Rights And Freedoms And The Declaration example essay topic

In What Did the Declaration Declare? , Joseph J. Ellis, an editor for history publications presents various historical perceptions on the analytical conception of this mythic text of American public life. The Declaration of Independence has enjoyed a long and useful career as an expression of 'natural rights,' providing Americans with an influential statement of their national doctrine. Thomas Jefferson had no reason to believe that he was writing a document that would become so revered throughout the ages.

One may confirm the Declaration's idealistic origins by examining Carl Becker's enduring argument that the Declaration was an American product of the doctrines of John Locke. The Declaration was composed for a specific purpose. The members of the Continental Congress were more preoccupied with handling pressing military matters and meeting with delegates in the separate colonies, who were busy drafting and debating new state constitutions. This book by Ellis also provides a general, philosophical justification for revolution based on the colonist's growing feeling of entitlement of Lockean rights. The colonists attitude about rights is illustrated in the statement "We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" (Ellis 15). These words, taken from the Declaration of Independence, are the most influential in our country's political culture, even today.

This document was drafted by Thomas Jefferson in 1776. Today, it is read and analyzed constantly in not just America, but all over the world as well. Granted, it was based on gaining Independence from the British Crown's rule, but its contents still holds true even today. It gives strength to the "underdog" in society to know even his government believes he is created equal. It puts fear into the soul of any to-be tyrant, letting him know-we will not stand back and allow you to bully us. It also makes it quite clear that if the people do not find solace in the government, if they are bullied and persecuted consistently by this government, then they have the right to overthrow the oppressors and again, start anew.

This right is presented in the Declaration of Independence where it reads, "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security" (Ellis 3). In summary, the Declaration of Independence gives hope and a feeling of security to the people of the United States of America. It went through many changes, beginning from a simple draft to an edited piece that impacted the Nation as a whole. Jefferson wrote the first draft of the Declaration, but Congress edited and perfected this historical document to create a tactful and eloquent Declaration, which would remain a part of our country day-to-day philosophy throughout the course of history up to modern day times.

Thomas Jefferson, during May and June of 1776, served on committees and dealt mostly with the affairs of Canada. Naturally, he was more concerned with the welfare of Virginia, which was his home. He began drafting a Constitution for his own Commonwealth and included specific charges against King George (Ellis 29). Jefferson had a history dealing in the politics of the colonies. He was very well informed on the proceedings within the colonies and this helped him to have a clear objective of the colonial procedures. As Dumas Malone said in his book titled, Jefferson the Virginian, "At all events, it was inevitable that a Virginian should be appointed to the committee [to draft up the declaration] and, despite his youth, Jefferson was a natural choice.

His voice was uncertain but his pen was known to be potent and there could be no doubt that his mind was prepared" (Ellis 30). The Congress and delegates had faith in him, and knew he could certainly handle the demands placed on the committee chosen to draft the future Declaration of Independence. The committee consisted of five gentlemen: Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, and Robert R. Livingston. Malone said: Then Jefferson was asked to draft it. Whether or not he and Adams were appointed to a subcommittee, as the latter said and he himself denied, is unimportant; and even if the conversation between the two men did not occur precisely as Adams reported it long afterwards, the reasons, which he then assigned, were valid. It was the part of wisdom to assign the lead to a Virginian, for the middle colonies were lukewarm and the New Englanders were deliberately keeping themselves in the background at this stage.

Also, Jefferson bore no such odium of mistrust and unpopularity as Adams attributed to himself and he was doubtless regarded as the better writer (Ellis 30-31). This statement implies that Jefferson was trusted and admired. Whatever he would write would be taken seriously and would be greatly respected. Because Jefferson was involved with politics and because he was known to be a respectable writer, it made sense to appoint him to draft the Declaration. Jefferson worked fastidiously to convey the correct amount of spirit and to set the ideal tone for the document (Ellis 31). When it was finished, he edited it one more time before handing it over to the remaining members of the committee, where it would then go to Congress to be critiqued.

The final Declaration was the result of many revisions. Many items from the original draft were cut and other items were added. The resulting piece was in many ways based on Lockean ideals. Carl Becker in his book titled, The Declaration of Independence: A Study in the History of Political Ideas, stated: English writers in the nineteenth century, perhaps somewhat blinded by British prejudice against the French Revolution and all its works, complacently took it for granted that the political philosophy of Nature and natural rights upon which the Revolution was founded, being particularly vicious must be peculiarly French; from which it followed, doubtless as the night the day, that the Americans, having also embraced this philosophy, must have been corrupted by French influence... The Americans did not borrow it; they inherited it. The lineage is direct: Jefferson copied Locke and Locke quoted Hooker (Ellis 63).

Jefferson had a particular interest in Locke. He had read his work, and read extensively, until his own writing was very similar to that of Locke's (Ellis 46). Jefferson, on the other hand, stated in a reply to Pickering and John Adams that, .".. I know only I turned to neither book nor pamphlet while writing it. I did not consider it as any part of my charge to invent new ideas altogether and to offer no sentiment which had ever been expressed before" (Ellis 45). He also stated in a letter written to Richard Henry Lee that, ."..

Neither aiming at originality of principles or sentiments, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind... ". (Ellis 45). Jefferson had seemingly read Locke so many times that Locke's style and views were committed to his memory and leaked out into his own work. For instance, Locke states, "Men being, as has been said, all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put of his estate, and subjected to the political power of another, without his consent...

