Wed 30 Apr 2008
We’ve all heard it before. Shouted from on high and backed by the grace of providence, a boast so heavenly it could only be born of our writ of independence - that all men are created equal. This simple yet powerful phrase has been embedded in our very being, ensconced in our personal constitution. All the while, its meaning has been grossly misinterpreted since its purposeful insertion into our Declaration of Independence.
But what did our Founding Fathers really mean?
I am of the opinion that the misinterpretation of the equality of all men is where political correctness had its evil seed sown. It was an interpretable phrase that could be and would be easily manipulated through rhetoric and divisiveness, with its natural meaning felled by history. Nevertheless, since Jefferson’s words are physically documented before us, it is easy for proselytizers of all things P.C. to point and say,
since the founding of this country is based on these fundamental rights, we are all one and the same and everyone is equal. We are all equally capable of accomplishing the same great things, and because I believe it so, (backed by the great Jefferson) I will fight for these rights! There are no differences between you and I!!! …Right?
…Wrong!
As Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams sat mulling over the document (they were members of a committee hand selected by Adams with the approval of the President of the Continental Congress, John Hancock, to draft a statement of independence for his majesty King George III) during the 11th hour of our independence, these men envisioned a free nation imbued with equal opportunity for all its people. They intuitively understood that individuals were of unequal talents, ability, and prowess and each expanded on that extensively in their private writings. John Adams postulated the very matter at his desk:
Was there, or will there ever be a nation whose individuals were all equal, in natural and acquired qualities, in virtues, talents, and riches? The answer in all mankind must be in the negative.
However each recognized the singular keystone of this fledgling Republic, was that all men when created ought to be protected and granted equal opportunity to achieve their very desires as a free and independent people. This is the inalienable right to which Thomas Jefferson so eloquently referred.
Now you may be asking the question, “Why was it not written so in the first place?”
An excellent question, and to answer it we must think as brilliant intellects in the context of their situation. First and foremost, with every ounce of their being these gentlemen (see Adams excerpt from Thoughts on Government in the passage below) understood gravely the magnitude of their work.
It has been the will of Heaven that we should be thrown into existence at a period when the greatest philosophers and law-givers of antiquity would have wished to live… a period when a coincidence of circumstances without example has afforded to thirteen colonies at once an opportunity of beginning government anew from the foundation and building as they choose. How few of the human race have ever had an opportunity of choosing a system of government for themselves and their children? How few have ever had anything more of choice in government than in climate?
There was no doubt in their collective mindset that they were creating a crucial document that would anchor the foundation of what would surely take its place as the world’s greatest empire, eclipsing the might of Rome. Their pride was on display as they saw themselves as worthy orators and writers, rivaling the best of Greece and Rome. Surely, Jefferson’s mighty pen would have impressed even Cicero, and these men knew it.
Secondly, and this plays into the first point, the declaration needed to be concise, powerful, and awe inspiring. A document that would be exact in its words and wholly understood by the audience to which it was intended. For the members of Congress, that audience was both well understood and small. It was meant for the King, and it was meant for the military officers of both sides - primarily Washington who was desperate for independence and the full commitment by Congress that it would imply. For the lay, the document was meant to stand as an ethereal creation that had the look and sound of majesty and superiority. This after all was an act of nation building and our fathers knew they had to look and play the part.
The erosion of History
A genius in his own right, Adams had a keen sense that history would not only misunderstand the meaning of equality, but would skew the struggle for independence itself. John Adams was incredibly learned (Harvard scholar), and with his uncanny sense for how truths degrade with history often lamented how he would be wronged by the pen.
My mind has been long fixed to bow to the judgment of the world, who will judge me by my acts and will never take counsel from me as to what the judgment will be.
In later years Jefferson too realized that the spirit of 1776 and the essence of revolution would be widely misunderstood. In a letter responding to Adams inquiry (after their reconciliation) of who would be able to recount the history of the American Revolution? The always reserved Jefferson offered this simple reply, “nobody, except perhaps its external facts.”
This admission by not just men who lived through it, but the men who made this country with their own will is profound when we reflect back with a modern eye. How many times do you remember hearing some blow-hard pundit, or obnoxious neighbor, mention that the founders of this country would be rolling over in their graves? Or the blanket statement that the great fathers of this nation never meant for it to be this way? The facts of the revolution were seldom clear to contemporaries of Adams and Jefferson (”the North and South poles of the American Revolution”), and they were certainly misunderstood by the great minds that immediately followed their leadership. The spirit of revolution was quickly mechanized into a ruthless system driven by people who serve their own needs (see Alexander Hamilton).
