Understanding Equality - Literature review Example

Understanding Equality America began her independence with a declaration of equality: “We hold these truths to the self-evident, that all men are created equal” (Declaration of Independence, 1776). From this declaration of independence, the struggle to define equality continued into the nineteenth century. People from different walks of life viewed equality very differently, as the sources clearly demonstrate. The conflict between these different versions of equality is demonstrated by the struggles which broke out later in the nineteenth century, in the struggles of the Civil War, in the concept of Manifest Destiny, and in the suffragette movement. In the earlier half of the nineteenth century, while not breaking out into war, the notions of equality were as contradictory and divisive. In the four sources discussed in this essay, there are four different viewpoints concerning the meaning of equality in the Declaration: Douglass and Garrison both discuss slavery, but while Douglass considers American liberty “A hollow mockery” (Douglass, 1852), Garrison considers it the basis of slave liberation: “A very large proportion of our colored population were born on our soil, and are therefore entitled to the privileges of American citizens.” (Garrison, 1829); in other words, Garrison in 1829 sees equality as self-evident, while Douglas, 23 years later, considers it not yet obtained. A closer examination of the two viewpoints will form the first part of the essay. Jackson considers that differences of wealth, education and ability do not necessarily prevent equality: “Distinctions in society will always exist” (Jackson, 1829), while Skidmore believes that equality involves the distribution of wealth to every citizen: “Man’s natural right to an equal portion of property is indisputable. His artificial right….is not less so” (Skidmore, 1829). How these opposing viewpoints relate to the changing notions of equality in the nineteenth century will then be the final focus of the essay. Frederick Douglas was invited to speak at a fourth of July celebration in 1859, and there condemned the white diners for celebrating liberty when it was not shared by all Americans: “The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence, bequeathed by your fathers, is shared by you, not by me” (Douglass). He argued that it was not right to ask him to speak on liberty when he did not share their good fortune: “To drag a man in fetters into the grand illuminated temple of liberty, and call upon him to join you in joyous anthems, were inhuman mockery and sacrilegious irony” (Douglass). These reflections of the different liberties of the diners and the man asked to speak to them is connected by Douglass to the notions of liberty which were enshrined by those who signed the Declaration of Independence, and the early presidents: “Washington could not die till he had broken the chains of his slaves. Yet his monument is built up by the price of human blood, and the traders in the bodies and souls of men should “We have Washington to our father” (Douglass). Douglass’s notion of equality originates from his ideas about the declaration of independence. By relating Washington’s liberation of his slaves, to the 4th of July celebrations, and those slave-traders who toast Washington as their own liberator, while confining slaves. Douglass is calling attention to the differences between the ideals of the Declaration, and early post-declaration Americans, with the continuing subjugation of human beings. According to Douglass, the notion of equality and liberty are therefore shams to the slave: “To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery;” (Douglass). Furthermore, he accuses modern (19th century) Americans, of betraying the past: “Whether we turn to the declarations of the past, or to the professions of the present, the conduct of the nation seems equally hideous and revolting. America is false to the past.” (Douglass). These notions of America falling away from the ideals of the Declaration are then used to highlight the inequality of the slaves, by arguing that slaves are men, and then pointing out that the Declaration grants men equality: “Must I undertake to prove that the slave is a man?.... For the present, it is enough to affirm the equal manhood of the Negro race.” (Douglass), and then “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.” (Douglass). For Douglass, equality and liberty are naturally the same, and by destroying the slave’s liberty; slaves have equal status as Men (as in Mankind), and therefore, according to America’s own legislation, equal liberty is also their right. Anything less is a destruction of the rights of all Americans: “By that most foul and fiendish of all human decrees, the liberty and person of every man are put in peril. Your broad republican domain is hunting ground for men.” (Douglass). Garrison, who also believes in liberation of the slaves; he dismisses arguments for slave equality as obvious, and therefore it is unnecessary to repeat them: “Where I addressing any other than a free and Christian assembly, the enforcement of this truth might be pertinent”. Unlike Douglass, who considers the liberation of only some Americans to be a betrayal of the Declaration, Garrison seems here to believe that the liberation of some will lead to the liberation of all. He states that slaves born in the country are American citizens, equal with white citizens “Their children possess the same inherent and unalienable rights as ours” (Garrison). Like Douglass, he states that the Declaration is being applied unjustly: “Our Declaration of Independence is produced…to set forth the tyranny of the mother country…but what a pitiful detail of grievances does this document present, in comparison with the wrongs which our slaves endure!” (Garrison), and slates this use of the 4th of July: “I am sick of our unmeaning declamation in praise of liberty and equality; of our hypocritical cant about the unalienable rights of man” (Garrison),While Douglass and Garrison both appear to be attacking the nineteenth century view of the Declaration, in fact their positions are very different: Douglass sees the inequality of slaves as threatening the existence of all American’s civil rights, while Garrison sees the liberated Americans as morally obligated to strive for the liberty of all, although their own liberty does not seem to be threatened. Their views on the nature of slave emancipation would be shared by more northern Americans even during the Civil War. Other interpretations of equality also surfaced in the nineteenth century. As already described, Andrew Jackson saw no problem in distinctions in society: “Distinctions in society will always exist under every just government. Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth can not be produced by human institutions. In the full enjoyment of the gifts of heaven and the fruits of superior industry…and virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by law” (Jackson). This seems to be very closely connected to the idea of manifest destiny, with belief in the natural superiority of some (Anglo Saxons in Manifest Destiny, wealthy or educated in Jackson’s conception); in this understanding, men are equal despite differences in wealth or economy, and, as Jackson says, “There are no necessary evils in government”. Thomas Skidmore, writing only a few years before Jackson, takes a very different view: “All governments in the world have begun wrong” (Skidmore). He also believes that equal property is necessary in order to have moral and civil justice: “If property had been made equal among all present, right would have taken place among them” (Skidmore). He considers that there is no justice in inherited property: “ A poisoned fountain cannot send forth sweet waters, nor he who holds a vicious title give a virtuous one to another” (Skidmore). Compared with the position of Jackson, this clearly relates to the ideas of the French Revolution, where land owned by the Three Estates was taken by the Republic. Douglass and Garrison differ in their ideas about equality and slave emancipation. As described above, Douglass sees equality for all as necessary in order to preserve the liberty of everyone; the liberated cannot be secure while some are not equal to them. Garrison holds that the liberated are morally and religiously responsible for emancipating the slaves; he does not consider that the liberated are threatened by slavery, simply that religious belief obliges them to release slaves. Skidmore and Jackson have very different ideas about property, which can be related to the ideas of the American Civil War. Jackson would be proprietary; the Northern states could not tell the Southern states what to do, and black slaves were not inherently equal with white slave-owners. Skidmore would consider owning people a matter for the state – he clearly views slavery as a punishment for greed “[it is] proper for them to be destitute of property as it is for any one else. If slavery and degradation are to be the result, they are the proper victims” (Skidmore). These four considerations formed the basis of the American Civil War: emancipation of slaves was necessary to uphold the Declaration, or a religious obligation; property was the prerogative of the state, or it was the right of those who were born into it. Equality was therefore considered on both sides of the War, with both sides considering that they had fulfilled the obligations of the Declaration. Bibliography Douglass, Frederick “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?”  July 5, 1852 Garrison, William Lloyd “Address to the Colonization Society” July 4, 1829 Jackson, Andrew “Veto of Legislation Chartering the Bank of the United States” 1832 Skidmore, Thomas “A plan for equalizing property” (1829) Read More

