1776 only land owners could vote
1790 Naturalization Act requires white race can vote
1856 all white men, not exclusively land owners, can vote
1857 Dred Scott decision: African descendants not citizens
1868 male former slaves could vote but state prevented them
1870 no discrimination explicitly by race, so other restrictions are created
1920 women can vote
1952 Asians may become citizens
1965 Voting rights act--against discriminations
Based on this table, only a niggling atheist, who can vote but cannot be elected, would complain about his/her civil rights. Someone with faith in the-objective-truth much of which is undiscovered and some of which is understood can just forget about it--nobody can even understand such a faith. (That’s my faith and I don’t want to share it; let each person find his or her own way, as long as they cause no actual harm.) And he/she cannot look to secularists for help, because too many secularists are both anti-faith perhaps due to pride in reason and anti-religion perhaps due to absolutism.
The-objective-truth yields to neither belief nor reason nor words. The person who is committed to the-objective-truth may try to discover physics (from which actual reality emerges), comprehend, accept, make best use of or benefit from, share, and be quick to change with new input that requires change. For example, a child learns what happens when he/she spits into the wind, does it no more, shares the message with young friends, but remains alert for news, for example, that naturally oxidized spit has a 60% chance of autogenously vaccinating an Ebola patient. (That's an imaginary example of civic discovery). Ideas society takes for granted should be examined.
I annually read the Declaration of Independence. Many features confound me. Why did a sectarian Christian majority use deistic terms: "Nature’s God . . . Creator . . . divine Providence"? Since the King’s god was Christian, were they making a war statement like, our deistic god will beat your Christian god? If so, how could the 1776 Christian majority be such hypocrites? And how hypocritical is the claim “all men are created equal” by slave-holding invaders who label indigenous Americans “Savages”! Most of all, why not take seriously the influence and deadly contradiction of the South's god versus the North's god for the Civil War? Would family members and neighbors slaughter each other without the influence of their gods--gods that were each constructed from the same text, the Holy Bible? Consider and confront the invasion of Iraq and other ruinous mistakes that were influenced by George W. Bush's god. The 1776 people who wrote "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind," had not the benefit of Albert Einstein's civic morality and the world wars that have happened since the American Revolutionary War. By now, civic citizens could have a decent respect to the-objective-truth rather than dominant opinion.
History is replete with individual's letters of concern about slavery. For example, there's Thomas Paine's 1775 letter, "African Slavery in America," 1775.* Unfortunately, the slavery complaint against the king in the draft Declaration of Independence was deleted. It began:
he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred
rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended
him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemispere, or
to incure miserable death in their transportation hither.
This writing is admittedly vague, but it is unfortunate that it was not developed for inclusion in the final document.
It seems evident that Abraham Lincoln’s great skill was politics, but can we not gauge his failures and employ his best ideas? In his First Inaugural Address, 1861, hoping to persuade the Confederate States not to cause war, Lincoln said, “Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world?” With such obscure expression, Lincoln left each personal god as the best hope in the world and proceeded into the advantageous military conflict his next words anticipated.
Unfortunately, Lincoln had, in 1857, in rebuking the Dred Scott decision, contradicted himself by trumping the US Constitution with the Declaration of Independence. He cited the poetic claim, “all men are created equal,” not having a similar statement in the US Constitution. (The 1787 Constitution is carefully worded to facilitate future emancipation without addressing slavery.) Lincoln could have lobbied for the Thirteenth Amendment (perhaps preventing war); but then he might not have become President. Lincoln, I think, pushed back “the ultimate justice of the people,” at least a century and a half. It is shocking that our generation can stop the stagnation, but we can, by committing to civic justice of by and for the people--by committing to the preamble. Thereby, a people may establish the preamble as the world's best hope rather than military power like Lincoln used. But we are not doing so. Instead, some, since the late 1960s have exacerbated factional Protestantism with the evasive new entry: African-American Christianity. It will be interesting to observe its impact on the world.
Most civic issues, such as queuing to enter a sports arena, can be settled by candid discussion, but some issues, such as vehicular traffic control, involve risk and therefore civic laws are required to establish civil order. "Civic laws" distinguish the civic function from military and church functions with their laws. The issues at stake are public issues, but “civic” carries with it the obligation to negotiate resolution, and the basis for mediation is physics, rather than religion. I speculate that about 2/3 of Americans would use the preamble to establish civic liberty, leaving the guileless, ignoramuses, criminals, evils, and other persons who tolerate or want domestic alienation as the 1/3 of "We the People of the United States" who are fellow citizens but reject the civic agreement. Politically dividing inhabitants based on their commitment and trust in the preamble would be beneficial, and perhaps my 1-3 guess would decline as benefits emerged.
 Online at: http://www.kqed.org/assets/pdf/education/digitalmedia/us-voting-rights-timeline.pdf .
 Online at: www.globalmountainsummit.org/statue-of-liberty.html .
 Online at: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Liberty#Dedication
 Online at: constitutioncenter.org/timeline/flash/cw.html .
 Online at: www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-696 re TOWN OF GREECE v. GALLOWAY .
 Online at: www.nola.com/crime/baton-rouge/index.ssf/2014/03/settlement_over_harassment_of.html .