-^^.^ o V ^0• c, \r 0^ ^'^'J- o. ; -^^0^ ^. -^z vO V' .^r^% <^ ■Ht. -^is • «'' "^ o'iolw. <,<■ *<> -ells • *^ ^ °o^ %'W^'J>^ \--f>X\^^ %'5^'y V* ■» o " • o, •^^ y% ^>^ <-^ o''/iN'^^^^:^^Pfe,''w ''■^ ^-^ "-J^M^^^^ 'J^ t"^ 0' ^^•n^. ^> ^-^ ^"^ o'J ■^ CRITICISM ON THE declaration of Jn^c|)cnirf net, LITERARY DOCUMENT. BY MON DROIT. NEW YORK. FOR SALE AT THE NEWS OFFICES. 1846. CRITICISM ON TBE medaration of Jn&fpen^enct, AS A LITERARY DOCUMENT. BY MON DROIT. NEW YORK, FOR SALE AT THE NEWS OFFICES. 1846. / 1 .s-?^ -.«•>! CRITICISM, &c Seventy years having passed away, since this celebrated pro- duction was pubUshed, 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 criti- cising 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 respon- dants, " 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 event- ful battle ; it is true, neither the glory of the victory is diminished, or the consolations of the vanquished increased, by the imperfec- tion 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 pro- pose 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 dis- tinction 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 refer- ence can be had to it any moment, I will not quote it entire.* My observations upon this passage will be brief, because the pur- pose 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 con- nected 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 (neces- sity 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; per- haps then 1 ought to apologise for noticing the queer position of the preposition "^o," in the lines last quoted. To assume a sta- tion, 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 • Note A. 6 occurs to me, would have been an exploit as awkward in the per- formance 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, con- sistent 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 conveaient 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 for- gotten 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 ; ray 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 con- struction 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 he^^rt 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-r-^a mod^i of expression admissible in the paroxysms of frantic eloquence; on a fourth of July ; but entirely out of plaqe in ^ g^^ve piec^ of writing.! ♦ Note B. t Note C. 6 The expression "human events" I submit to the taste of the cultivated reader. Affairs, may be human or inhuman; divine or diabohcal. 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 empire* and wars are events. Does the connection of human affairs with any of these events, make the event human 1 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 yf'\\\\fate: and in the view of the christian with Divine Providence. In either case they are understood to be supra-hu- man. Truth, may bp divine ; but can it with strict propriety be CdiWe A 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 irrespec- tive 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 neophile 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 micro- scopic views, I shall treat the charge as captious, unless its author is able to show, that a different lens would lead to different conclu- sions. 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 gov- ernments 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 man- kind 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 vigor- ous 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. 8 Let U8 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 1 Is it not a needless piece of supererogation to declare, what in the same breath is affirmed to be evident with- out 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" are 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 niake the dark ages more brilliant than the enlightened ones. A knowledge of what is self-evident, is a knowledge in posses- sion of those who are ^ddrfesSed, as much as in his who makes the addtess. Some parts of ottr present knowledge, we may hereafter forget, because our minds are not refreshed with a frequent pre- sentation of the objects oY c&u)ses that produce that knowledge. Bat what is self-evirfelir is" constantly presented to us; we cannot avoid knowing about it; we cannot divest ourselves of this kind • Note E. 9 of knowledge, without divesting ourselves of the mind itself. The inan, 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 any- thing: and if lam 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 he had averred to be " self-evident," satis- factory 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 1 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 im- perturbable gravity of the author, precludes us from the latter sup- position. 