In Jefferson Davis’ famous farewell speech to the United States senate, he advances the following claim:
[QUOTE=Jefferson Davis]
That Declaration of Independence is to be construed by the circumstances and purposes for which it was made… that men were created equal – meaning the men of the political community… else, how happened it that among the items of arraignment made against George III was that he endeavored to do just what the North had been endeavoring of late to do – to stir up insurrection among our slaves?”
[/QUOTE]
Checking the actual text of the Declaration of Independence, the closest to Davis’ claim that I can find it this:
[QUOTE=The Declaration of Independence]
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured 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.
[/QUOTE]
My question: was “domestic insurrections” actually intended by the signers of the Declaration to refer to slaves and slave rebellions? Or was Davis misrepresenting the meaning of the Declaration to further his political ends?
(Mods, I’m hoping for a factual answer, but as there is speculation as to the meaning of what a bunch of old men meant 250 years ago, this may need to move to Great Debates at some point)
It’s not in the final draft but it is in Thomas Jefferson’s original draft (later stricken due to objections from South Carolina and Georgia).
It’s a strange point to bring up. In the same grievance, Jefferson (himself a slaveowner, hence demonstrating the contradictions all men live with) denounces the institution of slavery itself, which wouldn’t be something Jefferson Davis would really want to to draw attention to.
I doubt if it’s in the Declaration, but during the Revolution the British DID offer freedom to slaves as a way of causing trouble in slave-holding states. I don’t know if they did this before the Declaration was written. But the issue of black slavery was very familiar to the British, as seen by Samuel Johnson’s famous quote “How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?”
It’s possible that Dais got the timeline wrong, and even whether this was in the Declaration, but the British definitely did try to stir up dissatisfaction among the blacks during the Revolution.
In the scholarship as I’ve read it the domestic insurrection passage was understood at the time and certainly in Jeff Davis’ time to refer to attempts to foment slave rebellions.
This article has a good brief on the passage and its original (original already referenced by Great Antibob.)
Jefferson’s original passage makes it clearer that he was talking about the British trying to foment slave rebellions, but the domestic insurrection passage mostly has few other meanings that make any real sense. British leaders as early as 1775 were threatening to foment slave rebellions to try and quell trouble from the colonials.
Jefferson’s original passage is actually a bit hard to take, as it condemns the King for allowing the slave trade to continue by use of his negative (withholding of assent, which he used to block colonial legislative laws banning the slave trade) but then goes on to also complain about the King trying to get the slaves to rise up in insurrection. So Jefferson was obviously arguing the slave trade was immoral and terrible but hey, don’t whip our already-here slaves into a frenzy we need them to work and certainly don’t want them getting ideas at Monticello where I’m outnumbered 200-to-1.
Jefferson had a very nuanced position on the role of slaves. He was firmly a believer that every man should be independent from others and the government. Have his own farm, if you will. But if that condition wasn’t satisfied, then for the good of society, that man should be restricted in society. Obviously no voting since he is dependent on the government, he won’t vote in the “correct” way. Same way with slavery: Jefferson abhorred the idea, but felt that since they were here anyways and not being freed, there was no point in fomenting insurrection. Further as they were deliberated kept ignorant, they were better off remaining as slaves.
IOW, all men are created equal and endowed with unalienable rights…BUT if something happens that you aren’t given these rights, then we will take a bunch of others away from you for your and our greater good.
After the Declaration. There was no reason to do it before, but once the Revolution broke out, it was seen as a way to both weaken the colonies and gain soldiers for the crown.
Whatever the Declaration of Independence said, it was bogus of Davis to claim that “the North” had been trying to stir up slave insurrections prior to the Civil War.
Some individuals (i.e. John Brown) had indeed fomented rebellion, but official policies by Northern governments certainly did not (and even stirred up controversy due to some states’ efforts to placate the South through enforcement of abominations like the Fugitive Slave Act).
What about the “personal liberty acts” passed by many northern states that forbade local officials from assisting in the return of runaway slaves? While certainly a laudable goal from our modern viewpoint, it was also clearly contrary to the constitution and the agreement with the southern states.
There’s no logical contradiciton between “Slavery is wrong,” and “Creating violent slave rebellions to ensure British dominance is wrong.” Even in the later US context, Nat Turner isn’t widely considered a retrospective hero in the United States. Neither is John Brown. The former was a violent lunatic; the latter was a violent lunatic who may have (successfully) set out to martyr himself.
I assume you would agree that whatever sense this passage makes for men and women who were already slaves, it makes no sense at all applied to their children.
