The Declaration of Independence: The First Draft

Duke.edu ^ | 07/04/1776 | Thomas Jefferson

[Reaganesque]

A Declaration By the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress Assembled.

When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for a people to advance from that subordination in which they have hitherto remained, and to assume among powers of the earth the equal and independent station to which 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 change.

We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal and independent; that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these ends, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government shall become destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying it's foundation on such principles and organizing it's power in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence indeed will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes: and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, begun at a distinguished period, and pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them to arbitrary power, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government and to provide new guards for future security. Such has been the patient sufferings of the colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to expunge their former systems of government. the history of his present majesty is a history of unremitting injuries and usurpations, among which no one fact stands single or solitary to contradict the uniform tenor of the rest, all of which have in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world, for the truth of which we pledge a faith yet unsullied by falsehood.

He has refused his assent to laws the most wholesome and necessary for the public good:

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has neglected utterly to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only:

He has dissolved Representatives houses repeatedly and continually, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people:

He has refused for a long space of time to cause others to be elected, whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise, the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without and convulsions within:

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization for foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither; and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands:

He has suffered the administration of justice totally to cease in some of these colonies, refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers:

He has made our judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and amount of their salaries:

He has erected a multitude of new offices by a self-assumed power, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance:

He has kept among us in times of peace standing armies and ships of war:

He has affected to render the military, independent of and superior to the civil power:

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitutions and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their pretended acts of legislation, for quartering large bodies of armed troops among us;

For protecting them by a mock-trial from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the in habitants of these states;

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world;

For imposing taxes on us without our consent;

For depriving us of the benefits of trial by jury;

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses;

For taking away our charters, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments;

For suspending our own legislatures and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever:

He has abdicated government here, withdrawing his governors, and declaring us out of his allegiance and protection:

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns and destroyed the lives of our people:

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy unworthy the head of a civilize nation:

He has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions of existence:

He has incited treasonable insurrections of our fellow citizens, with the allurements of forfeiture and confiscation of our property:

(emphasis mine)

He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidels powers, is the warfare of the Christian king of Great Britain. He has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce determining to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms; our repeated petitions have been answered by repeated injury. A prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a people who mean to be free. Future ages will scarce believe that the hardiness of one man, adventured within the short compass of twelve years only, on so many acts of tyranny without a mask, over a people fostered and fixed in principles of liberty.

Nor have we been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend a jurisdiction over these our states. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here, no one of which could warrant so strange a pretension: that these were effected at the expense of our own blood and treasure, unassisted by the wealth or the strength of Great Britain: that in constituting indeed our several forms of government, we had adopted one common king, thereby laying a foundation for perpetual league and amity with them: but that submission to their parliament was no part of our constitution, nor ever in idea, if history may be credited: and we appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, as well as to the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations which were likely to interrupt our correspondence and connection. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity, and when occasions have been given them, by the regular course of their laws, of removing from their councils the disturbers of our harmony, they have by their free election re-established them in power. At this very time too they are permitting their chief magistrate to send over not only soldiers of our common blood, but Scotch and foreign mercenaries to invade and deluge us in blood. These facts have given the last stab to agonizing affection, and manly spirit bids us to renounce forever these unfeeling brethren. We must endeavor to forget our former love for them, and to hold them as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends. We might have been a free and a great people together; but a communication of grandeur and of freedom it seems is below their dignity. Be it so, since they will have it; the road to happiness and to glory is open to all of us too; we will climb it apart from them, and acquiesce in the necessity which denounces our eternal separation!

We therefore the representatives of the United States of America in General Congress assembled do, in the name and by authority of the good people of these states, reject and renounce all allegiance and subjection to the kings of Great Britain and all others who may hereafter claim by, through, or under them; we utterly dissolve and break off all political connection which may have heretofore subsisted between us and the people or parliament of Great Britain; and finally we do assert and declare these colonies to be free and independent states they shall hereafter have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honour.