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 authoi* of a witty absur- dity, 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 begin- ning of this paragraph. But what is it, of which self-evidence is affirmed 1 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 disbe- lieved 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 en- tertain conjectures, upon subjects where our knowledge is very limited ; as for instance, we may conjecture that the planet Jupi- ter is inhabited with beings like ourselves : but our present knowl" 2 10 edge is too slender, for any man of sense to assert a belief or dis- belief 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 1 How would the absurdity of this statement have dif- fered 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 anything 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, waa 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 me 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 sta- ting 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 11 the readers of the Declaration, have as vague notions of what is self-evident, as its author had- I would therefore, invite any rea- der 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 consola- tions 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 mathe- matics 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 repu- tation 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 applau- ders 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 revela- tion? 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 con- cede 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. 12 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 contempla- tion 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 visi- ble 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 tow- ards 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, nul- lifies itself. Doctor Paley's logic would stand well enough, if it had any thing to stand on. But I find like other sermonizers, I have neglected the subject I began Avith. 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 informa- tion, "that the day is set Avhen God will judge the world in right- eousness, "-^had the statement been invested with the sanctity such company would give it ; then indeed should I have yielded HJv assent to its truth, not as a matter of reason, but of faith : and 13 not then without the reflection that my faith in that particular, waa indeed a virtue, as difficult to practise as any other connected with self-denial. But the passage under consideration is invested with no sanc- tity commending it to our faith ; neither does it possess a specious- ness 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 facta 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 sense ; 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 ofi'ensive deformity — from minds of the purest radiance, through like gradations, to those of the obscurity, fog and confu- sion of his, whose profitless aphorisms are under review — from the extremest verge of M'hat 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 founda- tions, 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 con- science, 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 pub- lishing to the world in our first and gravest document, this swel- 14 ling axiom, as contemptible for its inapplicability, as for its false- hood ? Neither the Divine government, nor any human govern- ment, with which history or experience have made us acquainted, have treated men as created equal, or as being equal ; and for ihe best of all reasons. It is an impossibility. The attempt would confound all distinctions between right and wrong, good and bad, 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 meu should be contempla- ted as equals, and treated as such in several particulars. Courts of justice, and gorernments too, may be instituted for this purpose among others. It is not, however, their whole duty. It is cer- tainly as much a part of 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 crea- ted 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 pos- sess no fact, circumstance, analogy or revelation, that touches the 15 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 privili- ges 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 argu- ments 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 abomina- tions 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 araendation of the plan, or by its abro- gation. But if they arise from the depraved nature of man, they will continue, irrespective of the " peculiar institution." There is no remedy in that case, but a divine one. Men with cruel hearts, will find ways to wrong and abuse each other, sys- tem or no system. It may not be amiss here to inquire, under what contingencies, equality can be predicated of man; and if possible, to find some shadow of apology for that startling paradox, which is under review. Can it be alledged on this behalf that all men are equally created to die 1 So are brutes. And if any thing is gained by our assent to that, it enures to the advantage of the brute, and not to the author of the Declaration ; for if that constituted equahty, the brute might have been comprehended in the dispensation, and the self-evident truth would have stood then — '< all men and brutes are created equal." But is it even so, that all men are created to die ? All that have passed away from the land of the living, so far as our knowledge extends, except two, have died. But what rea- son, aside from that derived from analogy or revelation, is there to lead us to the belief, that all those now living were created to die ? Some of the modern prophets, at least, have been looking 16 to escape that contingency. At any rate, it is not self-evident that all men were created to die ; neither is it demonstrable at present one way or the other. Supposing the apology to be, that all men are