The American Declaration of Independence - Essay Example

The American Declaration of Independence Introduction With its stirring affirmation of inalienable rights, was the American Declaration of Independence nothing but the hypocritical propaganda of slave holders The American Declaration of Independence is a document signed by thirteen Colonies declaring themselves independent of the Kingdom of Great Britain and ratified by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776 (Wikipedia 2005). The document which reached London on August 10 that year carried a litany of 27 specific examples that the British Crown failed to do in supposedly abiding by principles under which a nation should exist (USHistory.org 1999). Thomas Jefferson of Virginia made most of the writing, and carried some important constructs or "principles" which supposedly showed the belief of the framers of the declaration: 1) All men being equal, 2) Inalienable rights; 3) Of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness; 4) Consent of the governed; and 5) Throw off such government (in the event of despotism). The signers concluded that the colonies must then break political ties with the British Crown and become "independent states with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce" among others and that, representing every colony, they pledge "to stand by the Declaration with their lives, fortunes, and honor." The independence of these American colonies was however recognized by Great Britain only on September 3, 1783, by the Treaty of Paris (Wikipedia 2005). American Declaration and Propaganda Leading Writers. According to Ingersoll (1856), the literature of American liberties was first edited by written constitutions of Virginia and North Carolina, who first seceded from the union, followed by Massachusetts or other States. As originators working not only for independence but for larger liberties, slave-holders took the lead. "Slave-holders in the undisturbed meditation of plantation life, with frequent transactions in State representations, were the two principal founders of American free government," he said. Ingersoll (1856) further said "every bill of rights and written constitution came first from the slave-holders; every American founder of American liberty had been a slave-holder." American bondman. Frederick Douglass, American bondman, was invited to give a speech in Rochester. He gave a scathing one on Americans celebrating their freedom day on the fourth of July while in their hypocrisy kept nearly four million humans as slaves. Speaking on the subject of "American slavery," he says he does not hesitate to declare, being identified with the American bondman, that the character of America never looked blacker to him than this Fourth of July" (Douglass, 1852). While they listened, he continues with rage - "Would you have me argue that man is entitled to liberty That he is the rightful owner of his own body You have already declared it. Must I argue the wrongfulness of slavery Is that a question for Republicans Is it to be settled by the rules of logic and argumentation, as a matter beset with great difficulty, involving a doubtful application of the principle of justice, hard to understand How should I look today in the presence of Americans, dividing and subdividing a discourse, to show that men have a natural right to freedom, speaking of it relatively and positively, negatively and affirmatively To do so would be to make myself ridiculous, and to offer an insult to your understanding. There is not a man beneath the canopy of heaven who does not know that slavery is wrong for him" (Ibid). Historian interviews. Horton (2001) who had interviewed several sectors of southern states says withdrawal from the United States of these colonies was "directly connected to the protection and preservation of their institution of slavery." Those in power in the south, he said, understood it as such. For example, he said, Georgian Governor Joseph Brown explained that Georgia seceded (just after South Carolina), considering that Lincoln was "a mere instrument of the Republican party whose principles were "deadly hostile to the institution of slavery." The southern way of life to most white Georgians and most white southerners is that "Negro slavery is the South and the South is Negro slavery." Representative Robert Hardy Smith of Alabama also was said to explain their secession from the United States as coming from "The question of Negro slavery," In his words accordingly, "we have dissolved the late Union chiefly because of the Negro quarrel." Also an editorial opinion in the Augusta Daily Constitution agreed: "our ideal is a pro-slavery republic," Horton (2001) adds more about the link between secession and the institution of slavery, He mentions that Alexander Stephens, then Vice President of the Confederacy drew applause when he proclaimed on March 21, 1861 in Savannah - "Our new government was founded, its foundations are laid, [and] its cornerstone rests upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man. That slavery, submission to a superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This is our new government. It is the first in the history of the world based on this great physical, philosophical and moral truth." Horton (2001) now goes into statistics. Only 25% of the people in South owned slaves, but 75% of the people in the South who held no slaves went to war to protect slavery just the same. Apparently, he said, there was no division between slave owners and non-slave holders. The Kentucky Statesman, a newspaper in Lexington held that both "believe slavery to be right and socially beneficial." Racial fears. Here's the thread of propaganda now with media sowing racial fears. Horton (2001) continues that a special issue of the Louisville Daily Courier addressed a direct message to non-slaveholders. If slavery is abolished, it said, African Americans would level up to the white race "and the poorest whites would be closest to the former slaves in both social and physical distance." The question was, "Do they wish to send their children to schools in which Negro children in the vicinity are taught Do they wish to give the Negro the right to appear in the witness box and testify against them Would the non-slaveholders of the South be content to live "TO AMALGAMATE TOGETHER THE TWO RACES IN VIOLATION OF GOD'S WILL" [original writing all capitals]. The paper accordingly concluded that non-slaveholders had a real stake in the maintenance of slavery, hence should do everything to maintain its presence." (Horton 2001). The American declaration of independence crying for "inalienable rights" strongly rings the bell for everyone to favor of the idea, although the document is clearly associated with secession (which the instrument espoused), and in turn with slavery which was the cause of secession (Red Zone 1999). On the surface, the colonies were on the "victim side" rightfully deserving liberation from their oppressor north. Historical literature is replete with discourses where one can make a reading of intentions and objectives. Direct players. Thomas Jefferson who wrote most of the Declaration in his draft referred to the slave trade, incorporating a lengthy criticism of the British people and parliament but it was edited out (Wikipedia 2005). This "slave-trade" matter may be given clarification by Hinton Rowan Helper ("Proslavery" 