Which proves my point--that the inalienable rights proclaimed in the DoI were not at that time self-evident. I'm not chastising Washington. Just observing the fact that human rights were not self-evident.
If they were not self evident, why did dozens of educated men say they were?
I think what our founders were saying about inalienable rights being self-evident, is that through the centuries they were being ignored. This was the first time that a country actually put them in writing so that a nation could be formed around those ideals.
I think the rights are self evident when using a Christian paradigm-—Do unto others, etc. What you are referring to is the ambiguity in the classification. If you don’t classify slaves as human beings, (kind of like how the liberals classify babies in the womb—globs of cells)—there are no human rights ascribed.
Slavery was accepted in all societies at that time and still is in parts of Africa, Asia and Middle East. Christianity was the driving force in getting rid of slavery and is now, in getting rid of abortion.