created equally responsible to their Creator. Very well. Does verisimilitude of condition, in a single particular constitute equality in all ? That all men are responsible to God, as a point of faith, we believe. That they are equally responsible, is a point to be proved. What knowledge we can get on the subject, leads to the belief that the responsibility is unequal ; and because the man with one talent was held to a different account from the man with ten ; we reasonably infer that it was because there was a difference between them. Men ought to do their duty, both to their neighbor and their Crea- tor ; but there has ever been an immense dissimilitude in their methods of discharging that obligation. Suppose the apology to lie in the authority of scripture, " God hath mn'le of one blood all the nations for to dwell on the face of the earth," — if I quote right. What does this amount to; but to say their blood, all of them, is that of man, not of bulls or goats. The prophet Ezekiel, notwithstanding this knowledge, contem- plated a very great dissimilitude among men ; for in speaking of the Assyrians whom he hated, "all of them desirable young men, clothed in scarlet and riding on horses ;" nevertheless said he, "their flesh is as the flesh of horses, and their issue as the issue of asses." Doubtless he would make just the same reflection on the Southern chivalry, could he see a specimen. Be that as it may, if I possessed the ability to sneer with such unadulterated scorn as that, I would set up nights to exercise my faculty. Doubtless in some vague and unprofitable manner, equality may be predicated of men ; but in no sense or shape, as I conceive, can it so be done, as to divest the sentence under review of its treach- erous absurdity. Against our knowledge, innate, acquired, or revealed — against the instinct and impulses of every son of Adam, is the assertion, " all men are created equal." The powers of no individual, nor of any combination of them, with all the advanta- ges to boot of genius, and the fii t order of physical endowment, can produce one solitary example of perfect equality. Even in the instance of twins, one must be born before the other, conse- 17 quently an inequality of age follows ; to say notliing of the diverse and ever varying contingencies occurring to man in despite of the most careful safeguards. In conclusion of my remarks on this part of the subject, there is one point of negative testimony, which I admit, so far as it goes, favors the supposition, that the declaration under review is self- evident. It is this. What is self-evident, cannot be shown to be Irue, by demonstration clearer than itself. I allow therefore, the expression "all men are created equal," to be self-evident, if evi- dent at all; for it is clearly incapable of any proof whatever. The second truth affirmed to be self-evident is expressed thus — " that they (i. e. all men) are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights ; that among these are life, liberty and the pur- suit of happiness." To alien, is to dispose of, part with, put away. What is unal- ienable, is what cannot be disposed of, parted with, or put away, either by the possessor, or by any one else : for if it can, it ceases to be unalienable. Life is affirmed to be one of these possessions. If it were true that no man could alienate (dispose of) his own life or any one's else, it would prove an immense comfort to brag- garts. They could parade their patriotism and bravery without serious risk. Wars too, would cease to be attended with those losses, which have hitherto been accounted their chief terror. For myself I had supposed that life Avas alienable : and I apprehend the author of the \ery sentence under remark, thought so ; for before he closes this famous declaration, he pledges his "life," among other things. To pledge what one cannot dispose of, amounts to no higher virtue, than to give away what one does not own. If life were unalienable, the pledge so sonorously paraded at the close of the Declaration, would be as worthless as a Virginia abstraction, or an abstract Virginian. Moreover, if life is unalienable, there can be no more evidence of true patriotism. No man can part with his, for the good of his country. The Declaration that contains the self-evident truth that life was unalienable, was published the 4th July, 1776. The battle of Bunker Hill, where Warren, and many brave warriors had alienated their lives for the benefit of their country, had taken place in June, of the previous year. Montgomery also, with hia 3 13 companions in glory, had the same year alienated their lives under the ramparts of Quebec, for the same purpose. The patriots, like- ^visc, wlio were slain at Lexington, liad done the same thing. They sleep in their graves, each one with the sweet hope of immor- tal joy for his bed-fdluw ; and when they awake, they will find that their smiling companion had awoke before them. It seems fortunate for the posthumous fame of these glorious old warriors, that they effected this impossible alienatinn, and secured their renown, a little before the self-evident truth made it evident they could do no such thing. To pretend a distinction between the rigid to life, and life itself, is but making darkness visible. The alienation of life, under cer- tain circumstances, has ever been considered one of the most