Criticism on the Declaration of Independence, As a Literary Document

Front matter

Criticism

on the

Declaration of Independence,

Criticism, &c

Seventy years having passed away, since this celebrated production was published, it will not be deemed disrespectful to its signers, or invidious toward any order of partisans, if we bring to its examination the same rigid impartiality, allowable in criticising passages of Longinus or a composition of Aristotle.

As it may be said of the Declaration, that it accomplished the purposes for which it was designed, all unfavorable observations are as supererogatory, as were the sinister reflections of Buonaparte on the disposition of the British forces at Waterloo—a triumphant reply to all which consisted in the brief assertion of the respondants, "we beat you." So it may be rejoined with like propriety; for as much as it was the end to be attained, and not the means to attain that end which became important on the day of that eventful battle; it is true, neither the glory of the victory is diminished, or the consolations of the vanquished increased, by the imperfection of the means used. But so far as an analogy exists in the two cases, it bears on the political aim and sequences of the Declaration of Independence; upon which topic I do not propose at present to remark. Its literary merits and demerits are a different, and as I think, a fair subject of critical examination. To this aspect, and to this alone, do I invite the attention of all those whose curiosity or peculiarities lead them to make a distinction between what is good and bad, proper and improper.

The document proposed for consideration, has every where and at all times received the plaudits and huzzas of the multitude. The question comes now to be considered, whether upon a careful review, it deserves the approbation of the scholar. Whether we ought to have a more exalted idea of some of the actors in the drama of the revolution, in consequence of this production, or a less one, is certainly a legitimate subject of inquiry. But that matter can only be settled by a close inspection of the document itself. I understand to be sure, that great men will not always bear close inspection; but who ever claims to be a great writer, or for whomsoever that reputation is claimed, their works must abide that test, or their claims must fall.

These brief preliminaries being all I deem clearly necessary upon commencing the subject, I invite the examination of my readers to the first paragraph. Supposing it to be familiar, to every one, or if not, that it is in every one's law book where reference can be had to it any moment, I will not quote it entire. My observations upon this passage will be brief, because the purpose of it for the most part, seems to be for an opening of the subject, and for an harmless soother of asperities expected to follow.

"When in the course of human events" it appears expedient "for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with an other," I admit it would not be improper for that people to declare the causes which made that expediency apparent to them. But I entirely deny the propriety of a similar declaration when in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands that have connected them with an other. That necessity knows no law, is a thoroughly established maxim—that it knows no apologies—can neither make them or receive them, is as evident as the maxim of which it is but another version. More strenuously should I deny the propriety of a declaration of causes, when a necessity (necessity is obligatory if it is any thing) obliges them "to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them."

A mere philological criticism was no part of my design; perhaps then I ought to apologise for noticing the queer position of the preposition "to," in the lines last quoted. To assume a station, which the laws of nature entitled them to occupy; would have been natural, and perhaps easy but "to assume a station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them," it occurs to me, would have been an exploit as awkward in the performance as it is in the grammar.

It is the ideas however, and not the mode in which they are expressed that I purpose to examine. To these let us return, with all the indulgent tenderness for our national character, consistent with truth. If a gentleman in a ball-room had broken his thigh, so that it became necessary in the course of events, for him to assume a recumbent position; would a decent respect to the company he was in require, that he should declare the causes why he could not dance? I do not make this comparison for the sake of its mirth but simply as a convenient parallel to illustrate the anti-climax of this peculiar species of gravity.

"To declare the causes" which impel to certain acts, that had just been stated to arise from necessity and the laws of nature and of nature's God, favors the impression, that the writer had forgotten at the close of his sentence, the ideas he had advanced at the beginning. It reminds me of the edifying exposition of a sick man to his physician. "Oh doctor," said the patient, "necessity obliges me to send for you." Well, said the physician, what is the matter? "Oh Sir! matter enough; my throat is all stopped up—can't breathe—head aches ready to split, with terrible pains in the side and back; besides I a'nt very well myself."

