Thomas Jeffersonnnn
So Jefferson was a pretty interesting guy... So um I don't really know where to go from here, so I suppose I will start at the beginning (how his writings appeal to each of the target groups).
The Ideas that Ignited the Revolution
Nationalists: Jefferson provides logical support for the preconceived notions of the nationalists. The nationalists could use his arguments to strengthen their position
Neutrals: He used the theories of Descartes, Hobbes, and Locke to formulate a theory for a government that would be workable and would not infringe upon the rights of others (separation of powers, rational against the divine right to rule, etc.). Jefferson's use of the Bible stories also strengthened his claim that God was obviously on the side of the Americans.
Enemies: Jefferson's use of the English Common Law and the beliefs of the Whig party against England itself would serve to demoralize the enemies and deter them from fighting
Allies: I'm not quite sure how this group was addressed... any ideas?
Declaration of Independence
Nationalists: By listing all the grievances against the Crown, Jefferson gives the nationalists support for their rage against the Crown. He also claims that "it is their duty, to throw off such [oppressive] government, and to provide new guards for their future security," giving them a purpose and a means of channeling their emotions.
Neutrals: By claiming that the Americans "have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms" and "that in constituting indeed or several forms of government, we had adopted one common king..." Jefferson shows that the Americans have tried to reconcile with England but that is no longer possible and that it is now their duty to God to implement change.
Enemies: The extensive list of grievances shows the wrongness of the Crown and would demoralize the enemies.
Allies: I think one grievance above all would appeal to the allies: "For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world." This line shows the allies that England is depriving them of trade with a land rich in resources. By supporting the Americans, these trade lines will open again, leading to increased wealth for the allied nations.
Well that was longer than I intended but oh well. Anything else anyone wants to add?
The Ideas that Ignited the Revolution
Nationalists: Jefferson provides logical support for the preconceived notions of the nationalists. The nationalists could use his arguments to strengthen their position
Neutrals: He used the theories of Descartes, Hobbes, and Locke to formulate a theory for a government that would be workable and would not infringe upon the rights of others (separation of powers, rational against the divine right to rule, etc.). Jefferson's use of the Bible stories also strengthened his claim that God was obviously on the side of the Americans.
Enemies: Jefferson's use of the English Common Law and the beliefs of the Whig party against England itself would serve to demoralize the enemies and deter them from fighting
Allies: I'm not quite sure how this group was addressed... any ideas?
Declaration of Independence
Nationalists: By listing all the grievances against the Crown, Jefferson gives the nationalists support for their rage against the Crown. He also claims that "it is their duty, to throw off such [oppressive] government, and to provide new guards for their future security," giving them a purpose and a means of channeling their emotions.
Neutrals: By claiming that the Americans "have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms" and "that in constituting indeed or several forms of government, we had adopted one common king..." Jefferson shows that the Americans have tried to reconcile with England but that is no longer possible and that it is now their duty to God to implement change.
Enemies: The extensive list of grievances shows the wrongness of the Crown and would demoralize the enemies.
Allies: I think one grievance above all would appeal to the allies: "For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world." This line shows the allies that England is depriving them of trade with a land rich in resources. By supporting the Americans, these trade lines will open again, leading to increased wealth for the allied nations.
Well that was longer than I intended but oh well. Anything else anyone wants to add?
posted by L Lazarow | 9:09 PM
13 Comments:
As for how Jefferson appealed to the Allies, I think it was his backing up of all his ideals with precedence (Hobbes, Locke, English Common Law) which gave the allies something substantive, something substantial to get behind.
(I hope this comment gets posted in the right place.)
I think that Hobbes's argument that an all-powerful sovereign should have control probably attracted the Allies' imperial side. For example, France allied with the U.S. in hopes of gaining back control over the American colonies and being that "all-powerful sovereign." Jefferson probably used Hobbes's beliefs to propagate to the Allies that they could benefit if they helped the U.S., even if Jefferson never intended France or other countries to have control over the U.S. when the war was over.
just a last note about Henry's "Give me liberty or Give me death"...
Henry uses so many different propaganda techniques to convince his audience. He uses flattery within the first sentence when he refers to his audience as "very worthy gentlemen" in order not to offend those who have different opinions on the matter he is addressing. He uses purr and snarl words as well as glittering generalites to convince his audience. He throws around the words "freedom" and "slavery" in order to evoke certain feelings from his audience. He says that fighting is the only hope the colonsits have to arrive at the "truth". He says that this fight would be a "struggle for liberty". The use of these general terms would allow nationalists, especially, to develop their own definitions of the words based on their own personal experiences.