exalted actions a human being is capable of performing. The alienation efiecled on mount calvary, has attracted the admi- ration of h.alf mankind, for more than eighteen hundred years. Every battle field, from IMarathon to Saratoga ; every page of history, every day's experience, furnish us with but too much, and too lam(;ntable testimony, that life is alienable. The assertion therefore tliat life is an unalienable endowment, is not only not self-evident, but is a specimen of sophistry unsupported by any known fact, and incaj-able of the shadow of proof. It is indeed not improper to suppose, that our first parent, when he came; from the forming hand of his Creator, was endowed with nn unalienable right to life. But he, with that perverseness, com- mon to all his race, succeeded in alienating the aft'ections of his IMaker. As a just retribution for his perversity, the glorious endow- ment of a right to life, was taken away from him, and the endow- ment of a right to die substituted in its place. This endowment, has clave to his posterity with an unalienability that has never been broken, though every device that the ingenuity of man could invent, has been tried to cfiect that alienation. If the author of the Declaration had asserted, that all men were endowed by their Creator with an unalienable right to die, he would have come as much nearer the fact, than he has, by all the distance there is between falsehood and truth. The second item with which we are endowed by our Creator, 19 and which is affirmed to be " unalienable," is liberty, or if you pre- fer it, the right to liberty. A person may have a right to lands, and yet not be in possession. The right maybe worth something without the possession. As I but brieHy intimated, a few ])assa- ges back, that a distinction supposed, between a riiiht to life and life itself, was only making the obscurity greater, or words to tliat effect: it may not occur to all my readers, that that expression was any thing more than a mere dixit of mine. To prevent such a sequence I will be more particular. To be endowed with a right to live, and yet at the same time can not live — that is to say, a right to life, and yet not in posses- sion — is not an endowment of any practical value. An abstract right to life, which some one has taken away from us is worth less than the carcass of a deail cat. The Creator, I apj)rel;end, has higher occupation than making such endowments. Moreover, the right to live, would seem to conflict very much witli tlie right to die. I doubt whether the two rights can coaxist. That we have the latter, is made evident by testimony as magnificent in quantity, as it is melancholy in detail. The truth is, the right to life is in the possession. It is inseparable. If it were; if a man had a right to life after he had been dispossessed; I know of no process he could institute for its recovery. Where would he stand, while he vindicated his right? What court could he get to entertain his cause, except that of Radamanthus 1 Ordinary dead men, in such an emergency would want the aid of a live lawyer. Could they find one to go before the courts in the next world, to vindi- cate a dead man's right to life ? But supposing he should recover judgment by default ; what sheriff would bring him back to this world, and put him in possession of his lost property? To be sure, man has a self-evident right to life while he lives. I do not dispute that. But it would take an immense amount of sophistry to prove his right to it after that time ; or that the right was worth any thing if it could be proved. I think therefore it has been shown that the right to life and life, are one and insepix- rable ; consequently the expression, "unalienable right to life" amounts to nothing more than "unalienable life" — the word "rights" adding no appreciable idea to the expression, or being of any practical use, except iu sound — sound signifying nothing. 20 We come now to an examination of the expression "right to libert}'." It is true in this case, the right, under certain circum- stances, may be worth something without the possession : and in that particular the word as apphcable to " hberty," has some meaning, but as apphcable to "life" none; and herein in part consists the cheat of tlie sophistry under review. The right to liljerty, in a given case, may be valuable just in proportion to the chances of obtaining actual possession. But an abstract right to what one has not got, and what there is no probability of his getting, seems v/ortii no more than a right to be disappointed. To suppose our Creator makes endowments of that sort, is a pre- sumption I would not like to answer for. "All men" includes black men ! ! Perhaps the reader ought to be informed that the above, is a self-evident truth ; otherwise he might possibly doubt its verity. The value then, of this right to liberty, which a South Carolina slave is endowed with, (if all men are,) may be calculated more easily than a nullifier can calculate the value of the Union. The value of this right, to the poor slave, according to my mathe- matics, is just the value nullification adds to that Union. The truth is, the value of the right, without the possession, exists only in theory, not in fact. To he endowed with a right to think, without being endowed with any mind to think with, vt'ould be just such another endowment — just