Independence? If so, what?
My father always says, "It's all relative" whenever I complain about anything. His signature phrase is short and vague, but it is also applicable to any situation. In this way, the Declaration of Independence reminds me of my father's words. It is vague, flexible, and timeless, making it relevant for a multitude of people groups and their causes, giving them each a foothold to stand on and be heard. In this paper I will introduce five other interpretations of the original Declaration of Independence before comparing them to the original text. Then I will describe how these other interpretations point towards a lack of specificity in the original Declaration and ponder the consequences of its ambiguity.
"Freedom's Plow" and the Other Declarations
Hughes's "Freedom's Plow" (1943) is a poem describing the birth and development of America. It uses direct quotations from the original text to encourage slaves and other oppressed peoples that "Freedom will come!/ Keep Your Hand On The Plow! Hold On" (Lines 128-129). In doing so, Hughes applies the words of the original Declaration to all people regardless of race or class. Unlike the other documents in consideration, this poem is not its own declaration of independence, so it does not bear the same expectations or format of the other declarations. Nevertheless, its interpretation of the original Declaration bears strong similarities to those of the other ones, which is why we include it when we consider them alongside the original Declaration of Independence. For all intents and purposes of this paper, the phrase "other interpretations" includes "Freedom's Plow."
The Working Men's Declaration of Independence was written in 1829 by George Henry Evans to describe the origins of and need for an official labor party in the American political system. It follows a similar format to the real Declaration and champions natural, unalienable rights and the equality of all men. Representing working men as an economic class, it lists the insufferable train of abuses against laboring men by laws that favor the rich regarding taxes, large corporations, and religious institutions. Evans claims that these laws prevent the less affluent working class from having the "equal means to enjoy 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'" (49). He calls for new laws that will provide the working class with an equal opportunity as the rich to exercise their rights.
The Declaration of Rights of the Industrial Congress (1845) was also written by Evans on behalf of the National Reform Association as a way to promote land reform through a congress of other interest groups and workers, such as trade unions and agrarian reformers. It appoints civil society, instead of only government, as the guarantor of people's rights and the necessary tools, such as education, to enjoy these rights (Evans, 72). It speaks for a variety of causes, but it primarily focuses on land reform and how the "Land Monopoly" was stripping the middle and lower classes of the means to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness while causing violence and aggression (74). To Evans, this declaration symbolizes the birth of an organization that would pursue legislative measures to dismantle the monopoly on land and ensure that everyone's unalienable rights are respected.
The Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions (1848) is the handiwork of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, and Matilda Joslyn Gage at the Seneca Falls Women's Rights Convention. Separated into two sections, it leans heavily on the original Declaration of Independence. The first part, the Declaration of Sentiments, closely follows the format of the original Declaration by emphasizing one's rights and listing how women's rights have been abused and violated over time. Of course, it slightly alters the original text by stating that "all men and women are created equal" (Stanton et al., 78) instead of just men. The Declaration of Resolutions brings in evidence from Sir William Blackstone's definition of natural rights to further bolster the argument for women's rights. It provides a detailed list of how society should look and act when women's rights are respected and honored.
A Declaration of Economic Independence (1975) was written by Jeremy Rifkin from the People's Bicentennial Commission, an organization committed to renewing and extending the spirit of the original Declaration to ensure the creation of a true democratic republic. It changes the original text to say that "economic institutions are instituted among people" to secure their rights, not governments (Rifkin, 171). Following roughly the same format of the original Declaration, it lists the evil crimes of giant corporations and describes how they have wasted resources, exploited workers, created unsafe working environments and products, destroyed small businesses, created inflation through monopolization, widened the economic gap, and most importantly, taken away the rights of workers through labor (Rifkin, 172-173). It calls for the decentralization of the corporate system and the establishment of new economic enterprises and laws that give employees more of a voice in the economic decisions that affect their well-being.
The Role of the Declaration of Independence and its Similarities to Other Interpretations
In order to effectively compare the other interpretations to the real Declaration of Independence, it is important to understand how they viewed and used the original document. It had two purposes: to declare a complete separation from British rule and to establish the American states as having the same rights and capabilities of other countries. These goals make the original Declaration of Independence both a death and a birth. It marks the end of British ownership of the states, and it gives birth to a future when natural, unalienable rights are recognized, and justified rebellion is encouraged. It is this second goal of the Declaration of Independence that the other declarations value the most, leading them to use the document as a podium to stand on and be heard.
The Declaration of Independence served as the model, justification, and defense that the authors of the other declarations needed in order to gain recognition in their respective political and social climates. The other declarations often used the original document as a model by following how it defined the rights of humankind, listed the grievances people suffered, and affirmed the action and loyalty of the people determined to guarantee these rights. Every single interpretation recognized humankind's natural and unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness espoused by the original text (Hughes, lines 91-95; Evans, 48; Evans, 72; Stanton et al., 78-79; Rifkin, 171).
By establishing the existence of human rights and obligating people to resist when "a long train of Abuses and Usurpations…evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism" (US 1776, 1-2), the original Declaration provided the justification that the oppressed people of the other constitutions needed to rebel. They only had to prove how they had suffered abuses under despotism for an extended period of time, which all of the other declarations attempted to accomplish through their lists of grievances.
