Analysis: Declaration of Independence

Date: 1776

Author: Jefferson, Thomas

Genre: political tract

Summary Overview

The Declaration of Independence was the first formal statement by the American colonists of their intention to become independent from British rule. In the decades that preceded the American Revolution, anti-British fervor had been growing, catalyzed by such laws passed by Parliament as the Stamp Act and the Intolerable Acts. The document was published and distributed as the British military stepped up its efforts to quell growing anti-British activity in the colonies. The Declaration took issue specifically with King George III and stated that the colonies had a right to declare independence if their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were to be denied by the British government. The Declaration served as a landmark document, accelerating the American Revolution, fostering the notion of democratic government, and inspiring other revolutions around the world, most notably the French Revolution.

Document Analysis

On June 7, 1776, Richard Henry Lee of Virginia, as ordered by the convention of the colony of Virginia, offered a resolution to the Continental Congress that the congress declare the thirteen American colonies to be free and independent from Great Britain. After some delay and discussion, the congress agreed to form a committee (dubbed the Committee of Five) to draft such a statement. The committee consisted of John Adams of Massachusetts, Roger Sherman of Connecticut, Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania, Robert Livingston of New York, and Thomas Jefferson of Virginia. The Committee of Five turned to Jefferson to write the statement, and although he later claimed that his initial draft was edited in some parts by Adams and Franklin, the final draft was clearly Jefferson’s verbiage.

The Declaration of Independence was written in several parts. The first, the introduction, summarizes the colonists’ position: As a result of the oppression exhibited by the British government, the colonies were left with no choice but to separate from Great Britain. The second part, the preamble, outlines the principles on which the colonies’ independence was declared. The third part, the body, was presented in two sections: first, the specific issues that existed between Great Britain and the colonies, and second, the efforts made by the colonists to address those issues prior to secession. The last part is the conclusion, stating that the colonies are no longer to be considered a part of the British Empire and that all previous relationships between these two parties were no longer valid.

Enlightenment Influence

The introduction and preamble to the Declaration of Independence echo a number of themes that were introduced during the Enlightenment. For example, Jefferson comments that men (all of whom stood on equal footing) were endowed by God with the basic rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These rights, according to Jefferson, were therefore inalienable (impossible to surrender). It is the role of government, according the Declaration, to develop a system in which those tenets would be vigorously upheld and defended.

The notion of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as basic human rights stems from the ideals of John Locke nearly a century earlier. Locke argued that life, liberty, and property should all be considered “natural rights.” In fact, Locke criticized the British monarch’s authority to protect the interests of the people, suggesting that the monarchy was constantly at odds with its people. Meanwhile, the legislature (in the case of Great Britain, the Parliament) was a far more effective representative for the people. Meanwhile, Charles de Montesquieu made a similar assertion in France, although he saw the monarchy as an executive, serving as a check and balance to the legislature’s activity.

Jefferson built on the ideals of Montesquieu, Locke, and other Enlightenment-era philosophers, making an argument that, if government did not uphold its responsibility to structure itself in a manner suited for the protection of those human rights, it should be replaced. According to the Declaration, the new government would replace the former regime’s intransigent elements with institutions that speak to the needs of the people. To be sure, the Declaration argued, many governments had existed and operated in their repressive ways for a long time. The decision to change long-standing political regimes and institutions should not be made lightly or in mercurial fashion, but rather based on prudent, careful consideration. After all, Jefferson acknowledged, many societies continued to experience “sufferable” hardships—to these people, simply adapting to one or two oppressive policies was more desirable than working to completely undermine the government. For those nations in which government oppression was far too egregious, however, Jefferson argued, it is the duty of the people to “throw off” those governments and replace them with new institutions that ensure the future health and well-being of the citizens.

Grievances without Redress

In the first section of the body of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson makes clear that the colonies had been subjected to such long-term oppression. The king of Great Britain, the Declaration charged, had a long history of usurpation and injurious treatment of the American colonies. The body of the Declaration next provides a long list of examples of this treatment.

Some of the allegations the Declaration makes to generate pro-revolutionary sentiment concern the political and public policy process. The king, for example, refused to agree to the introduction of laws (as approved by the colonial governments) that served the public good. If new colonies or similar entities formed, the king would refuse to provide any political protection unless these new parties relinquished authority to British rule. Furthermore, the document alleged, the king deliberately forbade his governors to pass important and pressing legislation without his consent—a pace and process that were convenient only for the king.

