N '1“l'lA P5

 

ASA

  

w

1846.

 

 “W .»m.~~ r mv   w. ‘ ~«.m., ‘>- .  r M

""»""°""9«m,ff\».1,,»‘ ~s,¢'w‘-».-"..a-..‘w. M H -I

 

  won   SAL   AT arm: N

11 of ,.£11?b

 

 

 

 

          
  
  
    

p t 11 hr 1: tr ,

Hr-NH‘ 1.

.r-,A*-..-*2z='vke\-Q’-agser-g.‘-‘.nev..v-...'k

 

.~_ XV»,

_ ».;~. A-2;;-.A .-.59.». =ss_w_« .\,~.;~,..—.-..c. -4 :;_‘.$‘ *1‘. -.~.-.,«x.-u=uru~Js, «.::.r~x :.;s..-.:\.2:_e~u1s\e-s rxrvx7u\rxrun4f\Jx.«:£3\2x:\;S.~e~)x:x>ga.A:%mAr\?v'vs

,4?

.-.4

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CRITICISM

maturation of Mtrxpnznhenct.

ASA

LITERARY DOCUMENT.

 

..  I I ""1? ~~e.- I
7 I‘ . I ' M"? I Ir I II“ at I’ -‘

W‘ ' ‘ ‘  «I, If‘ ,.‘*'- mi  M  I“ I‘ *9 “' ,3’ 

 Mil’. V /,‘>‘: , ‘ff  via’, Afi“ ffixf’ Ff: fl ‘v\M’.‘,,,“ WI‘ Flt‘ “M    §#,7{“,>v~t§f, J “W: ‘ ‘ ‘V ) V”.  Y)‘ W
- ' ‘ 5’ r« < " “"  » ‘ I‘ ’ . v‘ 3)‘ w x I ,’\y ,~ ,.‘9,‘V ,3 ‘ VI‘  V V‘ I.
    W      £;»»~:W
  ,m£nnvw‘~zw.~Ix.-mvm

 vmwwnuvuvuu , . “M 5
VI 1» A My 

*9” f I.
If 
‘MW

% NEW YORK, %
FOR SALE AT THE NEWS orpxcms.
1846. A

if

CRITICISM, &o.

‘Savanna’ runes having passed away, since this celebrated pro-
duction was published, 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 VVaterloo----a triumphant
reply to all which consisted in the brief assertion of the respon-
dents, “ we beat you.” So it may he 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 impert‘ec-
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-

l pose at present to rernarh. Its litera1'yrneI-its and demerits are a

diflferent, 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 andimproper. p
The document proposed for consideration, has every where
andat 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” lapprobation of the scholar. ‘Whether we

ought to have a more exalted idea of some of the actors inthep

drama of the revolution, in consequence of this production, or a

4

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"
hear close inspection; but who ever claims to be a great writer,-
or for whomsoever that reputation is claifrned; 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 ientirefi“
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.

“Wl1en in the course of human events” it appears expedient
“for one people to dissolve the political bands which have cou--r
nected them with an other,” I admit it would not be improper for
that people to declare the causes which made that expediency
apparent tothem. But I entirely deny the propriety of a similar
declaration “when intthe course of human events it becomes
necessary for onepeople to dissolve the political hands that have
connected them with an other. That necessity knows no law, is a
thoroughly established maxim---that it knows no apologies-z--can
neither make them or receive them, is as evident as the maxim of
which it is but anotherversion. iMore strenuously should” I‘ deny
the propriety of a declaration of causes, when aiiiecessity (necesw
sity is obligatory if itpis any thing) obliges them “to assume
among i 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 I ought to apologise for noticing the queer positionjof
the preposition “to,” in the lines. last quoted. To assume a sta-
tion, which the laws of nature entitledthem to occupy; would
haveib~eennatumZ, and perhaps easy: but “I to assume a station to

-wihichthe laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them,” it

5

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 gentlemanin 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 malte this comparison for the
sake of its mirth but simply as a convenient parallel to illustrate
the anti-climax of this peculiar species of gravity.

“ To declare the causes” vvhich 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 edifyingexposition 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 '2 “ Oh Sir‘! matter enough ; my throat is all stopped
up—-—-—can’t hreathe--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,” tllt-)lW1‘lt61‘, doubtless,
were he living, would be able to explain. But being dead, we are
left to conjecture what the difFe1'ence 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 whichan ocean
separateius from the ruling power, making the propriety of an
independent government, more obvious on that account. pp ‘ And by
the expression “laws of nature’s God” he contemplated those
ever springing aspirations in the heartof 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. jlf it was not, the-
latter clause is merely an useless expansion of -the pfirst---a -mode
of expression admissible in theparoxysms of franpticfeloquenee
on a fourth of July; but entirely out of place ina grave pieceof
vvrigingn‘ ‘ i

it Note 1?... l + Note C.

6

The expression “human events” I submit to the taste of the
eultivatedreader. T Afairs, maybe human or inhuman; divine or
diabolical. An “event” may be great or small, nice. But can
humanity or inhuinanity be predicated of “events'l” To be
-sure, liuman tbeings "are actors frequently, in the scenes which
when 'complteted"we“c-all “events.” Does that fact however, make
themhuman? A pestilence-—famine-~—-tlie rise and fall of empires
andwars” are events. Does the connection of human affairs with
any of these events, make the event human? 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 afairs.

‘Events are abstractions; in the mind of the pagan more or less
connected :witl1fatc: and in the view of the christian with Divine
tProv...idence. In either case they are understood to he supra-hu-
man. Truth, may -be divine ; but can it with strict propriety be
called ‘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; becauseit is what exists irrespective of
the man or of his veracity. So of events. They areppassed, or
areltranspiring,~-tor foreshadow tl1eirrc~o1ni11g, and all this i1‘1'espec-
tive of man. Events, the1~efm~e are not human. “Tc ‘err, is
human.” i i ii i  a

‘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 hurtheni of defects as this has, must possess”
great strengthsomevvhere. I had rather carry the gates of Gaza
than such a load- And since it was once discovered, that the
greatstrensgth of ‘atgiant lay in his hair, let no neophite suppose,
as~Ia~cerresponding paradtox, that the vigor of the composition
nndefirzreview, lies concealed in the unintelligible generalities at
thetheginninig, or the sounding nonsense atthe end. Whoever
pessesses=<sufiicient ‘acumen to distinguish flourishes of rhetoric
from facts, will perceive (as he reads the passages that follow the

7

one commencing thus---“The history of the present king of
Great Britain, is a history of 1‘epe,ated; injuries and~usu1'pations’.’)
that the bold, honest, straiglitlforwardy recital of facts that folloiw,
is aldifl3'erent affair altogether, bothin style and sentiment from
the verbiage that precedes it. But more of this inits appropriiate.
place. , I . I

The second paragraph of the Declaration, is the one on which
I purpose to extend my 1'e-flections; both ybec~ause it is; oftenest
quoted, and as I think, most unhappily calculated to create the
same confusion of ideas in the relatder, that the mind of its writer
unquestionably was troubled with. If I am charged with micro-
scopic views, I shall treat the charge as captiousmnless its author
is able to show, that a different lens would lead to difi'erent con,plu-
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,” (See.

It is to be observed that the preceding paragraph had closed
with the sentiment, F‘ 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 Woultd have impelletd its
author immediately to declare thoset.i€‘caose.s,.”s I So far hhymve;
from suchyla sequence, the author drops the subject of “rcauses”
and goes into a statement of views, having notthe least relation
to what had preceded, nor any necessary connection, with Wat

was to follow. While themind of thelroader is O(3t(§dIJ,pl,g,t;ltt,,_irti;1i=y_i,g'%;;;};;.;..

onus cffortsito discover the verity of the author’s s~e1f:oY,identytmthg,,

hecan hardly fail to forget that there ‘was: any necessity fog; pay,
declaration of causes, or in fact any caus,es.to decl,ai§e. , But this

defect in the 0°"§1P°Siti011,i-9 doubotlessa psarodonable, it,isso c,omI;non,

and kn.o.v,.m to arise ifrom the juvenileldesire on part often,

author, to exhibit himself instead of his subject.

it»

8

"Let us see what the author holds to. Says the “ 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? IS it not a needless piece of supererogation
to declare, what in the same breath is affirmed to be evident with-
out 3, declaration? Wliat 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 deter1ninecl.”“

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 oliservation, if they
were not held. But in “ the times that tried 1ne‘n’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 day-kpages. As there is no pervading “light of knowledge”
in thoge ages, every one must be impressed with the importance
of preserving his own storegi Let us conscientiously strive to
1-emember, what there is no chance of our forgetting: then when

we enter into the darkness, if each one will light his icicle, we can i

raise an illumination that will make the dark ages more brilliant
than the enlightened ones. to t  t i

I A knowledge of what is self’-evident, is a knowledge in posses;
sion of those who areiaddressed, as much as in his who makes the
address. ‘Some parts of our present ‘knowledge, we may hereafter

forget, becauseiour minds are not refreshed" with a frequent pre-if K
sentation of the objects or causes that produce that knowledgeg

But what is iself-if-evident is constantly presented to us; we cannot

avoid knowing‘ about it; we cannot divest ourselves of this“ kind  

l* Note E.

