(The following is part 4 of a series on the American Revolution, which begins with the serialization of chapter 7 of my book Defeating Slavery: Hamilton’s American System Showed the Way. The first part of this post reprints the conclusion of that chapter. Parts 1, 2, and 3 can be found on the blog. I will continue with several enlightening commentaries on the Declaration, which are relevant to the ongoing controversy over what the signers intended at the time, the first of which is included here. Subsequent installments will deal with the analyses by spokesmen for the Crown, and by famed abolitionist Frederick Douglass. – Nancy Spannaus)
The endorsement of the Declaration of Independence was obviously a major strategic shift in the American colonists’ fight against British policy. When Virginia Delegate Richard Henry Lee first proposed such a declaration on June 7, its success was by no means assured. Only seven of the 13 colonies could be counted on to support such a radical move, which would make its signers open traitors, in danger of arrest and the death penalty for treason. It took a major mobilization by the pro-independence forces over the next three weeks, to ensure that the resolution would be adopted.[1]
Once adopted, the Declaration itself became a major tool for inspiring the population to fight for its realization. Its Preamble would have especially strong resonance in the black enslaved population, many of whom would demand that they become a reality for all Americans.
Exemplary was the petition submitted by Massachusetts’ Prince Hall and seven other African Americans in January of 1777. Hall, by then a free man and Revolutionary veteran,[2] introduced his petition[3] with these words: “The petition of a great number of Blacks detained in a state of slavery in the bowels of a free and Christian country humbly shows that your petitioners apprehend that they have in common with all other men a natural and unalienable right to that freedom which the Great Parent of the Universe has bestowed equally on all mankind ….”
Winning support for the Declaration was no easy task, as a large portion of our white citizens were hesitant, if not hostile, to break from Great Britain, not to mention the need to put their lives on the line for our freedom. But unanimous agreement of the colonies to the document was achieved. As Lincoln said, the standard had been raised; the hard work of creating national unity on the basis of its principles was still left to be done.
Postscript: Did the Framers Mean What They Wrote?
Did the men who voted for the Declaration of Independence mean what they said when they declared that “all men (indeed, all people-nbs) are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…”? That topic has been the subject of debate from the earliest days of our republic, and it is instructive to revisit some of those arguments today. I will be doing so over the next couple weeks.
I want to begin with one which may be the most shocking. It comes from Alexander Stephens, vice-president of the Confederate States of America, in what has been called the Cornerstone Speech. The speech was given on March 21, 1861 at the Athenaeum in Savannah, Georgia in celebration of the Confederate revolution. Stephens began his discussion of the new Confederacy’s treatment of slavery with the following remarks:
…The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact.
But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. (emphasis added)
The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. …[4]
The next installment: Jeremy Bentham trashes the Declaration
[1] For a review of the fight for the Declaration, see Spannaus, Nancy, “The Fight for the Declaration,” Journal of the American Revolution, August 29, 2019.
[2] For more on Hall, see chapter 8.
[3] The full text can be found at Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society, 5th ser., 3 (1877): 436–37.
[4] For the full speech, see https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/cornerstone-speech
Tags: Alexander Stephens, Declaration of Independence, Nancy Spannaus, Prince Hall