--Wald der Versäumnis
Monday, December 13, 2010
Jefferson's Declaration of Independence
Thomas Jefferson's original submission of the Declaration of Independence and the final document as we know it today have several significant difference between them. In fact, had Jefferson's version gone on to be ratified in its entirety, the United States of America as we know it today would almost likely be a very different place. The most obvious and important omission in Congress's final draft is the paragraph dealing with slavery. Jefferson originally intended for the Declaration of Independence to put an end to slavery in America. Unfortunately, in order to get enough support from all of the colonies to ratify the document, the prohibition of slavery had to be eliminated. Another interesting difference between the two is the removal of "inherent" in the second paragraph to describe the rights of all men. In the changed version, human rights are described as merely inalienable. Perhaps the writers wanted to suggest that natural rights can (or at least should) not be taken away from anyone, but they are not necessarily a given; that is to say, not everyone is born into a situation where they already have these rights, but nevertheless, all humans should have these rights. Lastly to be discussed, in Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence, the last sentence reads: "And for the support of this declaration, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor," but the last sentence of the current Declaration reads: "And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor." This change seems to have been made to indicate a religious affiliation for the United States. I would expect that this alteration was made to garner support for the document from the strongly Puritan and other religious colonies.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The changes are interesting on many fronts. I suppose that the argument will always exist about the references to Christianity. I have been reading a number of biographies of people of this time, and one of the ideas I have come across repeatedly is how important this faith was to many -- not a minority -- of the 'founding fathers.' These were thinking men who wrestled with some of the dogma of the institutions represented by the various churches. Franklin is a good example; he said that he constantly searched for a church with which he might associate himself, but he never really found one. He is also famous for having said, in some of the meetings of the Continental Congress, that he believed in a god who was active in the affairs of men. You can ask Doc about what he might have meant since he was usually classified as a Deist.
ReplyDeleteThe word 'inalienable' was carefully considered. Think about the intended audience; it was a clear message to the king that these rights could not be taken away by him -- in my opinion. I base this opinion on readings I have done about the evolution of this document.