The distinction we ought to make, between the "laws of nature" and the "laws of nature's God," the writer, doubtless, were he living, would be able to explain. But being dead, we are left to conjecture what the difference is. I will put the best construction upon it, and suppose, by "the laws of nature" the writer meant that physical arrangement of the globe, by which an ocean separated us from the ruling power, making the propriety of an independent government, more obvious on that account. And by the expression "laws of nature's God" he contemplated those ever springing aspirations in the heart of man, to possess all the liberty he could get, and power too. If this was the meaning, it suffers only for the want of an interpretation. If it was not, the latter clause is merely an useless expansion of the first—a mode of expression admissible in the paroxysms of frantic eloquence on a fourth of July; but entirely out of place in a grave piece of writing.

The expression "human events" I submit to the taste of the cultivated reader. Affairs, may be human or inhuman; divine or diabolical. An "event" may be great or small, &c. But can humanity or inhumanity be predicated of "events?" To be sure, human beings are actors frequently, in the scenes which when completed we call "events." Does that fact however, make them human? A pestilence—famine—the rise and fall of empires and wars are events. Does the connection of human affairs with any of these events, make the event human? The error of the writer is however very small; consisting merely in attaching the same idea to the word "events" which a scholar would have attached to affairs.

Events are abstractions; in the mind of the pagan more or less connected with fate: and in the view of the christian with Divine Providence. In either case they are understood to be supra-human. Truth, may be divine; but can it with strict propriety be called human? A human truth would be nearly as inappreciable as a divine lie. Human beings may tell the truth; that does not make the truth human; because it is what exists irrespective of the man or of his veracity. So of events. They are passed, or are transpiring, or foreshadow their coming, and all this irrespective of man. Events, therefore are not human. "To err, is human."

My remarks upon the first paragraph, having been protracted far beyond any expectation or previous design; it may be proper to state here, that I do not meditate a querulous critic upon the whole piece. So far from that, I look upon the Declaration as possessing literary merit of a high order. It is too late to deny it, if one had the disposition. A composition that for seventy years can carry such a burthen of defects as this has, must possess great strength somewhere. I had rather carry the gates of Gaza than such a load. And since it was once discovered, that the great strength of a giant lay in his hair, let no neophite suppose, as a corresponding paradox, that the vigor of the composition under review, lies concealed in the unintelligible generalities at the beginning, or the sounding nonsense at the end. Whoever possesses sufficient acumen to distinguish flourishes of rhetoric from facts, will perceive (as he reads the passages that follow the one commencing thus—"The history of the present king of Great Britain, is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations") that the bold, honest, straightforward recital of facts that follow, is a different affair altogether, both in style and sentiment from the verbiage that precedes it. But more of this in its appropriate place.

The second paragraph of the Declaration, is the one on which I purpose to extend my reflections; both because it is oftenest quoted, and as I think, most unhappily calculated to create the same confusion of ideas in the reader, that the mind of its writer unquestionably was troubled with. If I am charged with microscopic views, I shall treat the charge as captious, unless its author is able to show, that a different lens would lead to different conclusions.

We will quote so much of it here as I purpose to comment upon; that the reader of these pages may refer to it as often as occasion requires.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident—that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men," &c.

It is to be observed that the preceding paragraph had closed with the sentiment," that a decent respect to the opinions of mankind required that they should declare the causes which impelled them" to certain acts. Now it occurs to me, that a decent respect to the hearers or readers of the document would have impelled its author immediately to declare those "causes." So far however from such a sequence, the author drops the subject of "causes" and goes into a statement of views, having not the least relation. to what had preceded, nor any necessary connection with what was to follow. While the mind of the reader is occupied in vigorous efforts to discover the verity of the author's self-evident truths, he can hardly fail to forget that there was any necessity for a declaration of causes, or in fact any causes to declare. But this defect in the composition is doubtless pardonable, it is so common, and known to arise from the juvenile desire on the part of an author, to exhibit himself instead of his subject.

Let us see what the author holds to. Says he "we hold these truths to be self-evident," &c.—going on to make a statement of them. Is it not obvious to remark, that what is self-evident, needs no attestation? Is it not a needless piece of supererogation to declare, what in the same breath is affirmed to be evident without a declaration? What is self-evident, is, what is known. To inform men of what they knew before, seems but a slow way of increasing knowledge: nevertheless, the author of this part of the Declaration of Independence thought proper to undertake it. The measure of his success in this peculiar method of instruction, is a matter yet to be determined.