He argued that it was not right to ask him to speak on liberty when he did not share their good fortune: “To drag a man in fetters into the grand illuminated temple of liberty, and call upon him to join you in joyous anthems, were inhuman mockery and sacrilegious irony” (Douglass). These reflections of the different liberties of the diners and the man asked to speak to them is connected by Douglass to the notions of liberty which were enshrined by those who signed the Declaration of Independence, and the early presidents: “Washington could not die till he had broken the chains of his slaves.

Yet his monument is built up by the price of human blood, and the traders in the bodies and souls of men should “We have Washington to our father” (Douglass). Douglass’s notion of equality originates from his ideas about the declaration of independence. By relating Washington’s liberation of his slaves, to the 4th of July celebrations, and those slave-traders who toast Washington as their own liberator, while confining slaves. Douglass is calling attention to the differences between the ideals of the Declaration, and early post-declaration Americans, with the continuing subjugation of human beings.

According to Douglass, the notion of equality and liberty are therefore shams to the slave: “To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery;” (Douglass). Furthermore, he accuses modern (19th century) Americans, of betraying the past: “Whether we turn to the declarations of the past, or to the professions of the present, the conduct of the nation seems equally hideous and revolting.

America is false to the past.” (Douglass). These notions of America falling away from the ideals of the Declaration are then used to highlight the inequality of the slaves, by arguing that slaves are men, and then pointing out that the Declaration grants men equality: “Must I undertake to prove that the slave is a man?.. For the present, it is enough to affirm the equal manhood of the Negro race.” (Douglass), and then “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.” (Douglass). For Douglass, equality and liberty are naturally the same, and by destroying the slave’s liberty; slaves have equal status as Men (as in Mankind), and therefore, according to America’s own legislation, equal liberty is also their right. Anything less is a destruction of the rights of all Americans: “By that most foul and fiendish of all human decrees, the liberty and person of every man are put in peril. Your broad republican domain is hunting ground for men.

” (Douglass). Garrison, who also believes in liberation of the slaves; he dismisses arguments for slave equality as obvious, and therefore it is unnecessary to repeat them: “Where I addressing any other than a free and Christian assembly, the enforcement of this truth might be pertinent”. Unlike Douglass, who considers the liberation of only some Americans to be a betrayal of the Declaration, Garrison seems here to believe that the liberation of some will lead to the liberation of all. He states that slaves born in the country are American citizens, equal with white citizens “Their children possess the same inherent and unalienable rights as ours” (Garrison).

Like Douglass, he states that the Declaration is being applied unjustly: “Our Declaration of Independence is produced…to set forth the tyranny of the mother country…but what a pitiful detail of grievances does this document present, in comparison with the wrongs which our slaves endure!” (Garrison), and slates this use of the 4th of July: “I am sick of our unmeaning declamation in praise of liberty and equality; of our hypocritical cant about the unalienable rights of man” (Garrison),While Douglass and Garrison both appear to be attacking the nineteenth century view of the Declaration, in fact their positions are very different: Douglass sees the inequality of slaves as threatening the existence of all American’s civil rights, while Garrison sees the liberated Americans as morally obligated to strive for the liberty of all, although their own liberty does not seem to be threatened.

Read More