saveliberty
Diamond Member
- Oct 12, 2009
- 58,756
- 10,839
- 2,030
Still waiting limpdick.....
I didn't ask for a reprint of the Magna Carta. You claim that the document gave the same rights to a fieldhand and a member of Royalty. Show me
Show me where it discusses voting rights
TO ALL FREE MEN OF OUR KINGDOM we have also granted, for us and our heirs for ever, all the liberties written out below, to have and to keep for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs:
(39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.
(40) To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.
I don't think it is equal rights, but a move toward that end. Extending rights to free men was basically what you spoke of in an earlier post. Zander is right on that count.
Your perception of "free men" is different than it was in the 13th century. Free men were a small portion of the population
Free men formed only a small proportion of the population of 13th-century England. The distinction between the free and the unfree peasantry (the villeins) varied considerably across the country. Generally, though, in contrast to an unfree villein, a free man could leave his manor, could buy or sell land and owned his goods and chattels. He was not required to make numerous customary payments to his lord, nor to undertake onerous labour services for the cultivation of his lord's lands. Free men still had to attend their lord's court, but they also had access to the royal courts, which offered greater protection for their rights and property.
Although Magna Carta focused primarily on the interests of the barons, a significant proportion of its clauses dealt with all free men, from the barons, through the knights, down to the free peasantry. The most famous clause, providing protection against arbitrary imprisonment and the seizure of property by the king, applied to all free men.
It was a far cry from the "All men created equal"
I find your post to be correct. While not all men created equal, it certainly was a step in that direction. That seemed to be the point Zander was making, so I found it strange you would take issue with him.