such an one as the author of the Dec- laration must have contemplated, if he had any distinct idea of the subject. To this complexion it must come at last. The point to be proved then was this, that the right to hberty, though nominally appreciable as a thing s eparate from the posses- sion, is not in ninety-nine cases in a hundred, worth more than the right to life without the possession. To all practical intents and useful purposes, the word "rights" as connected with liberty, may be dropped from the text, and the idea will in fact be as little impaired, as 1 have shown it would be by omitting it before the word "life." The whole idea there was to be communicated, so far as life and liberty are concerned, might have been expressed without the word " rights" and would have stood thus — "endow- ed by their Creator with unalienable life, liberty," &,c. If my reasoning on this subject has not been fair, I should not know how to appreciate that which was. 21 All men endowed by their Creator with an unalienable right to liberty ! ! ! When did this wonderful endowment take place ? The endowment of a right to liberty, without any endowment of means to obtain possession, one would think was rather a cheap affair, considering the source from whence it is said to come. Besides, how is the right to be proved without the possession ? Doubtless every man has a natural right to liberty, who is able to maintain possession; just as he has a natural right to life, so long as he lives. The proof of the right before one has got possession, would be just as difficult in the one case as in the other. The right to a farm at the bottom of the Atlantic ocean, may be set up, by such men as have a " clear and unquestionable right" to Oregon. But if it was asserted that our Creator had endowed us with a right to a farm at the deep bottom of that tempestuous sea, sane men would probably consider first, whether they were en- dowed with means to get there ; if no proof of the second endow- ment were to be had, I am inclined to the opinion, prudent folks would doubt whether the title was genuine — whether it Avas good enough to justify an attempt to take possession. The slaves of our country are in precisely the same predicament with regard to their alledged right to liberty, as we are in, touching a farm under the waves of the Atlantic — certain death attends all attempts, or most attempts to take possession. Where is the pro*)/ of their right? and if none, what is the value of their title? I may assert a right to a farm. When I go to my counsel for assistance, he very properly inquires on what proofs my pre- tensions are founded. "Are you in possession ?" No. "Have you ever been in possession?" No. "Where is your deed ?" Hav'nt got any. " It is devised to you then ?" I've no writings of any kind whatever. "If you have no proof of your right, how can you pretend to have a right?" W'hy, I am pretending. " Oh ho, then your right is a pretence is it : you may pretend possession and that will end the matter." But pretending pos- session will not put me in possession. "To be sure not, neither will pretending to a right give you one." I think I have been explicit enough to show, that rights to things one has not got, and cannot get ; are just equal to no rights at all. The magnificent parade in the Declaration, of *' unalienabla 89 rights to life and liberty therefore, are but a rhetorical cheat — a fiction of the sophist's brain. The word "rights" in its juxtaposi- tion to life and liberty, communicating no appreciable idea; is but darkening counsel by words without knowledge. I cannot but reiterate, what I have I believe expressed before, that the friends of emancipation do fritter awny their logic, by settings forth of these crude incomprehensible fictions. They communi- cate no idea, and possess no force but to puzzle. The right to liberty must be proved by possession, or by human endowments; otherwise it becomes as valueless as an abstract right to a tin whistle, which the owner is not permitted to blow ; no nor to look at; and which upon further search is after all not to be found any where. The consolations such a right as this must give, are all the consolation which the poor slave has. To console him with a statement of them, is but a mockery and an aggravation. The third item with which we are endowed, and which is affirmed to possess the same fixed attributes as the others, is the ^^ right to the pursuit of happiness! !" The idea, if there was one attached to this expression, is too remote and vague for criticism. The attempt to weigli an abstraction in scales, or moonshine in a balance, would require the same manipulations as an attempt to calculate the value of an idea which its author could not express. The most favorable construction I can put upon it is, that no idea was meant to be communicated. The passage was particularly designed for southern ears ; tlierefore sound, not sense, was required. It was more euphonious to terminate the clause with these sounds, than to stop where the idea stopped ; hence they were added. A sarcastic Frenchman once said, "the chief use of language is to conceal ideas." That was not the chief use of it in the case before us; for it does not appear there was any idea to conceal. Pursuit of happiness ! ! Rig/it to the pursuit of happi- ness ! ! ! The same logic, which I am sure made