Who did it come from originally?

Question

the notion that all men should have equal opportunities in life came originally from which person?

a) Thomas Jefferson

b) John Locke

c) Ambraham lincoln

d) Dr. Martin luther king, Jr

e) None of the above

Answer 1

They were NOT the originators of that idea, especially Abraham Lincoln, who, to my astonishment in research I did within this last  year, did NOT want to free the slaves, and did NOT like black people.  If that shocks you, imagine how it shocked me.  The most recent documentation I read of that was in the book "The Politically Incorrect Guide to The South: And Why It Will Rise Again" by Clint Johnson, published by Regnery Press in 2006.  That may be shocking to you, but as one who had a second major in history in college, I NEVER heard that, but, the documentation is there.  Mr. Johnson also wrote "In The Footsteps of Robert E. Lee".  So, you need to look a lot earlier than those men.  And, believe me, Martin Luther King wasn't one for "equal opportunities" either, despite his rantings,etc..  God Bless you.

Answer 2

John Locke, but others like Voltaire and Montesquieu believed this also.

Answer 3

As far as I know, Thomas Jefferson. It goes at least as far back as his first draft of the Declaration of Independence.

Answer 4

Equal Protection of the Law

Nor shall any State . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

— Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

In the last half-century the constitutional command requiring equal protection of the laws for all people has been critical in the great social movements that have secured equal legal rights for people of color, women, and other groups, in the United States. In concept it is one of the noblest statements in the American Constitution, and in practice one of the more powerful. Without its authority it is unlikely that the United States would have achieved as much social progress as it has in the past 50 years, and many Americans might still be subjected to an institutionalized prejudice that made them second-class citizens, unable to vote or enjoy all rights. Yet although the Fourteenth Amendment became part of the Constitution in 1868, almost 90 years passed before this broad interpretation of the meaning of "equal protection" flowered.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal," he did not mean social or economic egalitarianism. Rather he and others of the Founding generation believed that society by its nature could never be socially or economically homogeneous because men differ in their abilities and virtues. They did not want to level society, but rather give to each individual the opportunity to make the most of his abilities. In order for this opportunity to exist, all men (and at the time they were only concerned with men) had to stand before the law on an equal footing. There could not be one law for the rich and another for the poor, although the Founders ignored the fact that there was clearly one law for white people and another for slaves. A generation later, when Andrew Jackson's Democrats talked about equality, they meant the same thing — equality of opportunity based on equal treatment by the law.

Interestingly, no mention of equal opportunity can be found in either the original body of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, nor was it deemed necessary until after the Civil War. When it became apparent that the defeated Confederate states had no intention of treating the newly freed slaves fairly, Congress responded by drafting and passing the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbade all states from denying any citizens not only due process of law but equal protection of those laws.

Justice Stanley Matthews, in Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)

The guaranty of equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.

Yet, from the very beginning the meaning of "equal protection" has at times been confusing, perhaps because the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment left us no explanation of exactly what they meant. On the other hand, the phrase could be read to mean that any law, no matter what common sense suggests, will be applied rigidly to all people. Such an extreme notion that laws cannot in any way, shape or manner discriminate among individuals or groups, can become silly. Passing a vision test as a requirement for securing a driver's license clearly discriminates against people who are blind or have sight impediments, yet this is an appropriate form of distinction.

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/ri...

Answer 5

The earliest of the above is John Locke, so he is the only possible choice of those given.

However, the best answer is e. The sweeping generalization in your question is so open ended that you'd probably find such sentiments 2000 years ago.

I urge you to ignore the previous responder and his rant.