If the people, politicians, and historians could not get it right then, we are surely dead wrong now. I suppose the moral here is the same as it should always be. Whenever history in all its glory is reported in a manner that is both cavalier and polished, and sounds too good to be true - it is. All you are hearing is bad history which masquerades as woeful propaganda. It is a bending of truths, in support of half-truths that lend credence to a cause fueled by maniacal motives and political intrigue. It is what we see in the news everyday.
I said political correctness had its start with our nation’s birth because smart people knew they could put even smarter ones up on pedestals. After all you would not dare disagree with the glorious words of Thomas Jefferson would you? Since we are all exactly equal there can be no individual differences. If we were not burdened with revisionist history that statement would read more like this: Just because you are different does not mean your right to opportunity will ever be stripped from you.
Be proud of your differences, as your founders were proud enough to fight for them.
Popularity: 18% [?]
May 1st, 2008 at 1:53 am
So basically, the pigs from Animal Farm got the closest: Some men were created more equal than others.
May 1st, 2008 at 7:23 am
Orwell was a very smart man.
May 1st, 2008 at 11:22 am
Although I agree with you that the U.S. history was written with a polished pen and it was used to propagandize our fledgling nation, I think that it was a necessary cause of action. I mean in order to secure an “empire greater than that of Rome” our beginnings had to have an exceptional story to tell (no matter how false it might be); similar to what the Aeneid was intended to do for Rome.
The Revolutionary Period was not at all a smooth period or a smooth transition; and to boot there were a lot of people that didn’t support the Revolution. Eventually, these disunities would rear their ugly head once again when Jefferson Davis established the Confederacy and tried to secede the South from the Union. If it were not for the fallacies based on the creation of our nation, perhaps Lincoln and Grant would not have had enough support to secure our nations unity, free the slaves, and set a precedent.
May 1st, 2008 at 7:41 pm
I’m pretty sure it was acknowledged in the blog that the wording was necessary as a result of the circumstances.
But anyway, this is a long overdue message. Way too many people misinterpret what was really being said in the Declaration of Independence. The point was that people are supposed to have equal opportunities and rights in the eyes of the State, which was not the case while under British rule. It was not meant to say that every person on this Earth is created with equal skills and abilities. This is obviously not the case, or else why is it that only a small fraction of the population have the physical ability to be a professional or Olympic athlete? Some people are incredibly intelligent, and others are not (usually the stupid ones end up driving in front of me on the highway somehow, guess I’m just a magnet for idiocy).
To say that perhaps we would never had the Civil War and the resultant unity after it if it were not for the misinterpretation of this fundamental piece of our founding is a bold statement. A bold statement that I cannot agree with because the proper interpretation of that line leads one to the conclusion that owning humans as property is immoral and illegal. No misinterpretation required.
May 1st, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Notice: I take pride in making BOLD statements!
I hear what you are saying Jay, but if a newly established country states in its Declaration that all men are created equal and “people are supposed to have equal opportunities and rights in the eyes of the State” then to own any person is simply unconstitutional. While I do acknowledge that when the Constitution was written a black person was technically 3/5 of a citizen, but the Civil War was not started because of slavery. It was started because the South felt they were being misrepresented, just like the colonies felt prior to the Revolutionary War.
On a side note: Regardless of the morality of slavery, owning another human in a country that was destined to be the leader of the free world is hypocritical. But then again this country has always been full of hypocrisy.
May 2nd, 2008 at 7:16 am
So, what you just did was re-write the same thing I did and try to make it like it was your point and not mine? Dude, you’ve done that twice in this comment thread alone. Start reading AND comprehending what people write before you post and argumentative comment back to them, especially if all you are going to do is actually AGREE with the person.
May 3rd, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Greg this was an awesome article.
Its nothing but human nature (or habit?) to seek justification for our behavior in vague writing from centuries past. I mean all religious fanatics do it with their holy books, and these founding documents have become, in a lot of ways, “holy books” of American society.
And to go further with this parallel…its all the social-activist radicals who tend to resort to pulling lines from these documents to justify their politically correct stance.
Also leaning to heavy on the “All are equal” tends to lead to a communist mentality.
May 3rd, 2008 at 9:43 pm
“Also, leaning too heavily on the ‘All are equal’ tends to lead to a communist mentality.”
Ironic, isn’t it?
May 3rd, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Andrew, I think that was exactly what Jake was going for with his Animal Farm connection. Which was an excellent connection.