it satisfactory to the reader, that the right to life must coexist with the possession — that they are one and inseparable — is applicable in the present case. To be endowed with an abstract right to tiie pursuit of happiness, and yet endowed with no ability to pursue, is in all respects as barren a privilege as the right to life when one is not 23 In possession. As dead men tell no tales, I do not know how wo are to get any witnesses of a man's right to life after he is dispos- sessed ; so the right to the pursuit of happiness, must be proved by the pursuit, if proved at all. The right, and the possession, must be contemplated as one, if indeed it is a subject concrete enough for contemplation. I shall so treat it from obvious necessity. Some men's pursuit of happiness consists in picking our pock- ets ; others in taking our lives ; a tliird makes his pursuit of hap- piness consist in getting the two first convicted of their pursuits; and in getting them alienated of their unalienable rights to liberty and life. Success in the latter pursuit is quite after my notion of what ought to take place. But these antagonist and ever conflict- ing rights ! ! Are tlicy divine endowments? Rigiits ! nullifying and devouring each other!!! The rights of the Kilkenny cats to fight till there was nothing left but their tails, were just such rights. Such, Oh Progressive Democracy ! is the length and the breadth, the weight, the superfices, substance and sum-total of the sound- ing sophistry in this part of the Declaration of Independence. If in our first and most solemn public document we parade such stuff as this — if we quote it, utter it, land it, is it to be wondered at, that other nations should scoff at our pretensions, and mock when our vain-glory cometh? Our patriotic nation seems deter- mined to have a magnificent opinion of itself, at all hazards and in despite every obstacle. No amount of folly in our state papers, or of nonsense in our public speeches and diplomacy, is adequate to alter that opinion. But what views of our sense or sanity, is all this ostentatious setting forth of unintelligible aphorisms and inappreciable generalities, calculated to create in our cotempo- raries ? Oh that we were endowed with an unalienable disposition to divest ourselves of vanity and lies. I would give more for such an endowment, than fur all the abstract rights this side the moon. The third self-evident truth asserted, is expressed thus — "that to secure these rights" (meaning those we have just been contem- plating) "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," «fec. Rights 1 with which we are endowed by our Creator, and in a manner 24 withal, that makes them self-evidently unalienable, a sane man would suppose, were about as secure as any thing could well be made on this side the grave. Who would want a human govern- ment, to secure, what in the same breath is alledged, a Divine one had secured, so as make the loss of it self-evidentlj impossible 1 Had the writer of the Declaration believed his two first self-evi- dent truths ! he could not avoid knowing that there was no possible use for his third one. Rights, possessing the remarkable charac- teristics affirmed of these, must be objects as fixed as the sun. That luminary does not abide in its place, by any stronger secu- rity, than an "unalienable" endowment of its Creator. Conse-. quently there is no more need of a human government to secure what is unalienable in us, than there is to secure what is unalien- able in the sun. The pyramid of Cheops is not endowed with an unalienable privilege of existence, so far as we know, and is therefore indefinitely more transitory than the rights spoken of; nevertheless I apprehend, three or even four self-evident flourishes of rhetoric, would not add enough to its stability to pay for the breath that uttered them. The earth likewise on which we stand, is not fixed in its sphere with the irremovability affirmed of these rights. It is therefore more liable to drop from beneath our feet, than our unalienable rights are, to slip from our possession. If that contingency should occur, and leave this amazing nation to get along as well as it could without it, the government would not probably find it out ; for it appears that as yet it has never been able to discover what was "self-evident! !" A government insti- tuted to secure the earth from dropping away from us, would not have a more laborious vocation, than one instituted to secure us in rights that could not possibly be taken away. In fine, a gov- ernment instituted to secure us in a knowledge of what was self- evident ; would have the same marvelous employment, as one instituted to secure us in rights that are unalienable. The most astonishing thing about these passages of the Decla- ration is, that such an inmiense quantity of nonsense could be got into so small a compass. If a man could tell a thousand false- hoods at a breath, I confess, it would be some apology for lying, if there can be any. A similar apology must be made for the sentence under remark, if the case admits of one. The htter of 25 lies that spring from this passage, multiply themselves like the plague of Popish saints. There is more than one for every day in the year. I am as much astonished in the contemplation as any of my readers can be. When I commenced this examination I did not propose