Due in 3 Days!!!

Your name

History 111

Your Class Section #

Date

Primary Source Analysis

Document’s Name: The Declaration of Independence Comment by Owner: 5 points

Document’s Author: Thomas Jefferson Comment by Owner: 5 points

Year document was written: 1776 Comment by Owner: 5 Points

Textbook chapter or chapters to which the document is historically relevant: Comment by Owner: 10 points

The Declaration of Independence is directly relevant to Chapters 5-7. It is relevant to Chapter 5 because the Declaration reflects ideals associated with the Enlightenment. It is relevant to Chapter 6 because it is a response to changes in Britain’s imperial ethos as directed by King George III. It is relevant to Chapter 7 because the Declaration serves as a major turning point in the Revolution because it demonstrates how Americans changed their objective from restoring colonial federalism to independence. It is also relevant to those chapters which address, either explicitly or implicitly, the American vision of equality. Thus, the Declaration’s articulation of the American vision of equality is relevant to Chapters 14 (Civil War) and 15 (Reconstruction), respectively.

Analysis: Comment by Owner: 75 points

The Declaration of Independence is best known for its articulation of the American vision of equality as embodied in the phrase “…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” (Jefferson, 1776). Aside from this well known principle, the Declaration also enunciates the right of revolution based on the principle of the consent of the governed. Moreover, the Declaration provides a lengthy indictment of the putative injustices King George III allegedly perpetrated against his North American colonial subjects (Jefferson, 1776).

The Declaration reflects the Enlightenment’s influence on eighteenth century Anglo-American life. Enlightenment thought emphasized a common human nature, in which people were essentially the same and deserved the same rights. Hence, the acceptance of the idea of a common human nature contoured how Americans conceived and expressed their belief in human equality (McGerr et al., 2018, pp. 150, 198). For Jefferson and his contemporaries, however, equality was not defined as it is in the mathematical sense. Rather it was based on the premise that “equality possessed several layers of meaning. It meant first of all what [one] might call equality of opportunity…”(Wood, 1996, p. 2140). Moreover, Jefferson and his fellow revolutionaries rejected the premise that talent, skills, or faculties were hereditarily guaranteed and that enlightened society should strive to find and promote that talent to develop without restrictions associated with aristocratic privilege (Wood, 1996, 2140). Jefferson and others conceived of a society “in which who one's father was, whom one married, and whom one knew would no longer matter. They anticipated a society in which mobility up and down would be constant” (Wood, 1996, p. 2140). The preceding conceptions reflect a belief in a merit based society in which one’s status is determined by one’s talents and the freedom essential to allowing one’s talent to express itself.

The right of revolution obligates people to eradicate a tyrannical government (Jefferson, 1776) and is closely linked to one of constitutionalism’s cornerstones: consent of the governed. Constitutionalism, which is based upon the rule of law and consent, emerged from centuries long struggles in England. In the Revolutionary Era context, consent meant “one could not be subjected to laws or taxes except by duly elected representatives” (McGerr et al., 2018, p. 177). As such, the colonists did not adhere to the British concept of virtual representation (McGerr et al., 2018, G-13) and rejected Parliament as a duly elected representative entity with the authority to impose direct, internal taxes.

Accordingly, Americans did not declare independence from Britain’s Parliament. Americans declared their independence from the king not for “light and transient causes… [but for] a long train of abuses and usurpations,…, [intended to] reduce [the colonials] under absolute despotism…” (Jefferson, 1776). King George III’s alleged tyrannical polices required the colonials to abolish their existing system government in favor of a new system because ameliorating the existing system was impossible (Jefferson, 1776). Thus, the Declaration coalesced the following: equality, the belief in a common human nature, the consent of the governed, representative government, and the right of the people to abolish a system of government that acted despotically because it failed to protect the public’s fundamental rights (McGerr et al., 2018, p. 198).

Many years passed “before the radical implications of the Declaration became fully evident to the American people” (McGerr et al., 2018, p. 198). Nevertheless, in the midst of the Civil War the Declaration’s most enduring and inspiring principle-equality-transcended the War’s carnage and provided the stirring foundation upon which Abraham Lincoln based his poignant Gettysburg Address. Comment by Owner: 599 words in length-fulfills requirements regarding minimum length as well as maximum length. Additionally, the requirements pertaining to citations are fulfilled. In fact, the number of citations for each source exceeds the minimum requirements.

References: Comment by Owner: 20 points

Jefferson, T. (1776). Declaration of independence. The Avalon project: Documents in law, history and diplomacy. Yale University Law School. Retrieved from: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/declare.asp Comment by Owner: Required source from Avalon Project

McGerr, M., Lewis, J.E., Oakes, J., Cullather, N., Mark Summers, M., Townsend, C., Dunak, K.M., & Boydston, J.(2018). Of the people: A history of the United States. (4th ed. Vol. 1) New York, NY: Oxford University Press Comment by Owner: Required source-textbook

Wood, G.S. (1996) Thomas Jefferson, equality, and the creation of a civil society, Fordham Law Review, 64, 2133-2147. Retrieved from http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol64/iss5/1 Comment by Owner: Additional source (not required), but is a scholarly source; therefore, usage is permissible.

STUDENTS MAY NOT ANALYZE THIS DOCUMENT