The verb "hold" in the sentence under review, is used in its metaphorical sense, and is undoubtedly appropriate, so far as the philology of the passage is concerned. But to hold, to what one cannot get away from, does not appear to me a greater virtue, than to let go what one cannot keep. At any rate, it is not a virtue I would recommed a friend to make any parade about. In modern times "self-evident truths" would not escape observation, if they were not held. But in "the times that tried men's" logic, it appears that what was self-evident could not be brought to notice without considerable pains. However, holding to self-evident truths, may yet come in fashion. The march of mind, and "the progress of democracy" arc so rapid, we may soon expect to reach the dark ages. As there is no pervading "light of knowledge" in those ages, every one must be impressed with the importance of preserving his own store. Let us conscientiously strive to remember, what there is no chance of our forgetting: then when we enter into the darkness, if each one will light his icicle, we can raise an illumination that will make the dark ages more brilliant than the enlightened ones.

A knowledge of what is self-evident, is a knowledge in possession of those who are addressed, as much as in his who makes the address. Some parts of our present knowledge, we may hereafter forget, because our minds are not refreshed with a frequent presentation of the objects or causes that produce that knowledge. But what is self-evident is constantly presented to us; we cannot avoid knowing about it; we cannot divest ourselves of this kind of knowledge, without divesting ourselves of the mind itself. The man, who purposing to travel in Egypt, should take a lad with him to hold the pyramids while he inspected them, would probably come back, with more crude views of those stupendous objects than he set out with. The man who proposes to make a statement of self-evident truths, certainly, must have such crude notions of what is self-evident, that his statement would not be good for anything: and if I am not mistaken, that point will be made to appear, before we have done with this matter.

Is not the fact, that the author (of this part of the Declaration) goes on to state, what be had averred to he "self-evident," satisfactory testimony of one or the other of two contingencies, namely, that he either did not know what he was talking about, or, he must have supposed that those whom he addressed did not know? I admit that it is not absolutely conclusive, because there is one other contingency, to wit, that the whole was a mere joke. I think, however, the solemnity of the occasion, as well as the imperturbable gravity of the author, precludes us from the latter supposition. To be sure, in matters of jollity, the absurdity of a statement is what makes the fun of it. The greater the former, the more irresistible the latter. But the author of a witty absurdity, must show his tact by a nice choice of the occasion when it is to be uttered, or he himself becomes the subject and not the author of the mirth that is made. I cannot therefore indulge the belief, that the author of the Declaration was jesting with a nation in so trying an emergency, as that which clothed our country in sorrow and sack-cloth, on the fourth of July, 1776. Hence we must fall back on one or the other of the contingencies, stated at the beginning of this paragraph.

But what is it, of which self-evidence is affirmed? Why, "that all men are created equal." Did the author of this assertion believe it true? I think there is more evidence, to show that he disbelieved his own assertion, than there is to show that the assertion is capable of a demonstration. How can we have any belief, upon a subject upon which we can have no knowledge? We may entertain conjectures, upon subjects where our knowledge is very limited; as for instance, we may conjecture that the planet Jupiter is inhabited with beings like ourselves: but our present knowl- edge is too slender, for any man of sense to assert a belief or disbelief about it, much less to assert that it is self-evident that planet is inhabited like our own. Supposing the author had asserted that "he held it to be a self-evident truth," that straight lines were crooked? How would the absurdity of this statement have differed from the one he has made, namely, that he held that to be self-evident, which neither he, or any one else can possibly know any thing about; all which, I think I shall be able to show. But as an argument here, would anticipate what might, perhaps, with more clearness, be said by and by, I will for the present omit the demonstration.

A self-evident truth, is what no man can avoid knowing. If a knowledge of it can be avoided, it ceases to be self-evident. A self-evident proposition, is one that invariably carries conviction with the mere statement. In mathematics, propositions of this nature, are not necessarily ludicrous. But in ethics, this mirth mooving quality is unalterably connected with every statement.

A happy instance illustrating the characteristics of a self-evident proposition, occurred on this wise. An aged pedlar, of very grave demeanor for that profession, happened into my house, while I was sitting at table with my family. He was invited, of course, to partake with us. The subject of conversation for that time, was the difference between civilized and savage nations—the superior advantages, moral, intellectual and physical of the former, &c. The pedlar listened to the conversation with apparent interest, when, supposing doubtless, that he ought to minister to us of his intellectual things, as we had ministered unto him of our carnal, very gravely remarked, "I hold it to be a fact, that the people of civilized countries, is more enlightened than savages." The mirth of the juvenile part of the company, became audible at this self-important effort to add to their knowledge.