2002), possibly affirming that what indeed was behind all these was competition in slave-trade between north and. south - "In protesting the gross imbalance of trade between North and South, Helper points to two popular arguments. First, many claimed that the South's lack of investment in research and development hindered its ability to advance new technologies of production, distribution, and marketing and thus left its citizens helpless before the modernizing North. Second, this claim implies as a corollary that the predominantly monolithic economic system created by a slavery-based plantation economy offers few [emphasis mine] opportunities for the diversification of job skills necessary to launch an economy into full modernization." McNeil (2004), for one, clarifies that northern slave owners were allowed to recoup their investment by selling slaves south, but apparently a plan was not implemented to allow the Southern slave owners the same opportunity. Also, the south were allowed their heritage of slavery without hesitation, in equivalent for the northeastern requirement of prolonged lease in slave trade (Ingersoll 1856). There were many actors involved with the declaration and what it stood for, and their interests were of different ranges and different colors. A citizen, for example, did not believe that people who took slavery as part of the natural order were bad, in the process virtually believing that slave-ownership is not bad, therefore the Declaration (of inalienable rights) can not be said to be sort of scheming (propaganda) for slave owners (Red Zone 1999). She had come up with a taxonomy of slave-owners and the extent of their belief according to quality: 1) Slavery is a positive good (Some confederate theorists); 2) Slavery is a necessary evil (Jefferson and Washington); and 3) Slavery is something bad enough to wish to limit and control but not bad enough to ban completely if the cost were to be political chaos (Lincoln and others.) Looking at Lincoln, he was clearly not interested in admitting the equality of races and in making things equal for everybody as in right of suffrage, right to be juror, to hold office, and to intermarry. Here is what he said in a debate - "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favour of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races -- that I am not nor ever have been in favour of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favour of having the superior position assigned to the white race." Abraham Lincoln, September 18, 1858 debate with Stephen Douglas (In: Expatriate to Huck: Red Zone 1999) Slavery as an institution is very important that it could make a very good reason for any political move, such as secession or preservation of social order, or control of its spread (Horton 2001), enough to suggest also that the American Declaration was mere propaganda of slave-owners - "By 1815, slavery was the most important labor system that produced the most valuable export--cotton--of the entire nation. And by 1840, cotton was more valuable than all other U.S. exports combined. By 1860, the value of southern slaves was greater that that of all of America's factories, railroads, and banks put together. Sometimes we talk about slavery as if it were a side show to American history. Do this: look through the Congressional Globe (the Congressional Record of the early 1800s). There, you will find more debates about slavery than any other single issue in our national Congress in the years before the Civil War." Oxymoron. In a public lecture, historian Horton (2001) was asked about the construct, "equality of man" placed in the constitution, which definitely did not jibe with the reality of "slavery" flourishing in their midst. This was the question and how Horton answered - Question: Didn't the authors of this country's constitution see the hypocrisy in the phrase "all men are created equal" Is it because they did not recognize people in bondage as human beings but property/chattel Answer: Well, it is certainly true that some people did recognize the hypocrisy. Abigail Adams wrote to her husband, John, saying it was confusing and hypocritical that "we are daily denying from others that which we are demanding for ourselves." Benjamin Rush, thought slavery and liberty in one society were hypocritical. Incidentally, lots of slaves thought it was hypocrisy too, and they said so in petitions to the federal government and to state governments. They called on America to do what America said it was about. "We expect great things," they said, "from men who have made such a noble stand against the designs of their fellow men to enslave them." .It is certainly true that the argument that justified slavery placed emphasis on the inferiority of black people. Conclusion The American Declaration of Independence through these accounts may lend credence that it is a hypocritical propaganda of the slave-owners: 1) Slave owners being the leaders and leading writers of American liberties, therefore are in control of the text of the document, whether their real intents are obvious or not (Ingersoll 1856); 2) The testimonial speech of Frederick Douglass (1852), himself an American bondman; 3) The extensive various interviews of Historian Horton (2001); 4) The apparent racial fear expressed in media by influential editorials (Horton 2001); 5) The statements of the direct players in American independence (Wikipedia 2005), ("Proslavery" 2002), (McNeil (2004), (Ingersoll 1856) and (Red Zone 1999); and 6) Logic, itself in freedom constructs paired with slavery (Horton 2001). References "Afro -American Manifesto." Afro-American Committee. http://www.weisbord.org/AfroManifesto.htm (accessed September 15, 2005.) "Declaration of Independence (United States)." Wikipedia. 2005. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence (accessed September 14, 2005). "Propaganda." Wikipedia, 2005. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda (accessed September 14, 2005) "Proslavery Cultural Fictions, White Fear, and the Rhetoric of Serious Evils." 2002. Board of Trustees. University of Illinois database. http://www.press.uillinois.edu/epub/books/hartnett/ch2.html (accessed September 15, 2005). "The Declaration of Independence." UShistory.Org.1999. Independence Hall Association, Philadelphia. http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/ (accessed September 14, 2005). "The Red Zone: 145 years ago." 1999. FreeRepublic.com. Blog. http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3ab1b3c623eb.htm (accessed September 13, 2005). Douglass, Frederick. 1852. "The Hypocrisy of American Society," The History Place Database. Speech. http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/douglass.htm (accessed September 14, 2005). Horton, James Oliver. 2001. "Slavery and the Coming of the Civil War: A Matter for Interpretation" National Park Service. http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/rthg/chap5.htm (accessed September 14, 2005). Ingersoll, Charles Jared. 1856. "African Slavery in America." T. K. and P.G. Collins, Printers. Phil. http://antislavery.eserver.org/proslavery/african_slavery_in_america.doc (accessed September 15, 2005). McNeill, John K. 2004. "A Southern View of History: The War for Southern Independence-The Other Side of the Coin." Sons of Confederate Veterans. Georgia Division. http://www.scv674.org/SH-3.htm (accessed September 15, 2005). Read More