Suffrage, it was that got us into this, and IIRC my history, the original format for suffrage in our country were male property owners. Premise prime, perhaps. Those who made that premise were the same folks who dreamed up that unique fusion of ideas that resulted in "inalienable rights" and other such principles.
I always read "created equal" as a very esoteric phrase, that meant "we each are alive and are loved equally by God, or Our Creator, and as such have equal worth as human beings inherently." That, unforunatels, does not seem to be the interpretation that a lot of folks think implies an entitlement to equal socioeconomic status simply by drawing breath, as the "opiate of the people anti-spiritualist" Marx dreamed.
That initial concept of suffrage has, of course, since been modified in practice, which got us at long last the election of a much ballyhooed "women's president" WJ Clinton. (Ducks as the ladies all throw rocks, with good cause . . . )
Or further back, Warren G Harding, who was the first president elected after the Constitutional Ammendment ensured suffrage for the distaff portion of the population.
(Ducks again, as Harding was a Republican . . .)
So, were the premises of the Founding Fathers unassailable,to include the premise of "all men are created equal?" Hard to say, as that phrase, and it follow on, are actually kind of imprecise. Well they should be, as it comes from a
Is still like the concept, but am not so sure that how I understand it is a universally accepted interpretation.