[Reaganesque]

For comparison purposes: Click here. The link gives a version of the Declaration with hypertext links that demonstrate what changes were made.

On this day we celebrate the founding of this country and the Declaration of Independence, it is helpful to note the original intention of Jefferson in writing this seminal thesis on the American vision of freedom and governance. Particularly at a time when many currently in power believe this nation to be a nation founded in racism and bigotry.

The Founders fully intended to abolish slavery with Jefferson explicitly calling slavery "execrable commerce." Jefferson and the majority of the Founders believed that ALL men are created equal and his original version is even more clear on that point than the final document itself. The section in question was removed for strategic, political reasons and nothing more. They removed it in order to gain approval of the Declaration from those representatives whose states depended on slavery. However, it was always understood that the issue of slavery would be revisited and corrected at a later time.

It is up to those of us who still love this country and hold to the precepts enumerated in this Divinely inspired document to remind our friends and neighbors of what this day and this document truly stand for and defend it from those who wish to reinterpret history to suit their own political and personal ambitions.

[PAR35]

The Founders fully intended to abolish slavery with Jefferson explicitly calling slavery "execrable commerce." Jefferson and the majority of the Founders believed that ALL men are created equal and his original version is even more clear on that point than the final document itself.

That's probably why he so enjoyed the privileges of owning them.

[Publius]

Jefferson and I share one problem. Our first drafts tend to be verbose and require a sympathetic editor with an unsympathetic axe. It took me a long time to learn how to edit.

Jefferson was unhappy with the work done by the Congress to change his words, but the editing sharpened the focus and elided certain issues that would have killed the document outright. Jefferson was not the only skilled wordsmith there, and we benefited from that.

[Artemis Webb]

"That's probably why he so enjoyed the privileges of owning them."

Slavery was not just a moral issue it was also obviously an economic issue.

Your sarcasm at the expense of arguably the greatest of the founding fathers is both overly simplistic and unschooled. In other words, you're a dumbass.

[Hawthorn]

That first draft is not only verbose: I’d add turgid and convoluted to the descriptors! But you and Jefferson aren’t alone. There’s scarcely a truer statement than the old saw that, “All good writing is rewriting.” And to get an idea about how frequently this point has been made, click here:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22good+writing+is+rewriting%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

[rom]

Wow, someone’s touchy.

My esteem for Jefferson has gone down considerably over the years, but I’m glad to see someone still runs his fan club.

I think his owning slaves gels perfectly with his Indian Removal Act and disdain for women’s suffrage.

Let’s not make these men into gods.

[PAR35]

To argue that Jefferson was anti-slavery is to try to project your political correctness onto an historical figure. And, perhaps, if you ever graduate from high school, you will learn to debate without having to result to name calling. In the mean time, perhaps you might gain something from your betters.

[Pan_Yan]

As time goes by I’ve found myself liking Adams more and Jefferson less. Adams’ mother in law gave him a slave as a wedding present. He promptly freed the man. She was not amused.

[Reaganesque]

Did you even read what he wrote? Or is your political opinion the only consideration here? Facts be damned?

[Reaganesque]

Ben Franklin and Sam Adams both shared Jefferson’s views on slavery. The fact that you refuse to even consider this historical fact shows that you are nowhere near the category of “our betters.” Only an enormous, ill-informed egomaniac could make such incredibly ignorant remarks and feel so superior to those who disagree. Wouldn’t you feel better on another website? Say, DU?

[Reaganesque]

Read about yourself here: Click here.

[Reaganesque]

I am so sick and tired of self-righteous jerks who post on online forums. You made the charge against Jefferson, you back it up genius. You whine about name calling but you engage in it yourself. You people are such insufferable ignoramuses that you feel that you can post your opinion, offer no information to back it up and then dismiss those who disagree as intellectually, morally and in every other way inferior.