In addition to the Declaration’s accusations of the king’s apparent indifference, Jefferson’s document claimed that the king was in many ways deliberately stifling the growth and success of the colonies. In fact, this conscious undermining of the colonies was meant to render the colonial leaders exhausted and frustrated to the point at which they would capitulate to the king’s authority. The Declaration cites incidents in which the king called for colonial legislators to meet in locations and at times that were completely inconvenient to them. In other examples, the king was alleged to have refused to allow the election of qualified people to colonial government, thus slowing the public policy process. Furthermore, any colonial governing body that opposed the decisions of the king was quickly dissolved by the royal governors and replaced with leadership more amenable to the king’s agenda. In the meantime, the royal government in Britain frequently appointed tax commissioners and other senior officials whose tasks interfered with the efforts of colonial officials.

While the king’s sophomoric attempts to slow the colonies’ public policy process made life difficult, the Declaration of Independence stated that there were many more egregious and oppressive measures and actions undertaken by the king. For example, the judiciary, which was expected to protect the people’s rights through strict interpretation of the law, was manned by people handpicked by the king, despite any colonial laws to the contrary. In fact, the king interjected himself into the legal process, applying his own legal decisions and interpretations on a number of cases.

Some of the most confrontational decisions made by the king with regard to the colonies involved his allowance for military personnel to live among the colonists, even during peacetime. This issue was particularly evident in the years following the French and Indian War—although the campaign came to a close, British soldiers called up to take part in the effort were stationed over the long term in the colonies. These soldiers were largely protected from prosecution by the colonial judicial system as well. According to a 1774 law passed by Parliament, if a crime such as murder was committed by a British loyalist in the army or by a British official, he was sent back to Britain, given what amounted to a sham trial, and released without punishment. The presence of such personnel caused undue stress for the people of the colonies, resulting in cases of harassment and other issues. In fact, under the Quartering Act of 1765, the king allowed British troops to enter, without warning, and take up temporary residence in colonists’ private homes.

As the Declaration of Independence continued to present its list of grievances against the king, the accusations became more severe. Jefferson accuses the British government of increasing taxes on products such as sugar, molasses, paper, and tea without the input of the colonists. Additionally, the document takes issue with a 1769 law passed by Parliament that allowed for the extradition to Britain of colonists accused of treason. The Declaration accuses the king of unlawfully arresting and prosecuting colonists for fabricated crimes. Furthermore, colonists who were arrested for smuggling and other trade-related crimes would likely be tried in America, but British law permitted them to be tried without a jury of their peers present.

In another complaint, the Declaration took King George III to task for the Quebec Act of 1774. The British government had allowed for the extension of Quebec’s borders to the Ohio River, thereby allowing French law to apply in those regions. In doing so, the British could impose more severe controls over their own provinces.

By the 1760s and 1770s, it became clear to the colonists that the British government was directly pursuing total domination over the colonies. For example, Jefferson’s document cited the Declaratory Act of 1766, which declared that the royal government had the authority to make any and all laws for the colonies, rendering moot the colonial governments’ lawmaking activities. Additionally, Parliament passed a number of laws that restricted the colonies’ ability to negotiate and conduct trade with nations other than Great Britain, moves that the Declaration states are akin to cutting off the colonies’ international trade policies.

As the Revolution continued to build, the British government consistently clamped down on the institutions that fomented the liberty movement. In 1774, Parliament ordered that all town meetings in Massachusetts be restricted and that its local officials be appointed directly by the king rather than elected by the general public. Parliament did not stop at removing the charters of local communities, either; in 1767, Parliament suspended the New York Assembly (that colony’s legislative body) altogether, as that institution refused to comply with the Quartering Act.

The king’s efforts to squelch the pro-independence movement, documented in the Declaration of Independence, became more overt and confrontational as violent confrontations between the colonists and British army increased. Thomas Jefferson’s document describes how the king “abdicated government here,” an accusation that the Declaration states gave the king an opening to wage war against the colonies. This warfare was carried out on a number of fronts. For example, the Declaration accuses the British government of attempting to incite anti-independence violence from within the colonial population, thereby creating divisions and competing factions. Such factions would threaten to undermine the united front driving the Revolution.