The original Declaration also served as a defense for the other interpretations to lean on for support. Not even monopolistic corporations or the average male could successfully challenge the Declaration of Independence as a method to cripple the arguments of the other declarations. Doing so would attack the very stronghold that established their own rights. For the women in Seneca Falls, the potential members of the Industrial Congress, the slaves, and the blue-collar workers, the original text was their most powerful advocate and most impenetrable piece of evidence.
What the Declaration of Independence Lacks
One point of agreement among all of the other declarations is that the original text does not say enough. Otherwise, their authors would not feel the need to construct their own declarations in addition to the pre-existing one. However, what exactly the original document fails to include differs in each declaration, leading one to think that maybe the Declaration of Independence was not intentionally exclusive, but intentionally vague. Stanton et al., Evans, Hughes, and Rifkin advocated for different issues that sometimes conflicted with each other; however, they could all agree that the original Declaration of Independence lacked specificity regarding to whom it applied and how a nation of independent states would develop.
The most prominent point of ambiguity in the Declaration of Independence comes from its definition of men. It does not mention slaves, women, laborers, or the victims of large corporations when it says that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…" (US 1776, 1). The authors do not tell us whether "all men" refers to biological males, colonists, only white males, only elite members of society, or all of humankind. This ambiguity allows the other interpretations to adopt their own definitions of the word "men." Stanton et al. believed that the definition transcended gender when they said that "all men and women" were created equal (78). Evans and Rifkin felt that the definition transcended economic class and wealth (48, 171). Hughes believed that the definition spread beyond any type of physical, racial, or social boundary when he wrote, "What he [Jefferson] said must be meant for every human being/ Else it had no meaning for anyone" (Lines 107-108). While one could argue that the original text did not mention women or slaves in its definition of "men" when slavery and women's rights were growing issues in the 18th century, one could argue that it also failed to purposely exclude them. The authors could have said that slaves were or were not of equal status as men, but they chose not to do so. The original Declaration's lack of specificity in its definition of men also left a significant amount of ambiguity regarding how the future of the independent states would look.
In retrospect, we can view the Declaration of Independence as the birth of an empire, but in 1776, the text left very little direction as to the future of the united colonies of America. This is not to say that the authors of the original Declaration did not have a detailed plan of what their next steps might be after declaring independence from Britain. They just did not include any such plan in the original text. In fact, all they really declared regarding the future of the United Colonies was that "as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do" (US 1776, 6). In other words, the authors expected the United Colonies to have the same rights and freedoms of any other free country in the world. They did not specify how our system of government would be constructed or that the states would thrive under a capitalist system. In truth, the original Declaration was not intended to foreshadow America's future, and the authors could not predict the rise of large corporations. So unlike the other interpretations, it gave very little indication as to how their independence might be accomplished.
The other declarations all included plans of action, hopes, or a set of steps to take after their declarations were acknowledged and respected. Now this description of states as "free and independent" (US 1776, 6) from the original text may be seen as a vision for the future itself, especially in the 18th century when democracy was still a radically new concept; however, this vision lacks the specificity of the others. Stanton et al. planned to petition state and national legislatures and hoped to spark a series of women's conventions (81). Evans united different unions into one organization that would urge the government to implement reforms (71). Rifkin wanted legal action similar to the Anti-Trust Act when he called for the "abolition of giant institutions" and corporations (174). Hughes saw the future as a destiny when "all races and all peoples know its [freedom's] shade" (Line 199). These future plans suggest actions that describe how they would use their resources to advance their causes whereas the original text only expressed that they would use their resources freely and as they wished. All of these interpretations expressed some type of vision or design for the future in much more detail than the original Declaration.
Specificity was not the only feature missing from the original text. The vagueness of the original Declaration of Independence allowed George Evans to use it in 1829 and the participants of the Seneca Falls convention to use it verbatim in 1848. Nearly two centuries later in 1975, Rifkin was able to apply it against the corporate system, a development that did not even exist when the founding fathers signed the original Declaration. One could easily see the timeless document used today by organizations representing homosexuals, illegal immigrants, and refugees. Considering its versatility and continued use over time, one could even say that the original Declaration of Independence lacks an expiration date.
Conclusions and Implications
The original Declaration failed to mention a multitude of specific people groups in its definition of "all men." In fact, it left out so many groups that one could say that it was simply vague. One must consider that the authors could not have predicted the rise of the corporate system or the land monopoly and their unjust consequences. The "working class" did not even exist in 1776, so it was impossible for them to include it in the original text. Yet Evans was still able to use it nearly fifty years after its publishing and Rifkin nearly two centuries later. Similar to my father's words, the original text's vagueness towards the people it represented and the future development of the states made it timelessly relevant.
The lack of specificity and an expiration date raise a couple of challenging questions. What are the consequences of its ambiguity, and are they advantageous or harmful to the American people? If the original Declaration was more specific, these other declarations and their corresponding social movements would not have been necessary. In opposition, one could argue that America benefits more after experiencing these social movements, and that the original Declaration is sufficient. The authors could not predict how successful the United Colonies would become, but they did know that they had the potential to grow into an empire. With this in mind, it is possible they kept the language vague, so it would hold truth regardless of future events.