# A quote from the Declaration of Independence.. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 30, 2000, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-quote-from-the-declaration-of-independence/20878 "2000-05-30T13:15:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Danielinthewolvesden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ce7236/32.png) [@Danielinthewolvesden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Danielinthewolvesden)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2000, 8:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-quote-from-the-declaration-of-independence/20878/21 "2000-05-31T08:00:23Z")
Water: don’t matter what brits thought, they lost. But, according to the USA, that was our legal separation, so it was a legal doc., no more taxes sent to GB, etc. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Apollyon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/apollyon/32/4238_2.png) [@Apollyon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apollyon)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2000, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-quote-from-the-declaration-of-independence/20878/22 "2000-06-01T00:49:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* > All this is true, but replace “children” with “slaves” and “mentally ill” with “women” and see how bigoted and quaint you sound! > \*\* Yeee-ouch! > [@](#): > > \*\* > Logically speaking, of course, it is entirely possible that “children” and “mentally ill people” constitute categories of people who genuinely and truly should NOT have have equal standing in all respects before the law… > \*\* Perhaps I can clarify what I meant. There is a difference between Protection and Oppression. Children (and certain other groups, usually those suffering significant mental illness or disability) are given special protections. To offer a couple of examples, children are prevented form entering into contracts (such as hire purchase) because we judge (rightly or wrongly) that they are not competent to make the best decision in their own interests. I would suggest that “age of consent” exists for a similar reason, it is not intended to oppress children, but rather to protect them from manipulation and exploitation. Child labour laws also serve a similar purpose. > [@](#): > > \*\* > …speaking as a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic and former child…it is somehow rational and OKAY to ascribe different political and legal status to schizzies and kids yet NOT OKAY to ascribe different political and legal status to slaves and women. > \*\* I not believe that I suggested that it was OK to ascribe different legal status to “schizzies”. Your arguments in this forum appear demonstrably coherent and indicative of an active and able mind. This difference in legal status is (or should be) based on a judgement that specific individual people are not sufficiently mentally able or mature to look after themselves or bear the same rights and responsibilities that are expected of ordinary adults. I tend to agree that the designation of children as “minors” based solely on age runs counter to this. It is interesting (at least to me) to note that children may be judged to be adults under the law when they have commited “adult” crimes, but they are not judged adult enough to sign a contract no matter their personal maturity, and as a former child myself I do see that as a glaring double standard. > [@](#): > > \*\* > But if that is so, I think you should lighten up in your implicit cricitism of the colonial-era framers of the DOI and other period pieces… > \*\* No such criticism was intended, and I apologise if I implied otherwise. The DoI itself is not a document with which I am overly familiar – living as I do in part of the world which has yet to declare independance from Brittania. 🙂 > [@](#): > > \*\* > unless you can spell out, in a vividly coherent way, why the categorical discriminations that were socially normative in their day are intrinsically and obviously nothing but plain old ugly prejudice-based discrimination… > \*\* No, I can’t. Each age’s social norms are just that. When the DoI was written, slavery was still a norm – although going out of style; Women were largely kept barefoot and pregnant. In England at least, children were often not named until they had grown up a bit, so many died young that calling them “baby” probably helped ease the pain. Older children pulled coal carts down mine pits in spaces that were too small for adults, and if you were caught stealing you were likely to get a 2 minute trial before “the beak” before being transported to the colonies for 10 years. When the framer’s of the DoI made claims that were “self evident” all their cultural baggage went along with it. > [@](#): > > \*\* > …children and lunatics are intrinsically and self-evidently rational exclusions that do not require any defense or contemplation. > \*\* I would certainly hope that in line with our “enlightened” social norms, any exclusion of people from equal rights should require both contemplation and defence. Kind Regards, Martin ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2000, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-quote-from-the-declaration-of-independence/20878/23 "2000-06-01T03:34:04Z")
I’d like to jump into the discussion of the legal effect of the Declaration of Independence. My understanding is that it is a legal document, but a legal document that is primarily concerned with international law, not domestic law. As others have noted, the primary purpose of the Declaration was to end the legal ties with the U.K., and to create a new international entity. Since international law is made by a combination de facto situations (such as a successful armed revolution), and de jure principles (such as recognition of the new status by other countries like France, in this case), it didn’t take immediate effect as a matter of international law. But, it did eventually have status as a document with legal effect in international law. It also had effect on U.S. domestic law. For example, under colonial law, the British Parliament was supreme over colonial legislatures, and could override any colonial law. The Declaration, once it was made good on the battlefield and through diplomacy, ended that legal relationship and substituted a new one, of sovereignty for the individual states. One example of the different way the Declaration worked in international law and U.S. domestic law relates to the date of U.S. independence. Under U.S. domestic law, the U.S. gained independence on July 4, 1776. Under British domestic law, it dates from the British recognitiion of U.S. independence with the Treaty of Paris in 1783. That difference actually had some significance at the time, as issues such as a change of citizenship by American colonials as a result of independence would be recognized differently in the American courts and the U.K. courts. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2000, 10:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-quote-from-the-declaration-of-independence/20878/24 "2000-06-01T10:40:18Z")