As it is a rule with the never to make fun of a subject, that any thing else can be made of; I took occasion to remark, that the stranger, apparently with very little effort, had succeeded in stating what was self-evident; and in that particular, had surpassed the author of the Declaration of Independence, who had made great efforts to that end, without the least success.

I trust it will not be considered an affront, if I suppose some of the readers of the Declaration, have as vague notions of what is self-evident, as its author had. I would therefore, invite any reader of these pages, to refresh his own mind with such self-evident truths, as in his opinion, will bear a sober statement. if he can find any, out of the Declaration, or in it, that will stand that test, his search will be attended with better success than I am willing to concede to the author of the Declaration himself.

The distinctions between a self-evident truth, and a self-evident proposition, I believe I alluded to a few sentences back. As it is easier to make a statement of a proposition, than of a truth, I will give an example of the former. Black men are more apt to be dark colored than white ones!!! If any of my readers should succeed in making a statement of a self-evident proposition, that is not ludicrous, he will find it to be because it is not self-evident. Truths that are not self-evident are the only ones that increase knowledge.

Leaving for the present the absurdity of stating, what in the same breath, it is conceded no man can avoid knowing, to the consolations of its own company; let us see what is the first famous truth the author of the Declaration affirms to be self-evident. Why! "that all men are created equal!!" If the professor of mathematics in Yale College, should gravely announce to his pupils, the following theorem—"I hold this truth to be self-evident—that all geometrical figures are exactly similar," he would place his reputation for veracity and acumen, in the same position I conceive the author of the Declaration to occupy. And if his pupils should give a gaping credence to his asseverations, I should look also upon them, as entitled to the same degree of respect, which the applauders of these passages in the Declaration deserve.

Would it be disrespectful to inquire of the author, if living, by what authority he made this statement? For how are we to believe him possessed of this extraordinary piece of knowledge, when no other man does or can know it without a special revelation? If the author had prepared our minds for his marvellous statement, by informing us that he held the truth he was about to utter, as revealed, then no doubt, we should all be willing to concede to him, the same measure of respect we invariably pay to a Mormon; but since he entirely neglected so to prepare our minds, we cannot think him entitled to that measure of respect.

The truths which are of vital importance to man, are those revealed in the scriptures. A necessity for this revelation, under the circumstances of the case, arose from the fact, that those truths were not only not self-evident, but they were incapable of a demonstration. Doctor Paley, who has brought to the contemplation of this subject, a degree of clearness and ingenuity rarely equalled, has endeavored to show that the being of a God was fairly deducible from the ingenuity and evident design of the visible creation. I concede to him as a logician, the highest order of merit. But I deny that men could come to the conclusion he argues for, if their minds had not been previously prepared for that conclusion, by the revelation the reasoner affects not to use. No man ever has obtained a knowledge of the true God, so far as we are informed, unless by revelation. The strange, incoherent mythological views of the heathen, are the greatest advance towards this knowledge, which man has ever made, unaided by the knowledge the scriptures reveal. If doctor Paley had found one heathen, who, by searching, had found out God, he would have found one fact in support of his logic; but since he has neither found, nor pretended to find a solitary instance like this, his logic must fall like the fictions of the heathen to the dust. If for six, thousand years, the heathen had not discovered his Maker, would six thousand more increase the chances of his success, or multiply the difficulties in the way of it? Unquestionably the latter. The longer man was estranged from his Maker, the more inveterate became his blindness. His case had become desperate beyond the twinkling of a hope: hence the necessity for a revelation. Our Creator would hardly have stooped to reveal what he had endowed man with ability to find out. A supposition to the contrary, nullifies itself. Doctor Paley's logic would stand well enough, if it had any thing to stand en. But I find like other sermonizers, I have neglected the subject I began with. Let us return to that.

If the statement "all men are created equal," had been found among the passages of scripture, which reveal to us the information, "that the day is set when God will judge the world in righteousness,"—had the statement been invested with the sanctity such company would give it; then indeed should I have yielded my assent to its truth, not as a matter of reason, but of faith: and not then without the reflection that my faith in that particular, was indeed a virtue, as difficult to practise as any other connected with self-denial.