9

of knowledge, without divesting ourselves of the mind itself’. The
man, who purposing to travel in Egypt, should take a lad with
him to hold the pyramids While he inspected them, would probably
come back, Wltll 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 seIf—evident,ithat his statement would not be good forany-
thing: audit‘ I am not mistaken, that point will be made to appear,
before we have done withithis matter. l it i a
Is not the fact, that the author (of this part of the Declaration)
goes on to state, what he had averrecl to be “sell”-evident,” satis-
factory testimony of one or the otherof two contingencies, namely,
that heeither did not know what he was wtallting about, or, he
must have supposed that those whom he addressed did not know’!
I admit that it is not absolutely conclusive, because there is one
other contingency, to wit,ith~at the whole was a mere joke. I
think, iltowever, the solemnity of the occasion, as well as the im»
perturbahle gravity of the author, precludes us from the latter supa
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 author of a witty absur-»
dity, must show his tact by a nice choice of the occasion when itis
to be uttered, or he himself becomes the subject and nottheiauthor
of the mirth that is made. Iicannot therefore indulge the belief,
that the author of the Declaration was jesting with a nation in‘ so
trying‘ an ernergency, as that which clothed our country in sorrow
and sack-cloth, on the fourth of July, 1776. Hence we must all
back on one or the other of the contingencies, stated at the begin»
ztingitlor this parag1'apl1. i i ,5, - p
But what is it, of which self-evidence is affirtned 2 i Why, “that
all men are created equal.” Did the author of this assertion believe
it true’! I think thereis more evidence, to show that he~disbe-
lieved his otvn assertion, than there is to show that the assertion
is capable of la demonstration. Horv can We have any belief, upon
a subject upon which Wetcanihare no knowledge’! We may en-
tertain conjectures, upon subjects where our knowledge is very
‘limited; as for instance, we may conjecture“that'the planet J upi-
ter is inhabited‘ with beings like ourselves: but our ‘present knowlv

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? 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 possiblyknow
any thing 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. i

A self-evident truth; is what no man can avoid knowing. If a
knowledge of it can be avoided, ceases to be self?-evident. A
selt’~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
rnooving quality is unalterably connected withevery statement._ V

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 ht table with  farnilyp. 7, He was invited, of course, to
partake with us. The subject of conversation: for that time, was
the difference between civilized and savage nations---4-the superior
advantages, moral, intellectual and physical of the former, «See.
The pecllar listenecl 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
civi.liliecl countries, is more enlightened than savages.” The mirth
of the juvenile part of the company, became audible at this self-
important effort to addto theirtknowledge.

, As itis 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 Independencet, who had made
great efforts to that end, without the least success. a e i

I trust it will not be considered an affront, if I suppose some of

11

the readers of the Declaration, have as vague notions ofwhat is
self-evident, as its authorhad. p I would therefore, invite any rea-
der of these pages, to refresh his own mind with such self-evident
truths, as inhis opinion, wil.l 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 attendedwith 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 ll! 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. a
 Leavingltfor 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 aflirms 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 positionl 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 usthat 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. I

lie
I t The truths which are of vital iniportance 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 thevisi-

V 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. ‘W 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, not 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 ofhis success, or multiply
the difiiculties in the ‘way ofit’! Unquestionably the latter. The
longer man was estranged from his Maker, the more inveterate
became his blindness. His case had become desperate beyond the
tVVl11l{ll,11g of a hope : hence the necessity for a revelation. Our
Creator would hardly have stooped to reveal what he had enclowed
man with ability to find out. A supposition tor 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 serrnonizers, I
have neglected the subject I began with. , Let us return to that.
If the statement “all men are created equal,” had been found
among the passages of scripture, which reveal toyus the informa-
tion, F‘ that the day is set when God will judge the world in right-
eousness,”-——l1ad the statement been invested with the sanctity
such ,;company would give it; then indeed should I have yielded
 assent to its truth, not as a nnatterfiof reason, but of faith} and

pjwith self-denial.

13

not then without the refleetion that my faith in that particular, was
indeed a virtue, as difficult to practise as any other connected

But the passage under consideration is invested Vvithno sane»
tity commending it to our faith ; neither does it possess a specious-
ness thatcommends 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. A

We draw our inferences from facts as theyexist, or from "facts
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
dothey continue to live ; and under them also they die. Wliether
all men are created equal (using the verb in its true and literal

sense) can be known only toitheir 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 expand,ed 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 ‘i Still, from
forms of surpassing beauty, through a long series of gradations to
the most oflensive deformity-——-from minds of the purest radiance,
through like gradations, to those of theobscurity, fog; and confu-
sion of his, whose protitless aphorisms are under review—from the
extremest verge of what is lovely and desira'b1e, 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 lrnowletlge we cannot avoid possessing.
i What apology then, is there to be found for the man, wl1o,iin
the face of all these facts, and against the convictions of a con-
science, if he had, one, tool: occasion upon the ‘going forth of la
solemnpublic document, to parade the absurd cruclity of his
own “that he held it to the a self-evident truth, that all men were
created equal '1” Wliat national dignityhave We gained for our
iaconsolaition, or What national honor for our comfort, for thus pub-
Jishirig to the world in our first and gravest document, this sWel-

14

ling axiom, as lcontemptible for its inapplicability, as for its false-
hood '2. 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 the

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. . q

Nevertheless, it is not improper that men should be contempla-7
ted as equals, and treated as such in several particulars. , ‘Courts
of justice, and governments 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 theauthor of the Declarationhad asserted among his
self—-evident truths, that he held the heavens to be made: of brass I !
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 '2 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 thestatement 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 difliculty, 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 haveno knowledge, and of course,-
no belief.  The author of this stlatement could have had no belief"
in its truth, because he possessed no kriowledge in the premises,
that is not common to us. There is no possible apology for his
making; it, but lunacy. ’ V p . t ‘ l t i

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.” N oman believes, or can believe it. It
thereforepossesses no force but to" weaken the positions and argu-~
ments connected with it. i t i

Because men, so far as we can draw any conclusion from facts,
are created unequal; it by no means it follows, that the abomina-
tions of slavery are of course to be justified‘, or the system itself to
be tolerated. VVhether 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 tl1eir.,cu1°e, either by an arnendation 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. i r   q

‘ It may not be atnissdtaerei 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‘! 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 equality,
the brute might have been comprehended in the dispensation, and
the self-evident truth would have stood then-A--“ all"nien, andlbrutes
are created equal?’ But is it even so, that allmeri arecreated to
die ’! All that have passed away from the lands of the living, solar
as our knowledge extends, except two, havevdied‘. iBut“what rea-«
son, aside from that derivjed from ianialeogy orrevel”ation,i is there‘ to
lead us to” the belief‘, that all those inowiliviing werecréated 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. '

l Supposing the apology to he, 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. a 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 dif'l'erent 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 animmense dissimilitude in their

rrnethods of discharging that obligation. .

Suppose the apology to lie in the authority of scripture,“ “ God
hath made of one blood all the nations for to dwell on the face of

the earth,”-~—-ifI quote right. What does thisamount to; but to,

say their blood, all of them, is that of man, not of bullsor goats.
The prophet Ezekiel, notwithstanding this knowledge, conteln-to
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;”i nevertheless said he,
“their flesh is as the flesh of horses, and thpir issue as the issue of
asses.” _Doubtless he would make just the same reflection on the
Southernpchiyvalry, 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. T y M,

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—-
erousi 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 T them, with all the advanta-—
ges toboofltof genius, and the iirst order of physical endowment,
canproduce one solitary example of perfect equality. Even 
the instance of twins, one ,must be born before the_other,. conse-

1'7

quently an inequality of age follows ; to say nothing 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
true, by demonstration clearer than itself. I allow therefbre, the
expression “all men are created equal,” to be self-evident, ifevi-
dent at all; for it is clearly incapable of any proof whatever.
The second truth afiirmed to be self"-eviclent is expressed thus—-
“that they (i. c. all men) are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable rights; that among‘ these are life, liberty and the pur-

»s-uit of happiness.”