". (Ellis 58). This ties in very closely with Jefferson's, view that. ".. all men are created equal... that among these [rights] are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness... ". (Ellis 15). Jefferson is basically saying the same thing as Locke.

They both are stating that all men are born free and equal. Both believed that men have rights, which are given to them at birth and should not be taken away by any man, regardless without his consent. Locke's statement that. ".. no one can be... subjected to the political power of another, without his consent... ". ties in with Jefferson's clause which states, "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security" (Ellis 3). They are both stating that the government is allowed to rule a man by his consent, and if man is not happy with the government because of abuses or offenses placed on him by it, then he has the right to come together with his fellow men and not only overthrow the government, but create a new and improved version. Perhaps Jefferson did not refer directly to a manual or read any books to help him draft the Declaration, but it is very apparent that Locke's writings were very influential to his draft. During Congress's revision of the Declaration, they cut one rather lengthy clause (among others) from Jefferson's draft.

Jefferson had written: "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 hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where Men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the Liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another" (Ellis 10). Congress deleted this clause for several reasons.

The South Carolinians and Georgians in Congress favored slavery and several of the delegates from northern states were a bit wary of this disapproval because they themselves represented citizens who practiced slavery. Also, in the deleted clause, "He" stood for King George. The King, obviously was not the only person behind the slave trades, but this clause made it seem otherwise. Pauline Maier in her book titled, American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence, states that: ... But the very acknowledgment that colonists had been in the past or were at present willing participants in the slave trade undermined the assertion that 'the Christian king of Great Britain' was alone responsible for that outrage on humanity. The Americans were destined to receive criticism enough for asserting the 'inalienable' rights to 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' while themselves owning slaves.

Some people recognized the contradiction and were ready to move toward greater consistency between principle and practice, but so monumental a change as the abolition of slavery could not be accomplished in a moment. For the time being, it was wise at least not to call attention to the persistence of the slave trade and to the anomaly of American slavery (Ellis 99). Including Jefferson's original clause would not have brought unwanted attention to slaveholders, but it would also have caused Congress to have to seriously consider and institute the abolition of slavery. Obviously, because they needed the Declaration expediently and because many of them either practiced directly or benefited indirectly from the slave trade, this was deemed to be an impractical idea at that time. Rather than cause undue stress, they deleted this clause. The Declaration of Independence still retains its significance because of the clause which states, .".. all men are created equal... they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...

". (Ellis 15), and the clause which accused the King for encouraging, "treasonable insurrections of our fellow citizens" and the clause that said he [the King] also "excited domestic insurrections among us" (Ellis 100). These three clauses do not put stipulations on what they mean as "all men" and "fellow citizens" and "us". Therefore, it should have been quite natural to include not only the colonists, but the slaves as well.

In 1861, Lincoln used such clauses from the Declaration as. ".. all men are created equal... ". to prove his point in the war against slavery (Ellis 16). As a natural human being, I myself think this clause applies to exactly who it says-all men. Basically, nothing was really lost by deleting Jefferson's lengthy clause about the King's rule in the slave trade. Instead of including a blunt, lengthy, and, quite simply, a contradictory clause in the Declaration, they had a straightforward clause (.".. all men are created equal... ". ) which still got the point across without shedding light on the delegates' participation in the slave trade.

Throughout the course of time, the Declaration has not lost its impact. If anything, it has gained a lot. Lincoln, several abolitionists, feminists, civil rights workers, Martin Luther King, and many rising nations throughout Asia, Africa, and Latin America have used it. In 1945, Ho Chi Minh declared Vietnam free of the French and quoted from it. Protestors in Prague and even China chanted and made banners containing clauses from it (Ellis 15-16). The Declaration of Independence does not just represent freedom for man in America, but freedom for man everywhere.

It is a source of inspiration for all, and proof that things can change, and become better for the oppressed. It was written during a very unpleasant time when many in the world surrounded by tyranny, warfare, slavery, and many other injustices. It was also written to declare the independence of our nation from Great Britain and to denounce the Crown. Yet, the clauses in the Declaration still hold true today. We all have God-given rights and freedoms and the Declaration recognizes them and validates for us that we have them, and that they should be honored. Granted, its contents can be interpreted in many ways, to fit many different arguments such as abortion, welfare reform, and affirmative action (Ellis 16), but it serves as a basis for our freedoms and rights.

We should all take pride in the Declaration of Independence. It took not only time and effort to write it, but it took a lot of courage. The Declaration was not just a piece of paper stating the colonists frustration with Britain; it was in actuality a "public confession of treason" which meant death and confiscation of estate for one found guilty (Ellis 104) at that time. If one really thinks about it, the men who signed the Declaration risked loosing the very rights stated in the document.

The document stated that their creator had given life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They risked their lives, freedom and property to gain independence from the Crown and to have freedoms of their own. These freedoms included, freedom to run their own country as they saw fit, freedom to live life in the manner they chose, freedom to form their own laws and regulations, and many more. Men, who risked death for treason in writing it, wrote this Declaration, and because of them we all enjoy our freedom and ability to have choices. The document not only played a role in gaining independence from Great Britain, but it played a role in the abolition of slavery, in equal rights for African-Americans and women, and many more.

We should all be proud of the Declaration. It is a document the United States formed on and its contents definitely hold true value even today more than ever.