Henry used the bandwagon technique by telling his audience that the north is already at war and he asks them why they would stand idly by as the brethren fought for their noble cause. He tells them that the war is inevitable and that it is only right to join in the fight for liberty.
Henry also uses rhetorical questions throughout the speech. He asks his audience to think aobut the real motive of the British crown. He asks them if they think that fleets and armies were necessary to make a peace agreement. He then asks them whether more petitions and supplications would be successful in the future. These rhetorical questions again would have appealed to the nationalist audience who could answer these questions by relating their personal experiences to the matter.
Can't let go of propaganda quite yet, can we?
Anyway, I must question Jefferson's logic. Certainly he supports his arguments with evidence. The grievances in the Declaration allude to the taxes Britain imposed, the Navigation Acts, and the Quartering Acts, tyrannical governors, and other limitations of freedom.
Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, however, fails to examine the other side of the argument. The British troops were there to protect the colonists. All British citizens were taxed. George III simply attempted to make the colonies responsible for their own upkeep. Jefferson is not completely rationale because he does not refute negative opposition.
Jefferson says, "He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people." Anyone else think that he is exaggerating a bit? I guess Jefferson subscribes to a sort of selective logic- take the details that support your case and ignore the rest. The Declaration, therefore, is nothing but a high-minded, elitist, idealistic and unrealistic masterpiece of propaganda. I may find it disappointing if it did not sound so pretty.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Declaration of Independence was signed July 4th, 1776. The battles at Lexington and Concord, the first of the Revolutionary War, took place on April, 19th, 1775. The war had been fought for a whole year. That year was spent half fighting, half negotiating with the King, with one Olive Branch petition after the other. It was only until it was certain and obvious that a seperation must occur for the colonists to enjoy the rights they deserved, that the Continental Congress even broached the idea of a Declaration of Independence in May of 1776. That may shed some light.
And honestly, folks, just 'cause the Declaration doesn't immedietly hit ya right there, its worth and power is hardly diminished. Just a thought here, but it seems to me that rampant subjectivity is the bane of the study of literature. It lets you dismiss centuries of thought on a whim. Some things are generally regarded as awesome, so maybe if you personally don't "get" it, the problem is with you, not the work. Just a thought. A very, very reactionary, uncool kind of thought. So 19th century. But I think it has some validity.
I beg to differ with Theresa and Tina on the subject of Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. Yeah, it has really flowery language and exaggerates stuff, but that's exactly the sort of thing any good Nationalist LOVES. Nationalists don't require solid evidence to convince them because they are already convinced of the author's cause; they don't want any additional evidence---they just want a good rabble-rouser to take the lead and urge them to rebellion.
Of course Jefferson didn't list the viewpoints of the other side; the point of the "Declaration of Independence" was to make a good case for what was essentially secession. It was the point of no return, so outlining the positive points of the enemy (England) would only serve to hurt the Revolutionaries' cause.
And Jefferson didn't limit the Declaration's appeal just to Nationalists---he did make a bit of an appeal to Allies/Enemies in using a list of grievances by the English government.
In my opinion, the Declaration of Independence was a bit too radical and "scary" to appeal to the neutrals because it signified an enormous change in the political landscape; however, I agree with Elizabeth in that if anything were to persuade the neutrals, it would probably be the references to Descartes/Hobbes/Locke and their beggining-to-be-commonly-accepted theories of government. (Although Hobbes did believe in absolutist/monarchical rule, which is something of a conflict.)
One passage which I thought was particularly directed at the ENEMY was on the 3rd page of the Declaration in the packet: "For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government. [...]" Upon reading that, perhaps some of the Brits would be a bit disillusioned by their ruler's decision to limit the traditional English law in the colonies. This may be a bit of a stretch, but maybe they even thought of it as a slippery slope---if Parliament/the king are willing to abolish English laws in England's colonies, what's stopping them from limiting the system of laws in England itself?
A more effective piece of propaganda directed toward the Enemy was that Jefferson implied that the colonials were united against Britain when he spoke of the Assembly as "The Representatives of the United States of America [...] in the name and by the authority of the good people of these states." When your enemy believes that you are completely unified against them, it scares them. (This is an especially interesting assertion by Jefferson as it is commonly said that of the colonists, 1/3 were against war with Britain, 1/3 were for it, and 1/3 were against it. Doesn't sound much like unity to me!)
