Our Declaration: A Reading of the Declaration of Independence in Defense of Equality

Allen reminds the reader that the Declaration is a democratic memo that seeks to persuade a wide audience. Its audience is, in fact, the “candid world,” and it asks for judgment not merely from those who were alive during its writing but from all readers. Allen then asks how we can judge the rightness of the colonial cause. The Declaration asks us to use our “moral sense,” which even children on a playground can cultivate. It asks us to “act as the political creatures we are […] to look at the relations among facts, principles, and a community’s chosen course of action” (90). The text, then, acts out its own commitment to human equality in believing that all readers can engage with it and evaluate the rightness of the colonial cause.

This chapter begins with a question: “[H]ow does the Declaration do what it does?” (92). The text is divided into a series of actions the colonists undertake: They list their reasons for pursuing separation, then submit facts and declare independence, and finally pledge support to one another. Allen compares this to what happens at many weddings. When vows are read and a couple is pronounced married, their legal status and property relationship change in the eyes of their society. The relationship between the colonies and Britain, however, is more similar to that of a divorce decree—the text opens with the colonists ending their ties with Britain to “marry” one another. 

Moreover, where the wedding formula is well known and agreed upon, the colonists effectively wrote their own ceremony in the Declaration. They ask for consent from each other because the king and his people have effectively divorced them through their actions. Their request for worldwide consent is as much practical as ideological—the new nation would need allies in a war with Britain. They appeal to God as “supreme judge of the world” to evaluate their cause (96). 

Debating the Declaration was a key part of the ritual as well: Consensus for the bold new step was only won through “talk-based cooperation” in Congress (97). These conversations, like a marriage vow, led the colonists to decide on shared principles and what to pledge, whether divorce from Britain or something else. Well before signing the document, the colonists prepared themselves for “potential” independence by debating and discussing their shared principles. The document created enough support for independence that it ushered in a new era of political leaders.

Allen argues that the Declaration is a prime example of combining words with process to produce new political actions and realities. Resolving linguistic and political questions is rarely tidy, as examination of the ultimate fate of Jefferson’s first draft suggests. However, contested words are stronger in the end, which is why the Declaration feels “sturdy.” Jefferson was not the only colonial politician skilled at writing; his fellow Virginian James Madison produced several of the Federalist Papers to defend the Constitution. He wrote both Washington’s inaugural address and a response to it—effectively “talking to himself” (103). Nevertheless, Madison was not egotistical; he devoted his gifts to national causes and did not claim personal credit. Returning to the Declaration, Allen argues that the text itself explains why democratic writing matters. If “all men are created equal,” then democratic writing is “necessary for justice” (103).