But the passage under consideration is invested with no sanctity commending it to our faith; neither does it possess a speciousness that commends it to our reason. It is neither more nor less than an uninspired and presumptous asseveration, upon a subject that no man can possibly know any thing about.

We draw our inferences from facts as they exist, or from facts as they are presented to us. And what are those facts? Under every conceivable contingency—under circumstances unlimited in their dissimilitude and inequality, are men born; under all these do they continue to live; and under them also they die. Whether all men are created equal (using the verb in its true and literal sense) can be known only to their Creator. And since there is no revelation on that point, it is as impossible for man to know any thing about it, as it is to beget himself.

But admitting the word to be used in an expanded or figurative senses; and that the creation alluded to, is to man as he is, or as he appears. How are the facts more applicable then? Still, from forms of surpassing beauty, through a long series of gradations to the most offensive deformity—from minds of the purest radiance, through like gradations, to those of the obscurity, fog and confusion of his, whose profitless aphorisms are under review—from the extremest verge of what is lovely and desirable, to the limit of all that is odious in complexion, condition or circumstance are men created. These are facts, as palpable as the continent on which we stand. No reasoning, no study, faith or patience can make them or unmake them. These are the facts, and there are no other. One might as soon reason the Andes from their foundations, as reason us out of knowledge we cannot avoid possessing.

What apology then, is there to be found for the man, who, in the face of all these facts, and against the convictions of a conscience, if he had one, took occasion upon the going forth of a solemn public document, to parade the absurd crudity of his own "that he held it to be a self-evident truth, that all men were created equal?" What national dignity have we gained for our consolation, or what national honor for our comfort, for thus publishing to the world in our first and gravest document, this swel- ling axiom, as contemptible for its inapplicability, as for its falsehood? Neither the Divine government, nor any human government, with which history or experience have made us acquainted, have treated men as created equal, or as being equal; and for the best of all reasons. It is an impossibility. The attempt would confound all distinctions between right and wrong, good and had, useful and useless. The human government that should attempt it, would attempt its own nullification. It might as well attempt the task of singing the dirge at its own funeral.

Nevertheless, it is not improper that men should be contemplated as equals, and treated as such in several particulars. Courts of justice, and governments too, may be instituted for this purpose among others. It is not, however, their whole duty. It is certainly as much a part that duty, and as an agreeable a function. of it, to create inequalities between the good and bad, as to level them under different circumstances.

Supposing the author of the Declaration had asserted among his self-evident truths, that he held the heavens to be made of brass!! Certainly there are more appearances at times to justify such assertion, than there ever was to justify those he has made. Would any man have practised under such a belief? Would any man have shaped his conduct to that contingency? And if they did not, would not their conduct be satisfactory evidence that they did not believe the assertion? Men have not altered their conduct since the marvelous developement "that all men are created equal." The author of the statement never shaped his to that end. This is as good testimony as can ever be got, that neither he, nor any one else, ever practically believed the statement true. And it is to be questioned, whether theoretically, the author, or any other, ever gave credence to it. For it is quite difficult for me to conceive how a man can have a belief, upon a subject, upon which he can have no knowledge. That difficulty, I apprehend, is irremoveable. If the assertion had been, that all men are created unequal, we might with some propriety have put credence in it; because a great multitude of analogies lead to that supposition. We have what amounts to some knowledge on that point. But when the assertion is, "that all men are created equal," we possess no fact, circumstance, analogy or revelation, that touches the subject; consequently we can have no knowledge, and of course, no belief. The author of this statement could have had no belief in its truth, because he possessed no knowledge in the premises, that is not common to us. There is no possible apology for his making it, but lunacy.

I cannot but think the friends of a greater extension of priviliges and franchises, do miss their aim, and squander their energy of argument, by quotations or settings-forth of the assertion, "all men are created equal." No man believes, or can believe it. It therefore possesses no force but to weaken the positions and arguments connected with it.

Because men, so far as we can draw any conclusion from facts, are created unequal; it by no means follows, that the abominations of slavery are of course to be justified, or the system itself to be tolerated. Whether those abominations arise from the system or from the cruel disposition of fallen man, is a question perhaps, yet to be settled. If the evils come from the system, there is hope of their cure, either by an amendation of the plan, or by its abrogation. But if they arise from the depraved nature of man, they will continue, irrespective of the "peculiar institution."