To alien, is to dispose of, part with, put away. VVl1at is anal-
ienable, is what cannot be disposed of, parted with, or put away,
either by the possessor, or by any one else: for ifit can, it ceases
to be unalienable. Life is afiirmed 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 coinfort 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

myselfl had supposed that life was alienable: and I apprehend
the author of the very sentence under remark, tlxougrlit so; for
before he closes this famous declaration, he pledges his “lil'e,”
among other timings. To pledge what ‘onecannot dispose of,

arnounts 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 beas 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 theselt"-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 oftheir country, had taken
place in June, of the previous year. Montgomery also, with his

I8

companions in glory, had the same yearalienated their lives under
the ramparts of Quebec, for the same purpose. The patriots, like--
wise, who were slain at Lezsinggton, had done the same thing.
They sleep in their gi'av'es, each one with the sweet hope of imtnor--
tal joy for his bed-:l'ello V; and when they awalte, they will find that
their smiling c-ornpanion had awoke before them. '

It seems fortunate for the posthumous fame of those glorious old.
Warriors, that they effected this impossible ctlienatzhn, and secured
their renown, a little before the se{]’-evi(Zc22zf truth made itevident
they could do no such tl’:ing;.

To pretend a distinction between the rigfzt to life,,and lifeitself,
is but making darkness visible. The alienation oflife, under oer»
tain c.ircumstances,,l‘1as ever been considered one ofthe most
exaltecl actions a human being is capable of porl'o1'rni11g;. The
alienation efl"ectecl on mount Calvary, has attracted the admi-
ration of half‘ mankind, for more than eighteen hundred years.
Every battle field, from lllarathon, to Saratoga; every page of
history, every day’s experience, furnish us ‘with but toogmuch,
and too lamentable tostimony,that lifeis alienable. The assertion
therefore that lifeis an unalienable endowment, is not only not
self‘-leviclent, bat is a specimen of sophistry. unsupported by any
known fact, and incapable of the shadow oflproof, l l »   7

It is indeed not improper to suppose, that our firs’t rpai1'ret~It,l When
hegcaine from the ll‘>1'r'rai1r1g hand of his Creator, was endowed with
 unalienable 1~igl'1t to lilh. But he, with that perverseness, com--
mon to all his race, succeeded in alienating the affeetiolnsyof his
Maker. As ajust retribution for his perversity, the glorious endow-
meat ofa right to life, was taken away from him, and the endow-
ment ofa ri,«._:;l‘1t to die substituted in its place. This endowment.

has clave to his posterity with an unalienability that has never
been broken, tliouglti every device that the ingenuityof manrcould‘

invent, has been tried to efl'ect that alienation. ,
Ifthe o.uth01° of the Declaration had asserted, that all menwere
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. , t y  t
The second itremm: with which we are endowed by our Creator.

19

and which is laflirmed to be “ unelienable,”is liberty, or if you pre-
ferit,;the right to liberty. A person~rne.y have at right to lands,
and yet not be in possession. The right may be worth something
Without the possession. As I but briefly intimated, 21 few passa-
ge-si back, that a distinction supposed, between a riglzt to lifeand
life itself‘, was only inelting the obscurity greater, or words to that
effect :; it may not occur to all my readers, that that expression
was any thing more than 0. mere dixit of mine. VTo prevent such
£3. sequence I will be more particular.

Tobe endowed with a 1'igllt 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 notran endowment of any practical value. An abstract
right to“lil'e, which some one 11:13 taken away from us is worth less
than the carcass of a dead cat. The Creator, I apprehend, has
higher roccupetion than making such endowments. Moreover, the
fright to live, would seem ‘l.‘O.C0l'l{'llCl3 very much with the right to
die. J I doubt whether the two rights can coexist. 'l‘hat we have
the latter, is made evident by testimony as 1’1’Jt1g'l'llfiC0l'ltil‘l qnentrity,
as it is meltmcholy in detail. The truth is, the right to life is in
the posse.m'orz.~ It is iinseparable. If it were; if :1 man had 21.
ri-ght-to life. after he had been dispossessed; I lil‘.l0W of no process
he could institute for its recovery. Where would he stood, while
-he fviudicatred his right? 2 VVhet.eoLirt could he 1get'to‘ente1'tein
his cotise, except that of Rztdonmntlius‘? t0rcli'm:n-y dead men, in
such an emergency would want the aid of a live lawyer. Could
they findone to go before the courts in the next world, torvlindi-i
eate ta? dead. mews Tigltti to life ? T BL1tisu})poei,iagl1e ehouildrecoveti
j~ied.gm=:ent,by defz1ult;twhet see-ie“ would b1'ing; him back to this
world, and put bimiin possession of his lost property?
’I‘~1of'be«sure, 1:oarn:he.s to self‘-—e.vident right to life while he lives.’
I do nomdispute that. r But it ’VV0lJl(.l take an immense amount of
srolphistriyto prove his rightito it after that time; 01‘“itllttl..“ll}f;‘ 1-ighrt?
was .w"’=or1'tl1ienyrtl1ing if it could be ‘ proved.   I’tliinlt lithe-referee it
has lwen shownthat the right to life and life, are one and insepa-7
rabble; icon-srequently the expression, —“1.1m1lienolile right to life”
amounts «tow nothing more than “ iinalilermble rlit"e~"’—-4——¥tl1e worcl‘
‘M-.igtbts"?::adding no ve.ppreoie.ble idea tothe expressi‘on, or being
of any practical use, except in ~sout1d---sound sigiirifying nothing.

‘$30

We come now to an examination of the e"xp‘r‘e'ssion “rightte,
liberty.” It is true in this case, the right, under“ certain circumi-
stances, may betworth something without the possession: and in
that particular the word,,,as applicable to “liberty,” has some
meaning, but as applicable to “life” none; and herein in part
consists -the cheat of‘ the sophistry under review. The right to
liberty, 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 i-s no probability of his
getting, seems Worth no more than a rig/"it to be disappointed.
To suppose our Creator makes endowments of that sort, is a~tpre-
snrnption I would not like to answer for., i “All men” includes
black men I l 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 9~2',tr/at to liberty, which a South
Carolina slave is endowed With, (if all men are,)' may b-ecalculated
more easily than a nullifier can calculate the value of the Union.
The value of this right, to the poor slave, accordingi to my mathe-
matics, is just the value nnllification adds to that Union. The
truth is, the value of the 1'igl'it, without the possession, exists only in
theory, not in fact. ~To beendovved with a ri_9;ht to thinl~:'., without
being endowed with any mind to think with, wouldiiilibe just such
another eridotvrxzxent-—-—_jx;1st 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. V

The point to be proved then was this, that the right to liberty’,
though nominally appreciable as a thing s eparate from the-posses-—
sion, is not in ninety-mine cases in a hundred, worth more than
the rig/ll to life without the possession. To all practical intents
and useful purposes, the word “ rights” as connectedwitlisliberty,
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 withunalienable life, —libe,1-ty,”‘, &c. If my
reasoning on this subject has not been fair, I should not know
how to appreciate that whichwas. t

iiii ,,,

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 rig__v;ht 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 diflicnltin 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 tliat our Creator had endowed us
with a right to a farm at the deep bottom of that ternpestuous sea,
sane men would probably consider first, whether they were en-
dowed with means to get there; if no proof ofthe second endow-
ment were to be had, I am inclined to the opinion, prudent folks
would doubt whether the title was genuine-—whetlie1° it Was 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 proof of their 1*igl‘1t? and if none, what is the value of their
title? I may assert a riglit to a farm. When I go to my counsel
for assistance, he very properly inrluires on what proofs my pre-
tensions are fonndetl. “Are you in possession ?” No. “Have
you ever been in possession’!” No. “ Where is your deed 2”
IIav’nt got any. “ It is devised to you then ?” I’ve no writings
of any kind whatever. “ If you have noproof of your 1'igIit, how
can you pretend to have a right?” Why, I am pretending.
“ Oh ho, then your 1'igl1t is a pretence is it: you may pretend
possession and that will end the matter.” But pretending.pos-
sessionwill not put me in possession. “ To be sure not, neither
will pretending to a right give you one.” I y t
  I think Irhave been explicit enough to show, that rights to things
one has not got, and cannot get; are just equal to no rights at
all. I The magnificent parade in the Declaration, of “unalienable

22

rights to life and liberty the-ref'ore, are but a rhetorical Cheflfrrr-H
fietion of the sophist’s brain. y The word ‘.‘ rights” in its juxtaposiev
tion to life and liberty. communicating no o.ppreeio.blet-idea; is
but darkening counsel by words without knowledge. Iearmot;
but reiterate, what’I have I believe expressed before, that the
friends of emaneipation do fritter away their logic, by settings
forth of these crude incomprehensible fictions. 'l‘hey.communi-
oate 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 on abstract right to a tin
whistle, which the owner is not permitted to blow; 110 nor to look

at; and which upon further search is after all not to be found any

Where. The _(30l'3S0l£1ti0l]S such a right as this must give, are all
the consolation which the poor slave hos. To console him wither
statement of them, is but 21 mockery and £111 ogg1'aveti(>11.