YOU ARE NOT GOD. AS SHOCKING AS THIS MAY BE TO YOUR GIGANTIC EGO; YOURS IS NOT THE ONLY VIEW IN THE UNIVERSE. YOU ARE NOT ALL KNOWING. SHOW US SOME FACTUAL DEFENSE OF YOUR SNIDE POST OR SHUT THE H*LL UP ABOUT PEOPLE PICKING ON YOU!

[Artemis Webb]

"Let’s not make these men into gods."

Make them into gods? Certainly not. But if you don't see the The Hand of God in Jefferson and Adams both dying on the 50th anniversary of The Declaration, and the implications thereof then I don't know what else to say to you. Indeed it would be a waste of my time.

[Artemis Webb]

"And, perhaps, if you ever graduate from high school, you will learn to debate without having to result to name calling..."

dumbass

[mad_as_he$$]

Glad they reworked some of it. Especially the preamble. those guys had a way with words.

[mad_as_he$$]

I am sick and tired of jerks on the net who have an argument with themselves! ;-)

[rom]

Come on, you basically excoriated the man for making a factual statement. You even called him a dumbass. If that’s not hero worship I do not know what is.

These are fallible human beings, they make mistakes. On this area of slavery and rights for the indigent Native Americans, I certainly do believe that Jefferson fell far short of our Lord’s call.

Are you always this snippy?

[Artemis Webb]

Ohhhh....first I was “making them into gods”, now that I brought in the OBVIOUS involvement of The Lord it’s down to “hero worship”.

[rom]

Well, in that case, I’ll just upgrade you back to worshiping him as a deity again. Besides, I didn’t think Jefferson even believed in Christ’s deity. Odd fellow to worship if you ask me. He strikes me as a heretic.

But my bad, go worship him again if you wish.

I’d still like to hear your take on the factual elements of my post about his views on the Indians and women whenever you get a chance to snap out of “Internet rage”

[PAR35]

Why don’t you ask Sally about Jefferson’s love for his slaves? He knew how to use them both in the fields and in the house. If you want to find an abolitionist founding father, you could do better than to cling to one whose acts didn’t come close to matching his words.

What is it about you politically correct projectionists that you can’t argue your point without calling names? Just trying to cover your lack of intellectual rigor?

[Reaganesque]

Rom, you say that Mr. Jefferson fell short of the Lord’s call. Most people do. Who are you to judge?

I made a very simple statement. Thomas Jefferson, in his original draft of the Declaration of Independence, decried slavery. Maybe, instead of the hypocrisy you find in him, he was expressing what he had learned from and regretted about his experience as a slave holder. Is that not a possibility?

It is grotesquely unfair to hold historical figures to modern morals and/or views. It is also unfair to expect perfection of human beings past or present. Mr. Jefferson lived in a time where slavery was the rule not the exception and yet, he, a slave owner, proclaimed that slavery was wrong. He owned a plantation. Successful, economically viable plantations owned slaves. It was a reflection of that reality that the Founders had the slavery section removed.

The Declaration of Independence was a statement of principles and a very controversial one at that. The issue of slavery was only one of the controversies this document dealt with. The Declaration of Independence declared for the first time in history that man’s rights are God given and not given by a monarch or other kind of human leader. This idea was totally radical for the time.

However, if we take your stance on the issue, that someone who owned slaves cannot credibly denounce slavery, we would have to also believe that Jefferson, a wealthy, British subject, had no moral authority to denounce the concept of monarchy. He was a rich land owner. He most certainly benefited from the monarchy. So, given your logic, the Declaration of Independence is totally hypocritical in every way shape and form. We would have to conclude and agree with our Leftist friends that the very foundation of our country is a fraud. Surely you are not suggesting that?

How about this? Paul was not exactly a fine example of Christian living when God called him to His service, was he? He was, in fact, someone who persecuted the church. And yet, he became an apostle. We don’t dismiss him and his conversion for his previous flaws, do we? Paul was a human being as was Thomas Jefferson. We do not hold Paul to the same standard of perfection you are applying to Jefferson. Why hold our Founders to a higher standard?

