Litchfield enquirer., 1860-07-05
Communications.
Nrw MnsosD, June %, 1860.


I New MnFoRD, June %, 1860.
To The Editor of the LiteAeeld Enquirer:
Sm: Among the numerous historical errors
which have acquired the credit of being true
statement of facts from having been often re-
peated and widely spread without contradiction,
is the assertion that the Declaration OF lnde-
pendence contains an express condemnation Of
personal slavery, in the words following, to wit
1--WE hold these truths to be self evident-that
all men are created equal-that they were en-
dowed by their Creator with certain inalienable
rights, among these are life, liberty and the pur.
suit of happiness, and to secure these rights
Governments were instituted by men," This
language if critically examined and considered,
in connection with the subject and occasion of
its use, appears loose and incautious. That all
men were created equal, if personally applied, is
obviously untrue and il applied to men in their
social state, the assertion that all were equally
entitled to personal liberty and that govern
u,ents were instituted by men for the security of
such personal liberty, is equally untrue. No his
tory, either sacred or profane, gives any account
of q civi1ised people among whom the entire
population enjoyed equal privileges, and not even
the British Nation affords an example of one
which inhibited absolute personal slavery, and
not even that until since the Declaration of In
dependence. "t~
But what I wish to direct your attention to, is
the language Of that declaration above quoted,
from which it is the almost universal claim of
the modern abolitionists, that that declaration
contains, and was designed to contain an express
condemnation of personal slavery; whereas it
was not the subject of their consideration, nor
was it at all in their thoughts. The sole subject
of their consideration, that for which they were
appointed by the several colonial legislatures,
was the danger to which colonial rights were felt
to be exposed by some then rec mt, proceedings
of the British Government, and to demonstrate
against them. How absurd then is it to indulge
the thought that the language above quoted had
any reference to individual slavery when it is
perfectly well known that it then existed in every
colony save one, represented in that body, and
was then freely tolerated, and when it is entirely
certain that great majority of that body, who
signed the Declaration, were at that moment
shareholders and when it is further considered
that after those colonies became states, by means
of successful resistance to the efforts of the moth
er country to subdue them, continued to be slave
holding states, all except one, for years after the
establishment Of their independence when
it is further considered that six of the original
thirteen states with nine of the newly added
states are still slaveholding states. No person
at the time of the publication of that celebrated
declaration. and for long after ever expressed or
entertained thought of its containing con-
domination Of individual personal slavery, nor
would any one having the least knowledge of the
condition of the United States have entertained
such an idea; it was reserved for modern aboli-
tons i'm their insane zeal to propagate these mis-
chievous doctrines, to have recourse to the un.
guarded language above quoted from that delara-
ton, presuming that men of the present day were
sufficiently ignorant Of those times to be imposed
upon by a perverted meaning Of it's language.
And SO long and so boldly have they been per-
mitted uncontradicted to repeat their claim, that
1 suspect that great numbers, if not the majority
of the people of Connecticut, verify believe their
claim to be just but very little reflection upon
the true history of the country at that time can
not fail to convince any rational mind Of its en-
tire groundlessness! 1t is not at all improbable
considering the known theoretical opinions of
the writer of that declaration, Though in fact a
STAKEHOLDER during life) purposely made use of
some expressions susceptible Of meaning some
what different from that which was the sole OBJ
ject under the consideration of the body whose
amanuensis he was in making the draft, and
might naturally enough escape the critical obser-
Walton Of his associates and when it is furthe,
considered that cunning was by no means mi
nor ingredient in the character of that eminent
man. But be this as it may nothing can be more
certain than that this was not the understanding
Of that distinguished body of men. sESEx.
I'VE insert the foregoing from profound re-
spect for the venerable author, but protest
against the Interpretation given of the freedom
clause in the Declaration of Independence. We
freely admit that the prima .facie evidence ap-
pears to show that SENEx's interpretation was
that which was the first and main idea of the
trainers Of that remarkable proclamation of
rights, but we must consider also our correspond
entis distinction between mans social rights
therein distinctly expressed, and the application
which was then made of them, to be too finely
drawn and untenable. 1t was the occasion which
gave rise to the Declaration certainly, but it in
no way affects the grand fundamental principle
and expression of opinion therein laid down in
such broad. comprehensive and noble statement
of fact, that ALL MEN are created free and eo.ol,
and have certain inalienable rights, among which
ase life, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS,
and the more closely we examine the written
opinion Of these who formed and framed the
Declaration, the more certainly shall we arrive
at this conclusion, that human slavery is wrong
in principle and repusive in effect, to the social
and moral "inalinable rights of man."