The third item with which we are endowed, and which is affirmed

to possess the ez-tine fixed attributes es the others, is the .“rz'gfit to:

the pursuit of lmppiness! !” The idee,if there I/VElS'01'1E31.Eltt€1Cii:'l(*.‘vd.
to this expression, is too remote rmcl vogtie for criticism. The
attempt to weigh on .ohstreetiou in soo.l.es, or moonshine in a
balance, would re~qui.reCthe some tneriipulotions as an attempt to

calculate the value of an idea.‘whi~e1*1 itsratrthorioould not e;upr.ese...“

The most.fi+1voro.ble construction I can put upon it is, that no icleo:

was-meant to be communicated. The passage was prertietulerlyfr
clesi.gt;ted~.fo1- soutlmeru ears; there-f'ore soumltt not eense, “weer

required. It was more euphonious to terminate .ith;@‘ii..‘a1£mtl‘Sa‘ with

these sounds, than to stop where the idea stopped; heneer rtheeyri"

were udded. .. A   p y

‘Asaroastie F1*e11ehm:.-moitee said, “the chief use of*rIo11,;gtiegeJ
is .to,veoz1eeeI ideas.” e .That. was not the chief use ‘ofi‘i;tie the»
case before us; for it does not eppearthere, was any ivcleagtor
conceal. Pursuit of l1a'p1)l.11BSSli Jbig/L‘! tothe pu1'Sl1lt~Qf~*i°lEir[?)i}}fi*~
mess I It! The same logic, W’l'llC'i"l I am sure madetti-t sm;isfeeto1‘y to

the r7ea:de.r,~tI1et the riglzt to life must coexist with thepossession,

—---that they are one and irrtseparable---is t1pp;l~ieeb}eingthe p1'.esen:t
ease“.—1; Totbeliendowred with an abstract rig/at $0;l;’l$B7p.li1‘Sl1itf'.0f
haproirir/e%,:e.nd~ryet euadowed with no ability to t pursue, is in’ all.
résCpeeemi:ae.:;har1'en*.3. *pr:iviIegIe es the riglltwto life when one is notrr

23

in possession. ‘ As dead. men tell no tales, I do not know how we
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
shy; the pursuit, «if proved at all. ,The right, and the possession,
musthe contemplated as one, if indeed it is a subject concrete
enough for contemplation. I shall so treat it from obvious
necessity. ‘ r ~ R
Some m~en’s pursuit of happiness consists in picking our pool:-
ets; others in taking our lives; at third malszes his pursuit of hap-
piness consistiin getting the two first convicted of their pursuits;
and in getting; them alienated of their unalienable rights to liberty
and life. Success in the letter pursuit is quite after my notion of
what Oughtto take place. But these antagonist and ever oonflict-
ing rights! ! Are they divine endowments’! ‘ Rights 1 inullifying
andidevouring each other!!! The rights of the Kilkennycets
to figltat till there wasnothing left but their tails, were just such
riglits. ’ t i i V . , \ l
Such, Oh Progressive Democracy! is the letngtlt and the hreerdthr,
the-weight, the superfices, substance and suln-total of the sound.-
ing lSOpl1is’C1'_}" in this p‘art of the Declaration of’ Independence.
If in our first and most solemn public document we parade such

stuflz‘ as 12l1lS-----if ire quote it, utter it, loud it, is it to be “Wondered

at, that other nations tshoulild scoff at l our pretensionmund mock
whenwour. vein-i~gIo~‘z*ys cometh’! our tpatriotic. nation seems deter--
mined tovhavetn magnificent opinion of itself’, at all lmznrdsend

inrdespiiate every obstacle. N 0 amount of folly incur state papers-4, ,

0rrof7uonse.nse /‘i‘M14“0hl1V'r"I)mh1ic speeches and iediplotndntcy, isradequate
to alter» that ?¥opinion.L But what views of our sense or sanity, ‘is
ellthis ostentatious setting forth of unintelrligihle apwhoris1n~s‘and
inappreciehle g.ener:1lities,toaleculeted to create in our cotempos
reries? t Oh that we were endowed with can unalienable disposition
to divest ourselves of vanity and lies. I would give more forusuehi
en’? end'own1enti,Atl‘mn for all the nhstract 1*igl*1ts thisside the moon.
l °Th»e thirrdsr‘elti~-ieviclent truth asserted, is ex1:n*e'ssed thus-—'—-“that
to ~secu.te these 1'igl1ts” (rnenning those we have just been contem-
ps1artinlg)»i i“rgov<31*ninentesi are instituted onxonglxinxen, deriving their

i just *povne:rs from the consent of the governed,” «Sect ‘ Rights},
Witll1lWhiQ:h?%Weia‘tte endowed by our O-:reeto.1:,; and in la tmenncn

;%

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 wouldwaut a human ‘govern-
ment, to secure, what in the same breath is alledged, a Divine one
had secured, so as malte the loss of it selflevidently impossible ?

Had the wrriter of the Declaration believed his two first self-evi-~
dent truths I he could not avoid knowing that there was no possible
use for his third one. Rights, possessing; the remarkable charac-
teristics aflirmecl of these, must be objects as fixed as the sun.
That luminary doeisiicit abide in its place, by any stronger secu-
rity, than an “iunalienable” 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 una1ien-
‘able in the sun. The pyramid of Cheops isrnot. 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 notlfixed in its sphere with the irremovability affirmed of‘ these
rights. It is thereforermore 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 wcllas it could without it, the government would not
probably find it out; forritappears thatas yet it has never been
able to discover what was “ selfwevidentl !” 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?-
evidentrwould have the some 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 immense 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 litter of

25

lies that spring from this pas.sage, 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 p1*op.lose to myself more than a 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,
n”an1ely——-“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. Ifit should undertake the ex.periiner1t, I should say-—-«thank
you; you need not trouble yourself; I apprehend I shall be able
to keep, what cannot be talteri away from me. Besides it is as
much as can be expected of you, to bring to light, what is self-
evident. _ I
My conviction increases as I proceed in the exainination of this
document, that its author had no distinct ideas on the subject he
was 'tVl'll3ll’lg 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 titling‘ connected with the credit or renown of our coun-—
try; but would rather pertinaciously insist upon every thing con»
nectccl 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 something
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 purposecl 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 males important truths.
They succeed in making a statement. ‘Afterwards on looking
round for facts in it: support, finding none, nevertheless its author

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 other 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, Montgotnery at Q,uebec—-—~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 sigiie1's 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 ih 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-i

sense it exhibits.

If the question occurs to any one, how the same tree bringeth
fo=rtl1g;ood 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 amountof 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
differencein solidity between ramparts of stone, and the mists of
the morning, is but a trifle more conspicuous, than the difi"erence
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 usnrpations,” &c.--the man
whose mind is forty—-nine parts fog, and fifty-one self-conceit will

invariably employ the style, mystification and pompous nonsense

of the passages we have been reviewing.

Moreover, from many analogies I am inclined to the opinion,
that one of these minds had been invigorated by the discipline of
a higher latitude; the other enervated by the lassitude of a lower
-----onefrom the land of facts and truth, the other from the land of
abstractions and vain. philosophy. ’I‘he mind of the higher lati-
tude begins to manifest itself in the _Declaration, as soon as we

I begin to find any truth in it, or any appreciable idea. The sen-

tences in the second paragraph, following those I have commented
on, are intelligible. I think it reasonable to suppose tlierefbre, that
no southern mind produced them. This intelligibility increases
apacetill ilie composition comes to the recital of facts, when
that intelligibility. is complete. We come now to statements that
carry conviction with theni---to ideas that cannot be misunder--
stood and facts that no man can dispute. Not only what truth or
honesty there is in its Declaration; but all the strength, beauty
and value lie in this plain, unarnbitious narrative. .

“ See how a plain tale will put you down,” says a fine writer.
He, andthose who heard him knowing well, that the force of
language consisted in the force of the facts recited; and snblimity
in the brevity wlierewith the truth is set forth.

28

On reading the Declaration, my interest continues unabated
from the beginning of the recital of facts, through all that part of
it which was evidently the production of a northern mind. At
the last paragraph but one, that interest rises to excitement. I
venture the opinion, that a specimen of more touching pathos
than is there set forth, is not to be found in any State paper, of
this country or of any other. That, is the Way in which a strong-
minded man speaks, when he feels himself wronged, and his pur-
pose has become fixed to redress that wrong.

We see no more of the soft latitude in this production until we
come to the concluding clause of the last sentence: there it bursts
forth again with its “peculiar” rhetoric and unmistakable char-
acteristics. .