In addition to his subversive activities, the king was accused of kidnapping American sailors while at sea and forcing them to take up arms against their fellow colonists or else face execution. The power to do so had been given to British ships by the Restraining Act of 1775. Furthermore, the British were accused of attempting to gain favor with the American Indians residing in the colonies, convincing them to take up arms against the colonists. The Declaration commented on the brutality employed by the Indians in previous colonial conflicts (as reported from King Philip’s War of 1675–76 and the aforementioned French-Indian War), citing the fact that the Indians did not respect the rules of war and demonstrated a willingness to kill women and children during such conflicts.

Furthermore, Jefferson commented on the fact that the king hired and delivered mercenaries to America to add their armies as they continued their assault on the colonists. This section spoke directly Great Britain’s hiring of entire units of Hessian soldiers from its principalities in what is now Germany. Although the British expected to defeat the colonists quickly, the battles of Bunker Hill, Lexington, and Concord gave Great Britain cause to believe that the colonists would not yield easily. The cost of raising troops in Great Britain was high, particularly in comparison to the costs of hiring Hessians, many of whom had already been relocated to New England and Canada to fight on Great Britain’s behalf during the French and Indian War. Jefferson and his contemporaries considered Hessians brutish and uncivilized barbarians brought to America by a government bent on unleashing torture and cruelty upon the colonists. Furthermore, the colonists were outraged that the British would introduce another foreign combatant into what they believed should be an internal matter between the Crown and its colonies.

Finally, the Declaration cites the fact that the British were actively engaged in the destruction of the colonies’ interests, plundering colonial ships, burning villages, and killing many citizens. This line spoke to a number of incidents, such as the capture of American vessels suspected of breaking the new trade laws. It also recalled the destruction of Falmouth, Maine; Bristol, Rhode Island; and Norfolk, Virginia, that occurred as the conflict raged.

According to the Declaration, the colonists had exhausted every resource to address these complaints in a peaceful manner. It claims that the colonists first attempted to file petitions of complaint with the king, seeking relief from such actions and policies. The response they received came in the form of “repeated injury.” In light of this oppressive policy, it became clear to the colonists that they were not serving under a benevolent monarch but a tyrant who was “unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”

Having seen no improvement in the British attitude toward the colonies, the leaders of the independence movement deemed it appropriate to warn the king of the consequences of his actions. They reminded the king of their common heritage—the colonists may have immigrated to America but remained “brethren.” This comment appealed to what the colonists hoped would be a more respectful response, one that never came. In the absence of a response, the colonists next made clear their position that increased restrictions, surreptitious activities, and direct belligerence would ultimately be met with colonial resistance. According to the Declaration, this approach generated no response other than continued conflict.

With the British government showing no intention of halting their attacks and oppressive rule over the colonies, Jefferson and his colleagues declared that they had no choice but to secede. They asserted that this policy was the only option available to the leaders who sought a better life for the colonists. Therefore, the Declaration was as a “necessity” in the decision to consider Great Britain an enemy.

In light of the colonies’ plight, according to the conclusion of the Declaration of Independence, it was the right of the colonies to declare—not just to the king but to the entire world—that they would become “free and independent states.” In light of this status, the colonies would no longer be subject to British law or allegiance to the Crown. Additionally, any political connections between these new states and Great Britain would be immediately dissolved.

Finally, Jefferson’s document made clear to the king that, as a result of the Declaration, the independent states formed thereafter would have the full power to form their own governments and economies. The states would have the ability to enter into contracts with other states and nations, establish trade and commerce institutions, and form alliances. Furthermore, the states would have the power to wage war on their enemies (namely Great Britain) and enter into peace treaties.

The Declaration of Independence was officially adopted by the congress on July 4, 1776, although the New York Convention did not sign until July 9. Thereafter, it was distributed throughout the colonies and their respective conventions as well as to officers of the Continental Army. Fifty-six delegates would sign the document by August 2, 1776.

Bibliography

“Brief Biography of Thomas Jefferson.” Jefferson Monticello. Montecello.org, 2012. Web. 24 May 2012.

“Declaration of Independence.” Charters of Freedom. US National Archives and Records Administration, 2012. Web. 24 May 2012.

“Declaration of Independence.” History Channel. History.com, 2012. Web. 24 May 2012.

“Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu, and Rousseau on Government.” Bill of Rights in Action 20.2 (Spring 2004): n. pag. Web. 24 May 2012.

Lanning, Michael Lee. The American Revolution 100: The People, Battles, and Events of the American War for Independence, Ranked by the Their Significance. Naperville: Sourcebooks, 2008. Print.

Mintz, Steven. “Was the Revolution Justified?” DigitalHistory. Digital History, 2006. Web. 24 May 2012.