to myself more than p, short article. But the subject has so grown that I do not feel but half through with it yet. However I will be as brief as the nature of the case admits. The last clause of the passage quoted we have not yet inspected, namely — "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." The government that is instituted to secure me in rights that are unalienable, derives no just powers from my con- sent. If it should undertake the experiment, I should say — thank you ; you need not trouble yourself; 1 apprehend I shall be able to keep, what cannot be taken away from me. Besides it is as much as can be expected of you, to bring to light, what is self- evident. My conviction increases as I proceed in the examination of this document, that its author had no distinct ideas on the subject he was writing about; or if he had, he possessed no faith in the truth of his own assertions. Certainly I have no disposition to under- value any thing connected with the credit or renown of our coun- try ; but would rather pertinaciously insist upon every thing con- nected therewith as great and good, if I thought I could possibly maintain such a position. But in the face of this filial affection I must say, a more crude and profitless jumble of words, than fills the passages in the fore part of the Declaration, is no where to be found in any State document north of Mason and Dixon's line. The first and most fatal mistake of its author, as I conceive, lay in his attempt to make truths. As if the truth was sometliing that could be made. The first prerequisite and vital quality of truth, is, that it is something which exists. Men may tell it, or neglect to tell it. But the attempt to make it, is evidence, that -what they purposed to make, did not exist; consequently it could not be the truth. Visionaries like the author under review, and most persons of some learning without any thorough discipline of mind, are very fond of these attempts to makp. important truths. They succeed in making a statement. Afterwards on looking round for facts in its support, finding none, nevertheless its author 4 26 never seems to alter his opinions of its value. [Let them find the facts, or make them, who are interested in having it true.] The value of a statement consists in its truth : unless the design was to deceive. In that case its value is a minus quantity to all who are deceived. The question may be put to me here, with as much force per- haps as in any o*her place — if this document is the miserable specimen of sophistry you suppose, how comes it to pass, that such men as Franklin, Roger Sherman and other northern men of unquestionable acumen — how comes it they should have put their signatures to it? For the same reason that made them adopt the constitution — a strong imperious necessity. A necessity vehement and inappeasable, demanded of them the adoption of some constitution of government. The same necessity narrowed their choice to the one they did adopt or none. It was the best of two alternatives, notwithstanding its great and almost fatal blemishes. So with regard to the Declaration — the blood at Lexington had been spilt, Warren and his companions had fallen at Bunker Hill, Montgomery at Quebec — it was a time of trouble, when every face gathered blackness, and every town felt distresses daily. The full time was come when the leaders must declare what they purposed to do ; and so pressing was the emer- gency, as to narrow their. choice to the Declaration as it stands or none. They signed it notwithstanding its defects, and in so doing did as I myself would have done. But the signers had some apology for this act, besides the rigor- ous necessity that pressed them. There was some excellent things about it, as I trust it is yet possible to show. It is not the taste or the genius of the signers that I impugn. Their part in it was what emergent circumstances compelled. An apology for them is manifest ; not so with the writer. His part in the premises was the work of the closet — of premeditation and preparation. He therefore is not entitled to any indulgence for the crude non- sense it exhibits. If the question occurs to any one, how the same tree bringeth forth good fruit and evil fruit ? my response will be simply because there are two trees. The composition is evidently the production of two minds. Upon a close and critical " examination of this 27 instrument — the style of its ideas and expressions, I have come to a settled conviction on that point. The same amount of testi- mony necessary to convince me, that the whitest children of our country are the offspring of the blackest inhabitants, would be required to prove to my satisfaction, that the clear straight for- ward statements in the body of the document, were the produc- tion of the same mind as the verbiage that precedes them. The difference in solidity between ramparts of stone, and the mists of the morning, is but a trifle more conspicuous, than the difference between the thoughts to be expressed and the mode of expressing them, observable in the two parts of this production. The clear, strong-minded and honest man, when he has any thing to declare, takes the method which becomes conspicuous in the document, where it says " The history of the present King of Great Britain, is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations," *-