As the passage is often quoted--—-as it is more frequently in the
mouths of the mock orators and quack; patriots than any other,
we will subject it to the same considerate and fair criticism, We
have applied to its cognate and fellow passages in the first part of
the document. I will quote so much of it here as I purpose to in-
spect.»-“ VVe mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes,
and our sacred honor.” I! If this is not bathos, What is’! If here
is not a specimen of anti-climax, in the place of a supposed sub-
lime asserveration---laughable but from our respect to the circurn-
stances, Where can we find one '2 If after a mauhad pledged
his fortune, he should propose to increase the security by pledge
ing his movable estate, We should hardly think him seine enough
to make any pledge at all. “All that a man hath will he give for
his life” saith a far wiser writer than the one We are reviewing.
Life is by so much the most valuable of all our possessions, that
in its common meaning, it is used as comprehending every thing
else that belongs to us. Life, in the sense in which it is used in the
passage before us, is not confined to mere animal vitality; it com-
prehends all that goes to make up the man. It includes his qual-
ities of soul, as much as it does the blood in his veins. But if We
take the passage as it stands, we must conclude that when they
pledged their lives, they made a reservation of honor; as if that
attribute was something which did not necessarily belong to their

lives: -for afterwards, as if upon second thought, they pledge

that too.

529

If a man had honestly pledged his life, We should feel satisfied
that he could not increase the security; knowing full well, that
all that he had he would give to redeem his pledge, if that redemp--
tion could be effected Without the final and more costly sacrifice.
To pledge their fortunes, after they had pledged their lives, is in
fact, either pledging What was already disposed of, or pledging
what could not be disposed of, .if the first pledge was exacted.
None but the men of “soft latitudes,” would undertake the
gratuity of disposing of their fortunes, after their lives were dis:-
posed of.

But the sounding brass, so sonorous in chivalric ears, and for
which they will at all times and every where sacrifice sense or
sentiment, is “ sacred honor”!l Wliy the chivalry should account
their honor sacred, I could never conjecture, unless it was because
they have bitt little. People are apt to be chary of what is scarce.
Perhaps however We judge them harshly; and they only make a
great parade of this virtue because they have no other. We have
no certain means of knowing but what the chivalry would canon-
ize modesty, if they knew what it Was. But it is not to be
expected, that men can appreciate what they cannot comprehend.

How is sacred honor better than honor’! And by how much is
a pagan virtue superior to a christian one? Piety is a virtue, if
faith is. If We should hear of a man parading and boasting of
his sacred piety l we might, I apprehend, with some propriety
conclude, he really had none at all to boast about; and I venture
the opinion that when we hear men boasting of their sacred honor,
we may come to a similar conclusion with similar propriety.

Honor is nothing more than a virtue; modesty nothing less.
Why one should be acoouiuted sacred, the other not, must be
demonstrated by southern causistry if demonstrated at all.
Chastity is generally accounted a virtue north of Mason and
Dixon’s line. Ifit has not hitherto endured the climate south of
that line, is it so much the fault of the virtue, as the fault of the
cultivators? On the supposition however that this virtue might
be cultivated as an exotic, it is doubtful whether the chivalry
would account it “sacred.” t r

If the chivalrous south pledged their honor because it was
sacred; they must have kept it secreted because it was pledged:

30,

we have never seen any thiiig of it from that day to this. But
the fact that they account their honor “ sacred,” in some measure
accounts for their deifying themselves. For is it but fair that
beings who found they possessed one sacred attribute, should
thereupon presume they were entitled to a post among the “Dii
minores gentium.” But self-sanctification and self-deification do
not ,ap__pear sufficient to satisfy the generous cravings of the chiv-
alry. The Dii minores gentium stoop from their celestial tripods
to appropriate terrestrial virtues. They call themselves the “ gen»
erous south.” It is not much to he wondered at, that they should
covet the virtue of generosity. For it would be a very easy one
for-those to practise who never pay their debts. .
But the chivalry can afford to be generous in the mattei' of
pledges if in nothing else. They can pledge their lives, because
unde1'standi11g them to be “unalienable,” there is of course no
risk. It is cheaper to do any thing else with them, than to lead
them. They can pledge their fortunes with similar safety, for
these are for the most part desperate, and are as well got rid of
as kept. And lastly, they may pledge their “ sacred honor” from

r Maine to California, and from independence to doomsday, with-

out shadow of rislg; for no man will ever take it who knows
What it is. Q,  y A  p M  

The expression “ our lives, our fortunes and 0111‘_S‘fl.C‘r_l‘,6d lleinor,”
I cannot but contemplate as verbiage of the poorest sort.” Noth-
ingyyisy added to the idea after the word “lives.” Had the
sentence of which we have quoted a part, been Written thus
-—-“ 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” it would have expressed all the meaning it does
as it stands. But soundll soundl! the Jupiter—tonans and the
ding--Cl()1’1gli2 vvould not have had. These, to chivalric ears, are
of more consequence than sense; therefore these insipid and
profitless appendagesare aflixecl to a sentence, which but for
them would have been sublime.

p Men inythe strong agonies of death, make no parade of rhetoric,
And in the t1-ying emergencies of life, public or priv’ate, when
thestrain of rigorous necessitybrings us to as straight a condition;
a brevity as rigid as the condition we are in, is the first, last, and

31

sole characteristic of our speech. In the emergency which con-«
strained our leading men at the time of the Declaration, we should
suppose they would have pledged all they had to pledge at once;
and so they would undoubtedly have done, if left to the prompt-
ingscf their own good sense; but the document makes them
dribble out the items they propose to pledge one by one ; and the
mind in contemplating the worth of the separate parts, loses sight
of the value of the Whole.

As a general remark, it may as well be observed here as else-
where, that after the first paragraph was uttered, a decent respect
to common sense required, that the declarers should immediately
proceed to a statement of particular facts, in support of the gener-
alities already advanced. But when We expect the fish, in this
case, we get the serpent, as we most commonly do when we
expect good from a low latitude. So far from a statement of facts
or declaration of causes, the author goes into a setting-forth of
strange and trude generalities; the contradiction of one part
thereof to an other, equalled only by the absurdity of the whole.
For how can a man exercise his supposed right to the pursuit of
happiness, unless he does as he is a mind to do? The business
of a good government is to prevent this pursuit, not secure it.
But according to the logic of the Declaration, governments are
instituted to secure all men in the divine right of doing just what
they please. i

It is to be regretted that a document, calculated from the cir»
cumstances under which it was published, to become known far
and long among the nations of the earth, should have gone forth

with the unalienable blemishes our Declaration evidently has.‘

But we console ourselves, as no doubt the northern signers of it
did, with the unction, that there are many excellent things in it,
and if there were not, there is no help for it now, ‘We must face
the scorn these crudities and this sopliistry is’ calculated to pro»
cure. I should suppose foreigners would havelaughed us out of
every checker of longitude on the globe, for all this ostentatious
parade of folly; and the fact they have not, is evidence that we
have been treated with a forbearance we did not deserve. But

perhaps our folly in other particulars has been so great, as

32

wholly to occupy the foreign wits, and we have escaped ridicule
for this, only because there was not time to bestow it.

As I remarked before, I can well excuse the signers. When
the fire begins to take hold of men, and the flames to be sucked
in their nostrils; I understand the emergency is too rigorous for
them to attend to the duties of the toilet, and to the annoiuting of
themselves with oil. The signers could have had no time to lop
the excresences from the document, unless a stroke of the sword
would have done it. Yet when these men, yea and the genius r of
our struggling country, felt the strain of a pressure as vehement
as that instanced above-—--when the blood ezirtravasate was spouting
from its arteries; the spectacle is presented by the author of
the Declaration, of one attempting to amuse their minds with a
setting forth of sophisms, and their ears with the soundings of
sonorous brass. I

How can we complain of “outside barbarians” for lightly
esteeming our literature, and scofling at our pretensions, when
we present to them in our first and gravest document, these

specimens of unmitigated nonsense? As there is risk that such
expressions as the one just uttered, may be taken for mere vitu-_

peration, let us refer again to the logic or the want of logic, on
which it is founded. In speaking of the unalienableright to life,
our Creator was said to have endowed us with, I believel put
the question, “when was this marvelous endowment made '2”
I may here with propriety propound an other. For how long is
the guarantee of this unalienable endowment to run’! Does it
extend to any definite period beyond death? And if so, when

or where shall we make our vindication’? If not, then the unal-t

ien-able endowment amounts to this and no more, thatwe have a

right to life while We live! I This is the “ self-evident’~’ truth we

all knew just as well before the statement as now. If this truth
was a part of our knowledge, it was in our possession. If it was

in our possession, it was our own. The cheat then, is in selling,

us information we were possessed of before; and in making us
buy what was our own. The price we pay is in the time and

trouble we expend in the detection. An old storyruns to this
effect. An expert jockey took the horse of an old man; and
having singed it and otherwise clipt and fixed it over, so as for"

33

the occasion to conceal its identity, subsequently sold it to its
owner for a price. We are in the same fix as the poor old man;
for the sophist has taken our previous knowledge, namely, that we
were divinely endowed with a right to life just so longas wercould
manage to live, and no longer; and having singed it and lother-
wise fixed it over into a “self'—evident truth” so as for the occa-
sion to conceal its identity, he makes us buy it back agairi. The
measure of my respect for the jockey, considerably exceeds my
respect for the sophist: for the former did understand his game,‘
but the latter was too infatuate to see the cheat. It evidently ap-
pears from his imperturbable gravity, that it never occurred to
him that he communicated no knowledge-—-he never mistrusted that
the right to life consisted in the possession, and was to be proved
by it, if proved at all--that the m7gIz.t to the pursuit of happiness,‘
was to be proved by the pursuit if capable of proof; and so in all
practical purposes as to the rig/it to liberty.

