The Declaration of Independence remains a central focal point in American political discourse, serving as both a foundational document of the United States and a frequent target of critiques from Black radicals regarding its inherent contradictions. Historians and scholars, including UCLA professor Robin D. G. Kelley, note that the document’s Enlightenment-era rhetoric of universal equality stands in stark contrast to the historical reality of slavery and the exclusion of non-white populations from the early republic.
The Historical Critique of the Declaration
The Declaration of Independence is often analyzed by scholars as a document that, while articulating ideals of liberty, was drafted by men who maintained an exclusionary vision of citizenship. According to Robin D. G. Kelley, writing in Hammer & Hope, the drafters of the Declaration operated under the assumption that the new nation would function as a "herrenvolk republic"—essentially a white republic.
Critics, including 19th-century abolitionist David Walker, argued that the document’s claims of equality were hypocritical when measured against the institution of slavery. In his 1829 work, Appeal to the Colored Citizens of the World, Walker highlighted the contradiction between the colonists’ fight for independence from British rule and their simultaneous maintenance of a system of chattel slavery.
Frederick Douglass and the "Sham" of Independence
One of the most enduring critiques of the American founding is Frederick Douglass’s 1852 speech, "What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?" Delivered to the Rochester Ladies’ Anti-Slavery Sewing Society, Douglass characterized the celebration of American independence as a "sham" for those held in bondage.
As documented by the Library of Congress, Douglass used the occasion to point out the "gross injustice and cruelty" faced by enslaved people. Despite this, Douglass maintained a complex relationship with the U.S. Constitution. While some abolitionists, such as William Lloyd Garrison, viewed the Constitution as an inherently pro-slavery document, Douglass eventually argued that it could be interpreted as a "glorious liberty document" if stripped of its pro-slavery compromises, such as the Three-Fifths Compromise, which counted enslaved people for Congressional representation without granting them rights.
The Evolution of Radical Interpretations
The use of the Declaration of Independence by Black radicals evolved significantly in the mid-19th century. John Brown, the abolitionist who led the 1859 raid on Harpers Ferry, famously rewrote the Declaration as an abolitionist document. According to Kelley, this was a direct response to the Supreme Court’s 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, which ruled that Black people could not be citizens of the United States.
By invoking the language of the Declaration, activists aimed to hold the nation accountable to its own stated principles. This strategy sought to leverage the document’s universal claims against the systemic limitations of the era. The tension between these ideals and the reality of American history remains a subject of ongoing study, particularly as institutions navigate how to memorialize figures like John Brown and the history of enslaved people in public spaces.
Key Historical Perspectives
- The Declaration as a Lever: Black activists historically used the Declaration’s rhetoric as a tool to challenge the legitimacy of slavery and demand universal human rights, regardless of the original drafters’ intentions.
- Constitutional Debate: Abolitionists were historically divided over whether the U.S. Constitution was a vehicle for liberation or a foundational defense of slavery.
- The Proclamation of 1763: Some historians, including Kelley, argue that the American Revolution was partly driven by a desire for westward expansion, which the British Proclamation of 1763 had sought to limit, further complicating the narrative of the Revolution as purely an anti-colonial movement.
Keep reading