I don’t know that I’ll have the fortitude to continue this project to the end, or even give it a fair start, but it has occurred to me to take a look at the Indiana Constitution one section at a time. We are citizens of this state, and we ought to have some knowledge of how our state is constituted.
Section 1. WE DECLARE, That all people are created equal; that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that all power is inherent in the people; and that all free governments are, and of right ought to be, founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and well-being. For the advancement of these ends, the people have, at all times, an indefeasible right to alter and reform their government.
There is discussion on this provision in the debates of the Indiana Constitutional Convention. There was an interesting remark from a Mr. Pettit of Tippecanoe County who apparently objected in that he did not believe men were equal. “There can be no social equality between the laboring man and the man of letters,” he apparently said. There was also some delay in the Convention in adopting this provision while the matter of slaves and admission of blacks into the state was decided upon. Some delegates felt like such a provision could not be introduced into the Constitution if the same document also excluded blacks from living in or owning property in the state.
Ultimately, of course, the provision was adopted. One delegate argued that, under the laws of man, of course, men were not equal; but under the laws of nature, which this document was to reflect, men had equal rights. He was not greatly concerned with whether the section was adopted — the laws of nature would remain the same regardless of what this document may say, but he preferred adoption out of respect for Thomas Jefferson and the Founders who they were copying and because he believed it right to attempt to reflect the laws of nature. And, in the democratic spirit of the day, the distinction between “men of letters” and laborers likely received a chilly reception.
Despite their worthwhile concerns for democracy, one can nevertheless question exactly how many delegates were actually laborers and how many were really “men of letters”…
Are we looking at the 1851 Constitution currently in effect & its debates, or the original 1816 Constitution & debates? Indiana’s a little confusing that way…
The 1851 Constitution. I figure it’s more relevant than the 1816 version.
A parenthetical note on bilingualism: Indiana proudly printed up 50,000 copies of our new 1851 Constitution for distribution to the general public. A number of citizens however were those pig-headed (but clean) beer-swilling (but hard-working) Germans who stubbornly refused to learn English. The Governor pandered to “political correctness” and “diversity” and had 5000 copies of our 1851 Constitution printed up in German!
Aww, but Germans were northern European and not brown at all. *Totally* different. :-)
I wonder why phrasing such as ‘equal under the law’ or ‘equal in the eyes of God’ was not more routinely used, back in the day.
Saying simply that people are ‘equal’ seems designed to invite nitpicking from those who insist on reading ‘equal’ as a synonym for ‘identical’.
(And thank heaven there’s no nitpicking on the internet!)
Perhaps a small quibble, but the cited section is not the 1851 Constitution, but the 1851 Constitution as rewritten/changed/amended in 1984. When our state amends its constitution the amendment is not appended to the document as is done with the federal constitution, but the language of the organic document itself is changed. I think you lose a bit of history that way, but it did eliminate at least one section relating to race which would have been a little scary to modern eyes.
My mistake. Do you happen to have the language from the original 1851 version?
I don’t have the original in front of me, but I think maybe the 1851 version said “men” instead of “people” at the beginning. Was there more to the 1984 amendment than that?
The original language was:
Article 1, Section 1. WE DECLARE, That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that all power is inherent in the PEOPLE; and that all free governments are, and of right ought to be, founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and well being. For the advancement of these ends, the PEOPLE have, at all times, an indefeasible right to alter and reform their government.
The entire 1851 document as originally written is available at:
http://www.statelib.lib.in.us/www/ihb/resources/1851doconst.html
Section I is probably the least understood provision in our Bill of Rights and the most potent. Essentially it is the Declaration of Independence and it drew a lot of criticism in 1851 – Pettit was vehemently opposed that it would grant equal rights to African-Americans. Last time it went up on appeal, our Attorney General argued that it was no enforceable. Put another way – it sounds good but means nothing legally. I have tried to figure out how to square the anti-gay marriage proposal with Section One. I cannot. That takes a better legal mind than mine – like Brian Bosma. By the way, almost all of the states have similar provisions. Those states that have allowed gay marriage have based it upon this type of provision or equal protection clauses that are similar.
It is my understanding that the 1816 Constitution is for free sovereigns and the 1851 version was written for 14th Amendment subjects. Completely subject to the killers in Washington.