A sentence or two upon “rights” may not be amiss. I conceive
the author, and all readers of the Declaration who have tried to.
give credence to these passages, to be deceived by the supposi-
tion that the word “rights” could carry the same meaning when
applied to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as when ap-
plied as a substitute for “ title” to lands or houses. IfI am ousted
of possession of my house, I prove my right by certain human
endowments. I set up ahuman right, not a divine one. .11’ I
should set up a divine 1'i,ght, namelya 1-iglit founded on an endow-
ment of my Creator, I know of no way to prove the correctness
of my title, but to dig up a Mormon New Testament with the
revelation of my right. set f'ort=h: unless I go before the court
where the record is kept, to wit, on the other side of the grave.
At all events, I could get no better testimony, in this world, than
a Mormon revelation.’“‘ »  A . ~ «

The word ‘‘ rights,” as the author of the Declaration and others
like him use ‘it, communicates a ‘fiction, not a. fact. 2 ‘Our knowl-
edge cannot be increased by such a use of the word ; it brings no
additional idea, to speak of a right to life, more than to speak of
a right to a right. Such an arrangement of words possesses no

I’ ‘M’

* Note p D.

34

power but to deceive. It cheats----that is all. The advantage
gainedby believing a fiction, is always a minus quantity. - We are
in fact a little more ignorant after it, than we were before. All
the advantage we gain therefore, by placing credence in {the first
part of the Declaration, is an accession to our ignorance, not our
knowledge. And some of us have all along been the fools that
did not know the difi"erence. I it

Is it matter of surprise that the subjects of the severe but
rational and elfectual governments of Europe, should mock at us
for instituting a government, to secure ourselves in rights, which
we aflirtn our Creator has endowed us with, in such an unalienable
manner withal, that we cannot get rid of them if we would ‘It Is
it marvellous, that the ready writers of other lands, should scatter
their sneers at a national literature, in part rnade up of a vain-
glorious revelcrtion of what was known before’! i .

Suppose our author had set forth the following self»-evident
truths, (which I claim", and I think, shall be able to show are supeu
rior to those he parades) narnely——-—-we hold the following truths to
he’self'-evident: that the moon is one solid sphere of goldm-tl1at all

men are endowed by their Creator with an unalienable right to an

equal proportion of this treasure; and furtherrnore, that they are
likewise endowed by the same authority, rwith an unalienable right
to pursue any method to get possession which they tliinkconsistent
With, their happiness I! The superiority I claim for this setting-
forth, consists in this,--——i,t would be precious inforrnation to lunatics;
whereas for the matter of his, it is asmuseless to the sane as to
the insane. Under my dispensation, the moonstruck might insist
upon their rights, with any given amount of pertinacity; and

i revel in the full consolation that they were well off as to riches.

I would not however be understood to insinuate, that this stock
in the moon would go current in Wall street at present; or that
it would pay a debt at ., the bank, at least, nottill the brokers
lztegan to receive moon-shine for cash, and staternents of self--
evidenttruths for an increase of knowledge; but what Itwould
insinuate in behalf of this stock is, that quite probably it would,
be useful amongthe chivalry for the «purposes of hypoth=ecation.
As lat matter of pledge it would be superior in value to their-
“sacred honor,” and in ,l)O1'l‘fit4-fi‘d“:e”d6btj8 far better than their
promises. * I I

35

I think I have been able to show in the progress of this criti-
cism, that we are indebted to the genius of the soft latitudpes, for
all the prof_itless abstractions in the fore part of the Declaration;
and for some sounds at the end of it—-—-and to the genius of the
high latitudes for the remainder-—--that is to say, to the South, for
that part which contains no ideas ; to the North, for that Which
does. And as some of our confederates are ever and anon calcu-
lating the value of the Union; I will help them in this department
of their mathematics to the following axioms. VVhat value, the
vague and inappreciable generalities at the commencement, and
the sounding nonsense at the end, add to the Declaration; ispre-
cisely the value ‘these members add to that Union. Secondly---i-the
value of a leak to a ship, or the value of a road to ruin for young
men, subtracted from any given minuend, the remainder is just
the value in the Unionwhich they do not bring to it. In fine the
chivalry, the nullifiers and repudiators‘ taken in the aggregate, do

.efl'ect an accession to our strength, of an immense minus quantity.

But wouldl part with the chivalry fraction of our confederacy?
By no means; certainly to be sure, no. There is an indefinite
amount of swagger yet to be put forth, before this nation assumes

among the powers of the earth, that equal station which its vanity
/covets. There is none to do this but the chivalry, therefore they

are necessary to this ‘_‘ glorious [,lnion.” Besides tliere is an in-

._variable amount of iriyndignration tolbe expressed for the sneers and
iinsuolts ofiieroed to us from abroad. In this department of patriot-
oisrn the chivalry excel- Indignation is natural to tliem,-«they

are bgornwitlh it, and will snuff an insult where Thessalian hounds
eouid nntiofololow. “The genius of the valorous latitudes, will come
up from the svvellings of its indignation, like a lion frona the over-

gflowings of J ordan~_—-s-it'will teach the presumptuous nations, by no
means to lay their uncircumcised hands on any part of the conti-

nentconnected with the “sacred honor of the sacred defenders
of liberty and therights of man.” ll . M r i p =
Rights of man ! I! These, if they are any thing, must be rights
which exist, irrespective of government, and in despite of.gover.n-g
ment human or divine. pWh.at valuable qualitiesrights can possess,
which are not derivedfrom the Divine or any liuman government,
Iapprehend is yet to be deinonstrated. Whayt they are, I could

36

never conjecture, unless they might be supposed to consist of a
right all men possess, of being born of woman, instead of some
animal. If this is one of the rights of man; the chivalry ought
to account it “ sacred :” for so far as I can see, it is all that ope-
rates to secure them, from the unpleasant contingency of being
born among a generation of pigs. Perhaps another of these
“rights of man,” consists in the privilege all men have, of dying
just at that nick of time when they cannot possibly live any longer.
This again, enures almost exclusively to the advantage of the men
of soft latitudes. It effectually prevents their going oil‘, a little
before they are done for. r

The “rights of man” beyond doubt, permit him to wear his
back on the foreside of his body, if he can get it there  and to do,

without fear or molestation, any thing else he pleases, which God 

or man does not prevent. The end of the whole is, that the

‘rights of man, secure us in privileges, we could not help possess
without them—--and this is all they can do, and be, what is aflirmm
-ed of them, rights of man, as contradistinguished from rights

secured by a government either human or divine. ‘ As a contrast
to such rights as these, let us refer a moment to those secured to us
by the divine government. It is sufficient to refer to one of them,
namely--the right to fear God i and I keep his commandments.

The administration under that government, has furnished us with
a most admirable body of rules, examples and precepts, instruct‘-

ing usin the way to exercise and enjoy these rights to the greatest
advantage. A Here, we are not cheated with sophisms--—-we are not
mocked with words full of soundsignifying nothing. A human
government, if it is good for any thing, secures its subjectslin

the right to enjoy the fruits of their own lawful industry. The

governments of the earth, have not succeeded perfectly, in this
their essential duty; but Ithink our own, so far as the free States
are concerned, has come nearer to perfection than any other. i
The serious injury, which the faults in the Declaration inflict
upon us, arises from the fact that their position in this national

document, enables them to cast their own hue on the nationaltaste
eand genius. Evidences of this are discoverable from the sophisms
so often in the mouths of demagogues, and in the ears of fools.

