (If you believe in Him).

 

 

Even that's questionable within a Biblical or doctrinal course of pursuit.  As soon as the Church/church or Bible say someone or something is blessed, is not the blessed thing greater than the unblessed?

Of course, it's moot.  I go to a United Methodist church because the women there can cook!  And because that's where my mother plays piano and directs choir, so I can get a free ride(carpooling to church is the way to do it!)... But for the most part, I'm a Deist in Christian clothing.  I can't help but agree with Jefferson's comments on religion when I read his letters.  I also like the way Gandhi thought.  Don't try and convert people from one religion to yours, but instead pray that they may better believe in and follow that faith which they already have.  It's a beautiful thought, especially because it came from a very religious man.  I believe nature is a far superior cathedral to God than any created by man, and that's where I do most of my worshiping(though at present there's something wrong with the plumbing in the sanctuary, there's cold water everywhere and nowhere dry to sit!).  The most important teaching of most religions and belief systems is fairly universal, and that is the ethic of reciprocity.  Other common factors create a good basis for saying that there is a core set of moral values within human society, independent of personal beliefs, and that is the law of Nature's God.

Of course, since I'm fairly agnostic, I can't speak for God, so I can't say whether or not we are equal in God's eyes.

So, to make a long (winded) story short? 

Is one skill that I admittedly do not have!

"As for one group believing anything, including their own superiority, if that many people can agree on it, it's generally wrong."

Sounds like the premise for Ben Stien's "Expelled" haha.

Unity is always scary.  But that premise also contradicts Intelligent Design.  If that many people can believe that God created the world in a week and had time to play golf, they're probably wrong, too.

I think we're all wrong.

But what good does that do?

All threads of comment around here, as par for the course on the internet, have evolved into nothingness.  The reason there are so many people in the world who feel like nothing matters is because as long as different minds approach something, there are that many different perspectives, and if there isn't a different perspective for each person who looks at something, then the ones with the same view obviously aren't thinking!

I think he was right when he said the survival value of intelligence has yet to be proven...

If you can't label a group and associate that label with something negative or inferior... you can't dehumanize and mistreat a group wholesale. No atrocity ever took place without first labeling and dehumanizing a group of people first.

No war could take place if instead of calling a group our enemies, terrorists, evil doers... we instead called them our brothers and sisters, or our fellow human beings, or mothers and fathers.... I mean.... who signs up for that? No, they want to go get the bad guy and think they are justified in it. We always need fall guys and bad guys....

There is no reasonable human being who can't recognize that. There are, however, many unreasonable human beings.

Oddly enough, people labeled as idiots have been the target of much oppression. "ah they're stupid, but they'd make fine slaves!" The first visitors to America noted. "Ah, they don't need this land as much as civilized people like ourselves do!" every imperialist/conquerer thought.

Saying without groups there would be no war, which is basically where your first two paragraphs lead, is pretty much moot.  It's human nature to form groups.  We were called city beasts by the ancient Greeks for that very reason.

To deny those characteristics is to deny our humanity.

It's too bad our current government doesn't seem to care what the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution say!