Deism and the Declaration

As was discussed in the intro to the Neoclassicism unit, much of the writing of the day was propagandistic in nature. The writing could be generally characterized as being addressed to a nationalistic, allied, neutral, or hostile audience (not including the unintended audience). This topic has been discussed already at length: I think the general consensus was that it was catered towards a nationalistic audience. However, the propagandistic leanings aren't the only unique characteristics of this piece. The biography included in this section described that Jefferson was a deist, and he strived to "...advocate a demystified religion that preached from a positivist perspective. He railed against the gloomy assessments of human nature he believed were characteristic of Calvanism." Knowing this, then, it is not surprising that the tenets of Deism included the beliefs that rationalism and reason could help clarify the inscrutable universe, that divinity was understandable, that man was not perfect but perfectible, and that nature ruled over all. Above all, it was not a religion so much as a philosophy. It was a conglomeration of ideas that helped people to understand the world around them. The fact that the universe existed indicated that God ("Creator") existed, but had, as Dr. B. says, "left the building."

Rationalism and reason seem to best characterize the propagandistic goals of the document. As seen in the middle section of the D.O.I. (the list of grievances), the listing of the reasons for which America had the right to rebel was very rational. Instead of simply stating "We...reject and renounce all allegiance and subjection to the kings of Great Britain...," he adds backing to his argument. This idea also ties in with the Unitarian belief that man was not perfect but perfectible. In a parallel sense, surely the colonies as the were were not perfect. Though Jefferson much loved his home state of Virginia, it was necessary to break free from Britain in order to "form a more perfect union." (Constitution!). Jefferson makes many references to God, often as the "Creator." I am quite confused as to why he does this; though I am sure he was conscious of the Deist belief of a duty to God, I don't think he added it for that reason. Additionally, it does not seem to stick out as moral support for the document, as was seen in Henry's "Give me liberty..." speech. What do you think? What other Deist tenets are represented here? What may be an unintended audience? Is there a second motive to the document?

The ideas behind the Declaration of Independence

Hey, it's Amy again.

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson combines the forces of history, philosophy, and religion to justify the revolutionary actions of the colonies against Great Britain. Many of his ideas came from Locke, who believed that man was born good and with natural rights that no one had the power to take away. Locke also believed in the idea that the purpose of government was to protect these rights, and the people had the responsibility to abolish or reform the government if their inalienable rights were not protected, as with the colonies.

Thomas Jefferson uses the influence of this historical philosopher to communicate ideas already known to many and create a sense of familiarity and validity with the revolution through his use of Locke's concepts in numerous areas of his writing. Jefferson states that "all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;"

He later uses the ideas of Hobbes, another well-known philosopher: "And accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." This statement illustrates the main ideas of Hobbes, that mankind are more disposed to suffer and show evil characteristics, but at the same time Jefferson says that although we all suffer, we have a duty to right the tyrannical government, an evil of mankind, if we ever wish to decrease our evil tendencies, an idea that does not comply with Hobbes, who views government as an establishment to control and protect those who do not know how to protect themselves. Instead, he refers back to the ideas of Locke.

The ideas of English Whigs are also incorporated into the Declaration of Independence. In some ways there are similarities between the WHigs and the Colonists, as both were anti-Royalist and attacked the moral corruption in English political behavior and decisions and connected this criticism to civil liberties. According to our bio on Jefferson, "The Whigs constantly warned the lulledd citizens of the threats to their liberties and proposed all sorts of liberal reforms..." Jefferson included a list of "unremitting injuries and usurpations" of Britain and afterwards wrote about the deprivation of basic rights and emphasized how the colonies had petitioned for redress, only to be repeatedly denied.

Jefferson also illustrated Britain's cruelty as Britain sends over foreign mercenaries and British soldiers to kill the colonists. Jefferson describes the situation as beyond reconciliation as the colonies have no chance to reach agreement with Britain, and the only other option is to fight for freedom and what it right.

God on our side

Hey, it's Amy!

On the second page of PAtrick Henry's "Give me Liberty or Give Me Death," one of the techniques he uses is repitition for emphasis. Yes, this has nothing to do with the title, but I just wanted to mention it. For example, to lodge his ideas in the minds of others, he said, "we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight." We see this repitition in other areas as well such as, "let it come! I reapeat it, sir, let it come." This emphasis is to drive the rebellion in a time where war has already started, according to Henry, and the colonies must take action immediately to keep up with Great Britain or they will forever be bound in chains.

Back to the title of this entry,Patric Henry also uses the force of God to encourage and demand action from the colonists. It has been seen throughout history that nations at war will claim that God is supporting them, not their enemies, and the side that wins gets to affirm that their ambitions were the holy ones. We see this idea of God taking sides for the most holy cause in Patrick Henry's work as he puts religious emphasis on his ideas. "An appeal to arms and tot he God of Hosts is all that is left us," demonstrates his invoking of God's assistance in the rebellion along with his statement in the last paragraph, "Is life so dar, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!" Henry portrays the revolution as a holy and religious effort as he states "Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty..." This illustration of rebellion is to provoke mainly nationalist into action and possibly sway some neutrals, although the language is too strong to be directed towards neutrals.