5We *ati"eect to ‘despisethe demagogues ; yet welaud the Declaration

37

of Independence which is calculated to make them ; and it really
seems potential for nothing else.‘“‘ The sophism, “ sovereign peo--
ple ;” I ! do those who use it, or those who hear it, understand the
value of the idea communicated by the expression Ifthe people
are sovereign, who are the subjects ’! Now and then, a specimen
of a sovereign without subjects has appeared, who was not a luna-
tic ; but the station is not one to be coveted, or one to which aisane
man would commend others, by figure of speech or otherwise.
If it he replied that the subjects of a sovereign people are the
rulers, then the meaning of the sophisms comes to this, the rulers are
the ruled. This is all we can find when we search for the idea in
the expression, “ sovereign people ;” a confusion of words of no
use to sane people, but as evidence, that those who use it, and
those who tolerate its use, are aiilicted with the same melancholy
confusion of ideas, or total destitution of them, which the words
themselves exhibit. Because the people of our State, are permit-
ted tochoose their rulers, and thus indirectly assist in making the
laws that are to govern; it by no more means follows that they
are sovereign, than because a thing shines, it is of course gold.
On sophisms like these,tand those recited from the Declaration
of Independence, and partaking of their peculiar characteristics,
is founded in part our national literature. The attempts of our
writers, to repel the scofis sucha literature is calculatedto attract,
amounts to nothing but a provocation of more. When the advan-
tageto be gained, by this ostrich policy of shutting our eyes to our
own infirrnities, comes to be appreciated before it is too late to

pursue another; theadvantages to be gained in fortifying a refi-
 lies, by a stockade of falsehoods, will be discovered in

season to estimate its Worth. But until that era comes --—-until the
full time arrives, when boasting communicates strength, and vein
glory increases renown, we cannot rationally expect to increase
our honor by multiplying the deeds that provoke contempt.

 National honor must consist in the good opinion entertained of

us by other nations, not in a lofty opinion entertained of our-
selves. If we have hitherto failed to create that opinionabroad;
shall we succeed in creating it by a repetition of the acts that
have all along failed to do it t’! Because the big guns of ‘the
chivalry are adequate to knock this continent into a roar of laughw

“ Note E. V

38

ter, will a gigaiitic foreign power he so terrified, “ that it dare not
fight in defence of its just rights -'2” Wilien a blast of mm’s horns
in our senate chamber, will throw down the ramparts of Q,ue.bec,
it will do for our swelling patriots to talk of were as figures of
speech---but till that ,milleniu.m of fools comes, it will be better
ferns to keep our patriotic gas, Where We keep our other supe:r—-
fluities. , e 1
But the most mournful influences of these national sophisms, is
exhibited in their e‘f'f'ects upon the national genius. Our statesmen,
(or the substitutes for them ) accustomed to take sophisrn for truth,
will consequent-ly prefer fiction to fact. They would provoke a
war on the supposition, that great bravery ascribed to our cadets
in a novel, would enable our armies to gait: n decisive victory
over an enemy in the field. i As at belief inn sophism, odds nininus
quantity to ouridens, and in fectprocures an increase ofigiioraxice
and 1'lOllli1'lOVVl.(3Clg(3, so trust in any conclusion drzawvri from similm‘
premises, increo.ses our Vvenhness, not our strength. Yet plnci1'1g'
confidence in such premises, our substitutes for statesmen, would
provoke a contest in the department of arms with a nation, when
the chances of success are to the chances of defeat, in about the
same ratio ttlint accompanies the eflorts of our Writers, to maintain
against the same nation, o..,litern,1'y,supr-emacy. 7My fears asto the
result, are neutralized only by my trust in the goodnessof Divine
wprotvidenceg that the some invariable scqzmnse which follows the
~1ogi,»croif r the ostrich, ,when it reasons itself into £31. belief, that shut-
ting its ovvnteyes seals up the vision of its pursuer; will notfollow
..the parallel logic tofour government. *'r"I‘he British Govverninent
.da1tenot fight in defence of its just rights ll 1” ,.:;I trust that gov-
,erx1meent,hesl too:much;magxini1imity, to .tal<;e offence at what our
slunetios say;-~ if A i i i i r     i c i A
If ‘ J; :havte;,s,ucceedMed: in sliowingtliut the statements inrthe Decla-
ration of Indepe11dence,,: .pu.rporting to :he selfievident truths, are

gself-st1est1‘oyingisopl‘iism,s--«tlost men are not created equal, so far as

t11&V6i3,I.lY,U1BEJ.1’).S of knowing »-r--tlist they are not endowed by
;1their>»®res,t?or ,§vvith:.afny,.stronge1' right to life than to: death; and
 they cannot hegendowted with any right to liberttyandthe pur-
amilit hsppin,ess,;.because sueli endowments Would»nu1li~fy them»
sselwes  aif rrhavae, isucceedetl in all this,  would notehaveflthe friends

so 
of emancipation suppose their argument against the unrig11teous-
ness of the slave system at all weakened thereby. If I havedone
what I purposed to do, I look upon it as taking from} the force of
their reasoning a minus quantity, leaving what remains increased,
not diminished. It amounts to removing from their side a break-

ing reed.

I have never taken up an emancipation document, purposely
addressed to our,unde1'sta11ding, but what these sophisms were set
forth as the basis of the reasoning; and being disgusted with them,
though I hardly knew all the time for what, except from their
inappreciability ; I have cast away the emancipationlogic with a
full conviction, that a superstructure raised upon such foundations
was calculated for no purpose but to fall uponits builders. Ixwould
not put my faith in it, because I would not hazard whatl valued,
-It appeared more foregone, so to do, than putting trust in the
shadow of Ilgypt.  I I   m

But when I applied myself “ by searching to find o’utiwisdon:r,”
and discovered that these pretended truths, were no trutl'1s-‘--—~that
those who usedthem were deceived, and that those who were
deceived thereby were not wise; moreover and besides, that the

document in which they are placed, would be greatlyincreasedrinv

value by their subtraction ; it occurred to me that other produc-’-‘~
tions where they were ttsed, niilglit be benefittedby a similar
process. Accordl~ngly when I contemplated the subject of eman-
cipation divested of these treacherous additions, I found the
remainder so increased in force‘, as to be suflicient to carryJeo11_:-
viction totevery mind, endowed with adesquate powersrtrcerdistim
gt‘fi9s5l’1-,~t3>right from wrong. The arguinent for emancipation, divested

of its treacherous allies, leads to the full conviction, that the

institution of slavery, asit exists in this ‘country, is nei_tl1e‘r=~m»er:e

or less? than one stupendous fraud. The system, is ca strong-holdbf

iniquity,‘ andflitis useless for any other pttrposle; cItlWhtu1rd;'sbe~welvl

for those who have purp-osed to pull down oithati.sti*ong-holdgte
ttaltet counsel of the men of this world, who are sa*id‘to l1)¢*WiS'81‘“i1t1
7thc'ii' dajrland generation than the children =of7ligtu:,«nanzely,%to
clonsider wlziatislthe method of those'» rmenrwhen they §succeétd"in

rsducingra fortress of the ~first class, with  strong garrison within.

‘t'er*its :defense:

40

It may not be amiss to contemplate that process in detail.
Wlien in the “progress of human affairs, it is deemed necessary by
some general in the field, to reduce afortress of the highest order;
his first operations are to clear away all enemies without the
fortress, who can give the beseigers trouble, or the beseiged assist-
ance. If he is not able to do this, he is wise to abandon the
project before he commences the investment. If he succeeds in
suppressing all enemies from without, so that he can invest without
molestation; he begins to draw his forces towards the devoted
place, and proceeds to level all out-works and lesser defences,
reducing the beseiged to the smallest possible space. Having
done all this, he begins to reconnoitre. If he finds the strong--hold
to be a work of nature, as for instance a lofty ledge on all sides,
too high for escalatle, and too hard for the mine; he understands
there is no alternative, but to draw out his lines of circumvalla-
tion, and cutting off the beseiged from all communication with
others, leave them to surrender when their resources for subsist-
ence fail. On the other hand, if the ramparts are walls of stone,
wholly or in part artificial, he understands what man is able to
build up, man is able to pull down. For there has never been a
strong-hold; in point of space from the Gualior rock in India to
the fortress of Quebec; or in point of time from the siege of
Tyre (which occupied the Chaldees thirteen years) to the reduc-
tion of the citadel of Antwerp, but what has surrendered. The
next business of the beseige1*s, is to find that place in the rampart
most feasiblefor their operations. This done, the chief by no
means expects to halloo the walls down; or to bring the beseiged
to terms by threats or insults, or by calling them “ inan--stealers.”
No, he considers next, whether his implements of war areiadeu
quate to the work-—--vvl*iethe1' his guns are of a calibre to carry a
shot of suflicient weight to produce a vibration in the wall: if this
point is settled to his satisfaction, then for the first time he orders
the approaches to be made, the mounds to be cast up, and the
battering train to be brought into position ; namely, into a place,
‘wherethe shot when they smite upon the wall, do it at that moment
oftime when their momentum is greatest. The next object is to
adjust the time, so that the crash of each successive shot shall
come upon the rampart in the same spot where its prpedecesscr