I agree with Danielle that Jefferson’s saying "we" throughout the Declaration intimidates the enemy. Jefferson not only says “we” in a number of places to intimidate Britain, but also to demoralize the enemies within the colonies by drawing the line that if people aren't with "us" then they're against "us". He also makes the nationals seem like a larger group than they are by saying that "he has waged cruel war against human nature itself," as if it's a war of George III against the world.
One very powerful technique Jefferson uses to demoralize his enemies is bringing God into the picture. He says, "...this piratical warfare, the opprobium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian king of Great Britain...," which is sarcastic because he states that the king is both an infidel and Christian. In a way, Jefferson is challenging how Christian George III really is, and therefore trying to frighten Britain that God may not be on Britain's side.
Lastly, one of the grievances Jefferson points out puzzles me. He says, "...he has abdicated government here, withdrawing his governors, and declaring us out of his allegiance and protection." Perhaps I am reading this incorrectly, but it seems to me that he's complaining that George III has withdrawn the British governors in America and won't protect America with troops. However, Franklin complained about the king's governors and Jefferson in an earlier complaint says how he's upset that there are troops in the colonies. It's seems to me then that the nationals would be plenty happy to have the governors and troops out of the colonies, so I don't understand why Jefferson is complaining that there aren't governors and protection.
--Caroline
I have just a quick question could someone explain the "free system of English laws in a neighboring province" Jefferson refers to in his list of grievances in the declaration. How was the American system of laws different, besides "inadequate" representation what was Jefferson getting his britches in a bunch for?
also that last comment was Bill for some reason its using my email adress now
I disagree with Tina's statement that Jefferson's work is ineffective due to its list format. I believe, on the contrary, that the list format is powerful and provides emphasis. Each statement serves to emphasize the one before it in a sense. The list creates more length, which may have "exaggerated" (as mentioned earlier) the state of the Americans at the time, but the whole point of the document was to further instigate the spark of fervor in the people.
I mentioned this in class today, but i'll post it here anyway as well:
The document listed several of the king's (in actuality- British Parliament's) violations of key Machivellian principles. Since Jefferson directed the complaints in his document toward the King of England, the King was portrayed as the dictator that is supposed to follow the Machiavellian Principles in order to sustain a successful rein. Since the King violated some of the principles, he was faced with the threat of losing much of his power. I'm going to take for example, a famous principle quoted by Machiavelli: "it is better to be feared than loved, if not both." Jefferson obviously showed no love towards the King since the document bashes him entirely. Jefferson also didn't fear the King otherwise he wouldn't have had the audacity to make such bold statements. Other Machiavllian principles which were underlying mentioned included:
"The wish to acquire more is admittedly a very natural and common thing; and when men succeed in this they are always praised rather than condemned. But when they lack the ability to do so and yet want to acquire more at all costs, they deserve condemnation for their mistakes."
and
One change always leaves the way open for the establishment of others."
I think I need to defend myself here.
I have already said that the Declaration is a masterpiece of propaganda. As propaganda, one would not expect Jefferson to address his enemy's point of view. Therefore, Jefferson's unsympathetic technique comes as no surprise.
The real Declaration of Independence is not the perfect revolutionary document we learn about in elementary school. Yes, it is logical and it draws on the revolutionary philosophies of those who came before. Obviously, Jefferson was an expert on history and current events. However, the Declaration is most importantly a work of propaganda. Jefferson knew that it was not a legal document. He wrote the Declaration because he wanted support for the war.
So perhaps saying I was disappointed was too strong. Disillusionment might have been a better choice. Yes, I know we have to look at the context in which the Declaration was written. We should recognize the strong emotional undercurrent of the period. And I realize that saying equality is something for which we should strive was a revolutionary statement. As a nation, we have tried to live up to the ideals in the Declaration. So no one can argue that the Declaration was not an important document. It has undoubtedly shaped our history and helped define what we want to become. I get that.
At the same time, however, we need to look at the intent of the document. Maybe Jefferson really did believe what he wrote. But he intended to make others believe. I was disillusioned as to the intent. These beautiful ideals were not going to be applied after the revolution. Jefferson must have known that. The document was not about promoting the ideals; it was about justifying a war. Jefferson does an excellent job at that, but the Declaration is not the shining beacon of liberty it is made out to be.
Sorry if I offended the hard core patriots and history buffs. By the way, I do not believe I should like something simply because it is historically appreciated. General regard does not dictate my personal opinion.
-Theresa
Post a Comment
<< Home