Hey everyone, It's Paige. I was just reading through some Thomas Paine writings, and I had some semantic thoughts. In "The American Crisis" he seems to be working on a highly abstract level started with the first sentence, "THESE are the times that try men's souls." This sounds convincing, but what does that really mean in terms of the extensional world? He seems to have very vivid imagery linked with snarl words when he speaks of tyranny. "Tyranny like hell is not easily conquered", as well as saying "Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny..." His connect is quite clear his connection of Britain being like hell through tyranny seems to bring out a lot of negative connotations. Although his tone is forceful with the information, he appears to be a demogague. He claims, "God Almighty will not give up a people to military destruction..." He is using his audience's emotions again themselves in raising a false sense of security.

What do you guys think?

Slavery Imagery in Henry's Speech

Hey guys, it's Allison.

In our discussion of Patrick Henry's speech, I mentioned how Henry uses the imagery of slavery to arouse certain feelings and reactions in the reader based on the word's affective connotation. Mr. Lazarow then elaborated on the idea and explained how Henry used the imagery of slavery to describe how he felt England viewed the colonies.

When I re-read the speech, I was surprised by the number of times Henry made reference to slavery. To begin the speech, he said that he considered the issue with England to be "nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery". And so began his multiple allusions to slavery. Henry then went on to ask, "Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty?". I took his use of the word liberty and his description of having to struggle for it to be a reference to how slaves must fight if they wish to be free. When Henry described the British cultivation of a strong army and navy, he said the military were "sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging." Such a judgment exemplifies Henry's concern that the British saw their colonists as their slaves. When Henry suggested that the colonists must fight to protect their freedom, he made yet another reference to slavery: "Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?" To reinforce his point, Henry said, "There is no retreat, but submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston!"

I think Henry used the slavery imagery as a fear tactic to scare the nationalists into action. Henry suggested that the colonists fight to preserve their freedom and if the colonists believed that losing their freedom to the British was a pressing issue, they might have followed Henry's course of action. Do you think that Henry's use of slavery imagery was appropriate? Was his use of the imagery effective?

The power of God over man

Hey, it's Jasmine.

I was doing my Spanish homework and the story I was reading reminded me of what we talked about in English class a while ago. The story is called "The Two Kings and the Two Labyrinths." It's about a Babylonian king who constructs an elaborate and complex labyrinth and an Arab king who uses the desert as his labyrinth. The story states that the Babylonian king's labyrnith causes an uproar because the ability to confuse can only be employed by God, not man. At the end, God triumphs over man when the Babylonian king dies in the desert (which is a labyrnith constructed by God, not humans).

This reminded me of our last unit on Puritans. In the poem, "Upon a Spider Catching a Fly," Edward Taylor writes, "Strive not above what strength hath got." This meant that humans didn't have the strength to fight what they were destined to be - human beings, not gods. Thus, the Babylonian king shouldn't have tried to act like God, controlling the fates of those who got lost in his labyrinth.

This concept also relates to the lightning rod, invented by Benjamin Franklin. Many people opposed the idea of the lightning rod because they believed that if lightning struck a house, it was an act of God. They believed that it was immoral to challenge God's will. Furthermore, in his speech, Patrick Henry stated, "There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us." Do you think that some of the colonists were inspired to fight because they thought God was on their side? Did the colonists feel obliged to fight back because it was (supposedly) God's will? I'm not sure how much God factored into the mood of the war, but I think the reassurance that He was on the colonists' side made them more optimistic. As long as God supported them, not the British, they were sure to win, since God's power was always stronger than man's.

Patrick Henry

There seems to be a trend in our Neoclassicism packet from passages directed at enemy audiences towards passages directed at nationalist audiences. We just finished going over Franklin's witty satire of Britain's policy towards her American colonies, which was in fact intended for a British audience. The passage that we just finished reading, by Patrick Henry, appears to me to be directed at a neutral audience. Finally, if I recall correctly from history class last year, both Jefferson and Paine wrote their major works of the time with a nationalist audience in mind.

Going back to "Give me Liberty or give me Death!", I was struck by its differences with Benjamin Franklin's letter from only two years before. While Franklin leaves open the possibility of reconciliation, Henry insists that war is inevitable. While Franklin attempts to connect with a foreign audience, Henry speaks to colonists who still want to pursue diplomatic solutions. His argument is that history has shown that the British have no interest in reconciliation, and hoping that this will change is foolish. Of course, he does not say it quite like that, as he does not want to offend or scare away people neutral to the Revolutionary cause. In fact, his very first sentence assures his audience of his respect for those who do not support the war.

A central theme of Henry's speech is hope. His audience has hope that reconciliation is possible, and little or no hope that the colonists can win a war with Britain. The speech attempts to convince these people that just the opposite is true. Henry presents an emotional appeal to the people in each case, using words with strong affective connotations. Finally, he ends with a line derived from an Aristotelian two-valued orientation that also serves as the title of the speech. I thought that this was similar to President Bush's famous words "You're either for us or against us". Although the context of each respective statement is different, both politicians use the same device in an appeal to neutrals.