The simple fact of the matter is that Jefferson, despite or perhaps even because of his ownership of slaves, wrote the defining document in our country’s history and in his first draft, he denounced slavery as morally wrong. And the fact that the US eventually abolished slavery was, in no small part, based upon the notion that Jefferson penned in the Declaration that “all men are created equal.” That’s not mindless hero worship. That’s straight historical fact.

[Reaganesque]

A typical Leftist response. One piece of information invalidates all other facts about the man. That is the extremist’s way. Jefferson’s history is far more complex than you want it to be. Funny how “nuance” goes out the window when you people denounce American historical figures. Read my post before this one. Do you disagree with that statement?

[oldfart]

I do some thing quite well while I fall short of ordinary in other endeavors. I’m sure Jefferson was much the same. Over the past few years it has become fashionable to excoriate him for his treatment of his slaves. In doing so we have fallen into a common trap: Judging his actions in his time by the morals of ours.

Most people think that crucifixion was intended as a particularly cruel form of execution. It was not. It was just the common method of the day.

By the same token, Jefferson wasn’t particularly harsh with his slaves. He was a farmer and he had to know that it was in his best interest to take care of his “equipment.” The slave quarters were about equal to those on any other well-run farm in the area. Did he breed Sally Cummings? Maybe, but his brother might have done it instead. That jury is still out.

Jefferson was a good writer and architect and a decent statesman but not a very good businessman. As time went by he had to sell most of his library and furnishings in order to keep his house. I imagine he sold his slaves too.

[rom]

Believe me, I do not want to hold Jefferson to any standard that we hold today. That was not my intent. However, my response was really to someone who called someone else a (and I quote) ‘dumbass’.

As for Paul, he had a conversion — and his life was *markedly* changed after accepting the Lord. Jefferson seems to have been the same person — actually, Jefferson would go on to make a Bible Translation that stripped any references to the divinity of Christ, so his story is very different from Saul of Tarsus.

Jefferson would go on to call black people inferior to white people, and to propose the Indian Removal plan. These are blemishes on his record — and contrary to his pretty abolitionist words.

However, I will say this: Overall the man has done much to advance the cause of liberty and individual freedom. I think you’ll have to take my response in context to who I was responding to :)

[expatguy]

Perhaps you have taken Jefferson’s words out of context.

[sergeantdave]

You express displeasure with Jefferson owning slaves, now do the same with the rat party owning slaves, starting up the KKK, spraying protestors with hoses at Selma, Alabama, hanging black citizens, etc,

If you think Jefferson did worse than the democrat party, you have no idea of history.

The democraty party, as a mass murder movement, has killed more people than Hitler and the Nazis.

[sergeantdave]

“My esteem for Jefferson has gone down considerably over the years,”

Many communists and fascists agree with you.

“I think his owning slaves gels perfectly with his Indian Removal Act and disdain for women’s suffrage.’

Lincoln felt the same, not to mention his idea of shipping black people back to Africa. How do you feel about Lincoln?

Let’s go on and talk about Woodrow “KKK” Wilson.

Did you like him?

Hell, let’s do FDR. Hangings of black citizens all over the US. Were you comfortable with FDR ignoring all the lynchings?

The problem I have with you goosestepping Jefferson haters is that you forgive all the liberals and never criticize them.

Personally, I think you’re a bunch of America-hating trolls.

[sergeantdave]

“Why don’t you ask Sally about Jefferson’s love for his slaves?”

The only person who believes this about Sally’s relationship to Tom Jefferson is you. And your belief proves that you’re lacking a map to the bridge.

Unfortunate to see that you believe the lying liberals. Are you comfortable with your “useful idiot” badge?

Never mind. I know your unsatisfactory answer.

[rom]

Wow. Talk about absurdity. I am not impressed with any of the tyrants you ranted about. Lincoln in particular.

FWIW all are lower on the totem pole than Jefferson.

If you think me a liberal, just check my posting history. I bow to no mere *man*

[sergeantdave]

“If you think me a liberal, just check my posting history.”

I will. Sleep well.