There’s an excellent book entitled _Vindicating the Founders_ which addresses the points raised by the OP. ---
**Author:** ![slick\_willie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/87869e/32.png) [@slick\_willie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slick_willie)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2000, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-quote-from-the-declaration-of-independence/20878/25 "2000-06-01T13:06:44Z")
Does it really matter what they wrote then? The point is that everyone is free now. And the fact that most of the representatives in the Continental Congress were from the northern states, such as massachusetts, new york, etc. And yes slavery was an issue at the time. I can almost guarantee that the people in the north heavily disagreed with those representative from the southern states and it finaly grew into the civil war. But my entire point is that 1)The decleration of Independence is not a law, but a simple statement in which it says that all men should be treated equally. 2)The representatives also saw it as a right for southerners to carry on buissness freely, which included slavery. The decleration was also written for trade free from limitations and heavy taxes from the British. Why then would the newly formed U.S.A barage southerners with all these limitations? It is true that slavery is a very gloomy part of American history, and i’m glad that it was ended. The Emancipation Proclamation came slightly late, but it came. We can’t change the past, so why complain about it? ---
**Author:** ![Asmodeus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8dc957/32.png) [@Asmodeus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asmodeus)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2000, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-quote-from-the-declaration-of-independence/20878/26 "2000-06-02T02:20:24Z")
Did the Brits lose or did they have more pressing matters to attend to? ---
**Author:** ![Boris\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/fbc32d/32.png) [@Boris\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boris_B)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2000, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-quote-from-the-declaration-of-independence/20878/27 "2000-06-02T23:28:27Z")
It’s hard to say. An empire as large as Britain’s is always faced with hard choices about which matters to attend to. Certainly, the North American colonies were one of the most important matters around; we were not some far-flung colony like Diego Garcia or New Zealand (and yes, my timing may be out of whack; fill in some smallish, faraway colony the British had in the late 18th Century to get my meaning). The point is, North America was one of Britain’s most important colonies, so it obviously wasn’t a simple matter of getting distracted. On the other hand, no colony is as important as the homeland. Britain has been threatened at various times by Continental forces. How threatened were they by enemies or potential enemies (France, bits of the Holy Roman Empire, Spain) in 1776? I can’t remember. Obviously, some pretty heavy wars with France were yet to come - a bunch of Napoleonic Wars, for one, and the obvious example of French intervention in the American independence struggle. And some pretty big wars had just gone by - the Seven Years’ War, which is really a superset of the French and Indian War (the concept of world war was yet to come so there still were different names for different theaters of action). So Britain wasn’t exactly having tea and crumpets with Europe. So the answer to your question, Asmodeus, is: I don’t know. I would hazard the guess that, if the British were going to save any one colony, they would have picked the 13 in the New World, partly because they felt, reasonably, that the loss of those threatened Canada. (Are you sensing that I don’t know the contemporary names for these colonies? I don’t. I mean, how would a Briton, in 1775, distinguish the uppity colonies of Georgia and Vermont and stuff, from the placid colonies of Newfoundland and neighbors? They were both “British Colonies in the New World”, after all.) This chunk of the answer favors the **the British just got whipped in battle** (Yorktown and the Chesapeake) thesis. The other school of thought, as alluded to by Asmodeus, is that **the British had other fish to fry**. This is based on perfectly rational fears of folks on the restive Continent dying to invade Briton. It wouldn’t be prudent to risk too many people or munitions putting down a lawyers’ rebellion in the New World, if it meant a serious chance of merry old England being invaded. Was there a serious chance? Interesting moot question. It doesn’t matter as long as anybody important believed there was a chance of an anti-Britain coalition forming on the continent. Austria, France, Spain, maybe even Russia. The first three are also largely Catholic. Could this have stoked fears of an atavistic Protestant - Papal conflict sweeping Europe? I dont’ know. But I sure as heck like to speculate! ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2000, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-quote-from-the-declaration-of-independence/20878/28 "2000-06-03T00:52:26Z")
Asmodeus (an old favorite of mine from the AD&D Monster Manual) wrote: > [@](#): > > You are suggesting we give children the rights of adults? Well … how about giving teen-agers the rights of adults? You know, by lowering the Age of Majority to, say, 13? ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2000, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-quote-from-the-declaration-of-independence/20878/29 "2000-06-03T13:34:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* originally posted by Jeff42: > Didn’t someone once say something to the effect that, “All men are created equal…it’s just that some people are more equal than others.”? (or something to that effect)\*\* Nobody answered Jeff’s question. George Orwell, in _Animal Farm,_ has the animals set up a list of seven commandments. > [@](#): > > \*\*1. Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy. > 2. Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend. > 3. No animal shall wear clothes. > 4. No animal shall sleep in a bed. > 5. No animal shall drink alcohol. > 6. No animal shall kill any other animal. > 7. All animals are equal. \*\* Later, as the situation deteriorates and the pigs take over the farm, the animals wake up one morning to find that the first seven have been erased, and another commandment has been added: > [@](#): > > \*\* > But some animals are more equal than others. \*\* This [website](http://pages.citenet.net/users/charles/af-notes.html) has a good summary of the book. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-quote-from-the-declaration-of-independence/20878.md?page=1)