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

The Declaration’s opening sentence is so long that Allen spends most of a chapter with its first few words: “when in the course of human events” (109). The word “course” has associations with rivers, and Allen suggests human life has a similar sense of predictability and direction. Like rivers, the direction of a human society can only be altered through “strenuous effort.” Thus, it is unlikely the colonists used the word frivolously. Allen points out that many of the Founding Fathers were influenced by political theorist John Locke, who argued that revolution was necessary when governments were “turning into a tyranny” (112). Locke used similar nautical metaphors, noting that citizens could be like the anxious passengers on a ship fairly certain their journey would end in slavery. Allen notes that historically many people have struggled to predict events, including witnesses to genocides such as the Holocaust. In the Declaration, the colonists are “taking responsibility for observing the currents within human action that pull us toward destinations” (114).

This chapter takes up the “it becomes necessary” phrase of the Declaration, asking, “[I]n what sense is it necessary for the colonists to separate from Britain?” (115). At the end of the sentence, the writers describe themselves as “impelled” to separation, which suggests it is unavoidable. To answer this, Allen says we must examine what made the colonists see themselves as unlike the British despite shared language and culture. The key lies in knowing that political philosophers of this period began to describe “the people” as a group with “shared institutions” (117), and it is in this sense that the colonists separated themselves since colonial government was distinct.

Next, the colonists declare themselves “free and equal” to other nations (119), including Britain—a claim that seems surprising, if not absurd, given that nation’s status as a global superpower. Allen argues that the claims to equality here are not about population, territory, or even potential for expansion. Instead, the colonists argue that they are a new nation because they can set up governments and “organize their own affairs” (120-21). In sum, “the ideal of equality means being equal as a power and therefore free from domination” (122-23).

Allen returns to the phrase “all men are created equal” to note that it may well remind readers of less optimistic periods of American history. The Supreme Court decision Plessy v. Ferguson established the right of states to provide “separate but equal” services based on race (123-24). For the Declaration’s authors, separation and equality are inextricable: It is independence that brings equality with it. However, where the Declaration sought to honor the dignity of the colonists’ separate status, segregationists used the idea “to keep many people subjected and independent (124). The “but” divides concepts that rightfully go together—a moral wrong only corrected when the 1954 Brown v. Board decision declared segregation unconstitutional. The Declaration contains both the promise of America’s ideals and the disappointing realities of oppression, especially based on race, as is most visible in its harsh language about Indigenous Americans.