Impact of Words
After reading the Declaration of Independence by Thomas Jefferson, I received a whole new view on how hard it really was for the new colonies to remove themselves from Great Britain. As I kept reading I started comparing what was originally wrote and what was later removed and changed. For example, on page 123, in the 2nd paragraph, it reads:
“…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 all political connection…”
As shown on the side of the page, it later was changed to:
“these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states…”
Why do you think that so many things were either removed or changed from the original Declaration of Independence? Why does it seem as though the mood of the statement is more polite and formal the second time it is written? What are the good reasons for having this document edited before publishing it? Do you think it was a good thing that certain things were removed and changed or do you think it should have stayed the same? Why?
“…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 all political connection…”
As shown on the side of the page, it later was changed to:
“these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states…”
Why do you think that so many things were either removed or changed from the original Declaration of Independence? Why does it seem as though the mood of the statement is more polite and formal the second time it is written? What are the good reasons for having this document edited before publishing it? Do you think it was a good thing that certain things were removed and changed or do you think it should have stayed the same? Why?
posted by AnnelieseC at 8/21/2006 07:36:00 PM
3 Comments:
IMO, I imagine that some of the more conciliatory members of the Continental Congress were able to exert a bit of influence. Also, the founding fathers likely wanted to be perceived by France and other European nations as a stable nation, not a hot-headed radical mob.
After thoroughly analyzing the Declaration of Independence as originally drafted by Thomas Jefferson in this particular light, I have come to the conclusion that the numerous changes made to the original document were in the intention of making the document sound more professional and as though it were written by an already distinguished nation instead of one that had not technically been formed yet. Though Jefferson was a truly intelligent man, possibly to a degree that we will never be sure, he was a very emotional patriot and often put bias into his writings in order to insure that his readers would support his arguments. He uses parallelism or repetition in his writing as a subtle way of increasing the support of the reader but also uses sarcasm and exaggeration as a much more deliberate form of increasing the readers support. Such examples include when he condemns the king’s “piratical warfare” on page 122 or when he states that the king had “plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people” as though it were an everyday occurrence. Because of such quotes, the members of Congress had to make such alterations so as to insure that the Declaration had the utmost prestige and respect from foreign nations and so as to not look like the work of a handful of radicals. They too had to retain just enough degradation upon Great Britain to make the act of rising in rebellion appear to be the necessary maneuver. I believe that these often minor alterations were entirely necessary and I support the majority of them but the sole alteration I would make would be removing the section regarding “the merciless Indian savages” on page 121-122 for it puts the writers and supporters in a light that they may be racist towards the American Indians. Though this may have been a common sentiment at the time, in today’s culture it could easily be criticized.
The changes to the Declaration of Independence were mainly word changes to make it more powerful writing. the origional draft is just that, a draft. These slight changes, such as changing "a ruler of a people who mean to be free", to " a ruler of a free people", just make the document flow better, and sound more intelligent. Some of the edits were purely removal of direct insults to the king or britain. They had already called the king a tyrant a few times, they did not want to insult him too much right away. You have to remember that the king was an important person at this time. it would be like sending this to the president at this time, a poorly written letter, or one that is just insults would not easily make it all the way to it's destination. They wanted it to be as well-written and powerful as possible in the final copy. A few changes were for agreement between the states. The southern united states relyed heavily on free labor, as pkomatz said above, money was a big political motivation as it is today, and at that time slavery was not going to be easily abolished.
Post a Comment
<< Home