Before we think about the translation of the Declaration of Independence, I wonder if we can't think about its interlation.
I'm thinking about the little clause therein that goes "all men are created equal." What did the original author, Thomas Jefferson, and the original signers intend by "men"?
Well, sure, some of these white men owned black women and african men and had their own wives without the same rights and protections as they, the husbands, enjoyed under the law of the new states and the new federal government, which did not recognize the governments of "the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions" because, well, because they were Savages and merciless. But proof positive that these original American men had an inclusive intention for "men" is that they quickly formed a Constitution constituted by "the People."
Never mind all those unnecessary Sentiments of Elizabeth Cady Stanton (a woman) and Frederick Douglass (a black man) and others in 1848, who declared that all men might read "a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her."
Never mind all those briefs of Dred Scott's lawyers who ignored what the Supreme Court of "all white men" would eventually write so precisely: "The words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens' are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing." and " The language of the Declaration of Independence is equally conclusive." Which means. . . .
Never mind what Abraham Lincoln had to address among bodies, not all white men, at Gettysburg: something "conceived" not yet delivered.
Never mind what Martin Luther King, Jr. scribbled, questioning how extreme all men must be, while jailed by all-white men: "And Thomas Jefferson: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal ...' So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be."
Never mind that these words of Jefferson were intended to mirror the Enlighted words of John Locke and of the Bible of King James, men whose concern was not the gender or the race of "all men."
Never mind that some Germans in 1776 mistook that in translation as "alle Menschen." (or that that woman, namely Laurie G. Alberts, backtranslated that as "all people" in 1999.)
(Now, I'm trying to understand our little word problem here. If we allow "all men" to be anything other than "all men" in uni-directional translation, then we'll have to allow "translation" to be something like "interlation" whether in the original source language or in the target language. Sex and skin color are not good things by which to confuse Language or good translation. And language, if we can't fix it, will just be un-fixed.)