41

i smote, and at the exact moment, to take advantage of the~vibra~=

tion effectedi by that predecessor. All these things areimatters
requiring the most skilfull engineers. Thenumber of < the guns in
each battery, must be sufficient to apply a shot, before the wall
can recoverfrom the tremor caused by the previous one ;‘ and! the

, munitions must be adequate to supply the guns. If r all thesemat-—-

ters are adjusted right; when the battery rbegins.to.play,.andthe

‘ shot to smite with ‘precision and without interruption, so that the

stroke of each successive one begins, where the other left off; the
accumulation of power rises, not in the ratio of the number of
shot, but in the ratio of the cube of that number. i It amountsto
the powerof an earthquake. No work of man can withstand its
vehemence. An adequate combination, would tumble the Andes
from their foundations. Let no garrison put their trust in Walls,
or their confidence in muniments of stone, when a comination
that accumulates power like this, can be brought to act against
them. When the fortress begins to feel distresses hourly, and
tremors to run to and fro as the strong ramparts stagger to the
furious strokes of the bullet, and the blocks of ‘stone to fall from
their places into the mote; and anon a breach becomes visible:
a wise general does not order the assaulting column to form in the
trenches: he waits until the breach becomes practicable, before-

“the forlorn hope is rnarshaled at the head of t the assault. A pru-

dent general understands perfectly, that a column of infantry,

however brave, cannot be made to pass through a cat hole, so fast

as they can be decapitated after they have got through.

The system of slavery is astrong-V-hold of sin. The implements
in thewarfare of those who War against it, need not be carnal, for
the ramparts of that strong-hold are not made of stone. Yet all
the address, the patience, the skill and discipline are necessary to
reduce the strong-hold, as if its walls were granite. When those
who purpose to pull it down, have quieted all means of molestation
from without, so that during the seige, not so much as a dog can
Wag his tongue to their disadvantage---when they have suppressed
every out—-work, and reduced the garrison to the smallest possible
compass, and to the protection of their lost defences---—~when they
have looked and found, that its ramparts are works of man and not
God—--when they are sagisfiecl as to the most feasible point of

42

attack, and as to the calibre of their implements for carrying a
missile of a weight proportioned to the strength of the fortifica-
tion--—-vvhen their munitions are ample, and their engineers skilf'ul-—--
I say, when all these preliminary preparations are made, and the
battering train is brought to a right position, so that the stroke of
each successive shot. comes, when the tremor caused by its prede-
cessorihas prepared the Way, and begins where that left off : if
the messy bulwarks of this strong-«hold of sin! do not stagger
to the fiirious strokes, and the fast accumulating vehemence! ! I

shall have less confidence than before, in the intimations of r

scripture; that the truth, is mighty for this very purpose,
‘ i in r  is MON DROIT.

-43
N0TEs

. N OT E A . V
Since this criticism has grown to dimensions far exceeding any'thing~ I

purposed at the commencement, it has occurred to rne,that it would be,

convenient to the reader, to have the first, and so much of‘ the second par-
agraph, as I have commented on inserted in a note. Iaccordmrrl sub oin
, 2 _ _ _ D Y J

them here, as they stand It] the last edition of our statutes. T t

“VVhen in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one
peo ale to dissolve the olitical bands which have connected them with an-

P

'0tl'1(_§I', and to assu me, arnong the powers of the earth, the separate and equal
station to winch the laws of nature and of nature’s God, entitle ‘them, a

decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires, that they should declare
the causes, which impel them to the sepa1'ation.”“

“We hold these truths to he seltleviderxt-—--'.lChat all men are created
equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
rights ; that amongthese are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That
to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed,” &c. p t

This is I believe, verbatim et literatim; except that I have italicized the
preposition “to” that its nxtgrainrtiaticzal position may be more obvious.

NOTE B.

The ideas set forth are these; that necessity obliged them to do a certain
act; which act also nature entitled them to perform. That there are such
a class of acts is true. Nature entitles us (gives us the privilege) to sleep,
to eat, &c., and other acts, cognate, correspondent or correlative. Itmay
be said also, that nature obliges (compels) us to do these things. ‘But acts
of this sort are extremely limited. They are such as belong to man as an

animal, and not to him as a rational being. A man with a bad cold, is
entitled by the laws of nature to sneeze; and as he can not very well help

doing it; it maybe alledged that necessity obliges him to do it.  To go
into a declaration of causes ,why we sleep or eat, or do other cognate or

‘correlavattt acts, would appear particularly superfluous in our day; and]

can hardly be made to understand, why it was not as much of a superfluity
seventy years ago. N o decent respect, to the opinions of mankind, would
require a declaration of causes for such acts. Nor do I think a decent
apology can be made for stating them, if indeed they are causes of a char-
acter ascribed to them. The document subsequently goes into a. statement
of » causes, and very good ones they are too, but of a character as different
from the one alledged of them by the author, as facts ever are from falsteg
hoods. They are made by the recital, to consist wholly in the magisterial
and judicial cruelties of the British government. 

y N O T E C .
t , When we reduce the rhetoric of the first paragraph to its plain truth, it
amounts to about this: the “laws of nature,” meant simply a wzll, to resent
oertam izriuriou---the “ necessity,” a will to do nothing else but recent them.

44

The entire expression “laws of nature and of nature’s God,” furnishes no
idea more than the simple word nature would furnish.

Instances of these metaphorical expansions, however, in their appropri-
ate place, are sometimes exceedingly felicitious. The famous exatnple--M
“sink or swim, live or die, survive or perish,”----when we consider the
time, place, and circumstances, in which it was uttered, is in the highest
degree beautiful. It is obvious enough to be sure, that these several
expressions are but a repetition of the same idea; nevertheless, the want
of additional ideas in the words uttered, is more than compensated by the
testimony they furnish of the superabundant and overflowing patriotism
of the speaker. But asirnilar expansion inserted in a King’s speech from
the throne, would be as singularly infelicitious as it is happy in the speech
of an ardent orator. I have frequently observed, that brilliant and devout
men, in the exercise of prayer, use these metaphorical expansions with a
very fine eifect indeed. The scriptures furnish many specimens of inimi-
table beauty. Job, in pI11'ti(:1li£t1‘,a1)O1JIJClS1l1J this trope. Its use is justified,
and in fact sanctified on certain occasions. Where enthusiasm, devotion
or ardor. are allowable, there this species of metaphor is admissible. _ But
where facts are of more value than rhetoric, it is as much out of place as
it would be in a note of hand or bill of exchatige. T

NOTE D.

There is no subject on which I am accustomed to hear so much poor
logic, as on the subject of “rights,” except that of the human mind. I
could never account for this, unless it arose from confottncling the literal
and metaphorical meanings of the word. Illogical minds, making no dis-
tinction, the effect of their logic is but to puzzle, not convince. N 0 man

can be said to have a right to any thing he is not possessed of; unless he has

such proof of title, as will effect a restoration. , A right that cannot be

r proved, how can it be known that it isra right ?‘ Possession or the ability to

get possession are all the proofs of 1'i,g'hts. Rights, without one or the
other of these proofs, are mere pretensions. In our system, that is a right,
which the law contemplates as one. The southern planter has a right to
lbuyancl -sell menus slaves. I-Ieis not only in possession of this right, but
thelaw secures him firorn being dispossessed. His right isas clear, as the
right to life while it lasts. But the law which gives the planter this right,
is at-lcruel law, and the man who exercises the right, in most cases, is as

cruel as the code that satictions it.

y p y N O T E E. ~ ~ , a
Toimpake a man a present of his own face, would be a specimen of gen»
erosity of the same value, as presenting him an example of’ what was
salt?-evident. If a gentleman should propose to introducefme to myself; for
the purpose of enlarging the circle of my acquaintance, “I should consider

this politeness of the some kind with that whichiwouldlexert” itselpf to

increase my knowledge, by informing me of What I knew before. What
was self‘-evident, I must have known; to suppose to the contrary, pre-
supposes my powers inadequate to comprehend a statement. If the thin

to be stated, vvasvvhat I knew, then there was no use for the statement. f

i it was ppwhat I did not know, then it was not sew-evident. I think this logic,

xnustfbe suflicienttto show, that a statement of self-evident truths,~is“a1to-
lgeithar la‘, pigdg  non3enge’_3. T .. V . * t ‘I i  V