Michael Daniel

Declaration of Independence
11-14-2006

The initial draft, congressional draft and the final draft of the Declaration of

Independence all declare the English American colonies to be independent of England.

They declared their independence because of the injustices committed against the

colonies by the King of England.

In all 3 copies of the Declaration of Independence this section of text, or

something similar occurs: “He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and

(everything after these parenthesis occurs in all 3 versions) has endeavored to bring on

the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of

warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.” This

statement assumes that all Native Americans wage total war and that the King of England

has some kind of influence over the Native American tribes. All Native Americans did

not and do not wage total war. At the time of the constitution, colonists hadn’t even made

contact with most Native American tribes so they had no frame of reference from which

to make such a statement. I see no reason why the Native Americans should care about

what King George had to say, therefore, I see no way that King George could incite

Native Americans to declare war on colonists. If a Native American tribe declared war

on a town it is probably a result of the interaction between the town and the Native

Americans. King George may hold sway over the colonial town but not over the Native

Americans.
 It is interesting to see what was edited out of the Declaration of Independence and

what was added. I was relieved to see that the part about adopting one common king was

edited out of the document. I heard that Washington wanted to be an elected president

and he had the cult of personality to make that law happen. I still wonder what the

conversation might have been like if there was no cult of personality behind Washington.

It must have sounded crazy to try a form of government that had not been functional

since the Greeks were a world power.

I noticed that they accused King George of inciting slave rebellions in the first

draft. That part was obviously cut because it referred to slavery as ‘cruel war against

human nature itself’. There were many slave owners at the signing of the Declaration of

Independence so that entire section was removed. I don’t see how King George could

incite a slave rebellion when the slave is only allowed to do what their master says. The

King could not have had contact with slaves against the owners wishes. Even if,

somehow, King George was able to incite a slave rebellion, it was common knowledge

that slave rebellions simply do not work. According to the History Channel, the only

slave rebellion in history that has ever worked was the one in Hati. All other slave

rebellions were eventually crushed.

This begs the question: Were the slave owners who signed the declaration of

independence unethical because they owned slaves? The Bible endorses slavery and at

the time the Bible was the source for the ethical system of the colonists. According to

ethical relativism, the slave owners were behaving ethically. If you believe in absolute

ethical principles and you believe that it is absolutely wrong in all circumstances to own

another person then the slave owners were unethical.