America's Founding Documents

National Archives Logo

The Stylistic Artistry of the Declaration of Independence

by Stephen E. Lucas

The Declaration of Independence

The Declaration of Independence is perhaps the most masterfully written state paper of Western civilization. As Moses Coit Tyler noted almost a century ago, no assessment of it can be complete without taking into account its extraordinary merits as a work of political prose style. Although many scholars have recognized those merits, there are surprisingly few sustained studies of the stylistic artistry of the Declaration. 1 This essay seeks to illuminate that artistry by probing the discourse microscopically--at the level of the sentence, phrase, word, and syllable. By approaching the Declaration in this way, we can shed light both on its literary qualities and on its rhetorical power as a work designed to convince a "candid world" that the American colonies were justified in seeking to establish themselves as an independent nation. 2

The text of the Declaration can be divided into five sections--the introduction, the preamble, the indictment of George III, the denunciation of the British people, and the conclusion. Because space does not permit us to explicate each section in full detail, we shall select features from each that illustrate the stylistic artistry of the Declaration as a whole. 3

The introduction consists of the first paragraph--a single, lengthy, periodic sentence:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. 4

Taken out of context, this sentence is so general it could be used as the introduction to a declaration by any "oppressed" people. Seen within its original context, however, it is a model of subtlety, nuance, and implication that works on several levels of meaning and allusion to orient readers toward a favorable view of America and to prepare them for the rest of the Declaration. From its magisterial opening phrase, which sets the American Revolution within the whole "course of human events," to its assertion that "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" entitle America to a "separate and equal station among the powers of the earth," to its quest for sanction from "the opinions of mankind," the introduction elevates the quarrel with England from a petty political dispute to a major event in the grand sweep of history. It dignifies the Revolution as a contest of principle and implies that the American cause has a special claim to moral legitimacy--all without mentioning England or America by name.

Rather than defining the Declaration's task as one of persuasion, which would doubtless raise the defenses of readers as well as imply that there was more than one publicly credible view of the British-American conflict, the introduction identifies the purpose of the Declaration as simply to "declare"--to announce publicly in explicit terms--the "causes" impelling America to leave the British empire. This gives the Declaration, at the outset, an aura of philosophical (in the eighteenth-century sense of the term) objectivity that it will seek to maintain throughout. Rather than presenting one side in a public controversy on which good and decent people could differ, the Declaration purports to do no more than a natural philosopher would do in reporting the causes of any physical event. The issue, it implies, is not one of interpretation but of observation.

The most important word in the introduction is "necessary," which in the eighteenth century carried strongly deterministic overtones. To say an act was necessary implied that it was impelled by fate or determined by the operation of inextricable natural laws and was beyond the control of human agents. Thus Chambers's Cyclopedia defined "necessary" as "that which cannot but be, or cannot be otherwise." "The common notion of necessity and impossibility," Jonathan Edwards wrote in Freedom of the Will, "implies something that frustrates endeavor or desire. . . . That is necessary in the original and proper sense of the word, which is, or will be, notwithstanding all supposable opposition." Characterizing the Revolution as necessary suggested that it resulted from constraints that operated with lawlike force throughout the material universe and within the sphere of human action. The Revolution was not merely preferable, defensible, or justifiable. It was as inescapable, as inevitable, as unavoidable within the course of human events as the motions of the tides or the changing of the seasons within the course of natural events. 5

Investing the Revolution with connotations of necessity was particularly important because, according to the law of nations, recourse to war was lawful only when it became "necessary"--only when amicable negotiation had failed and all other alternatives for settling the differences between two states had been exhausted. Nor was the burden of necessity limited to monarchs and established nations. At the start of the English Civil War in 1642, Parliament defended its recourse to military action against Charles I in a lengthy declaration demonstrating the "Necessity to take up Arms." Following this tradition, in July 1775 the Continental Congress issued its own Declaration Setting Forth the Causes and Necessity of Their Taking Up Arms. When, a year later, Congress decided the colonies could no longer retain their liberty within the British empire, it adhered to long-established rhetorical convention by describing independence as a matter of absolute and inescapable necessity. 6 Indeed, the notion of necessity was so important that in addition to appearing in the introduction of the Declaration, it was invoked twice more at crucial junctures in the rest of the text and appeared frequently in other congressional papers after July 4, 1776. 7

Labeling the Americans "one people" and the British "another" was also laden with implication and performed several important strategic functions within the Declaration. First, because two alien peoples cannot be made one, it reinforced the notion that breaking the "political bands" with England was a necessary step in the course of human events. America and England were already separated by the more basic fact that they had become two different peoples. The gulf between them was much more than political; it was intellectual, social, moral, cultural and, according to the principles of nature, could no more be repaired, as Thomas Paine said, than one could "restore to us the time that is past" or "give to prostitution its former innocence." To try to perpetuate a purely political connection would be "forced and unnatural," "repugnant to reason, to the universal order of things." 8

Second, once it is granted that Americans and Englishmen are two distinct peoples, the conflict between them is less likely to be seen as a civil war. The Continental Congress knew America could not withstand Britain's military might without foreign assistance. But they also knew America could not receive assistance as long as the colonies were fighting a civil war as part of the British empire. To help the colonies would constitute interference in Great Britain's internal affairs. As Samuel Adams explained, "no foreign Power can consistently yield Comfort to Rebels, or enter into any kind of Treaty with these Colonies till they declare themselves free and independent." The crucial factor in opening the way for foreign aid was the act of declaring independence. But by defining America and England as two separate peoples, the Declaration reinforced the perception that the conflict was not a civil war, thereby, as Congress noted in its debates on independence, making it more "consistent with European delicacy for European powers to treat with us, or even to receive an Ambassador." 9

Third, defining the Americans as a separate people in the introduction eased the task of invoking the right of revolution in the preamble. That right, according to eighteenth-century revolutionary principles, could be invoked only in the most dire of circumstances--when "resistance was absolutely necessary in order to preserve the nation from slavery, misery, and ruin"--and then only by "the Body of the People." If America and Great Britain were seen as one people, Congress could not justify revolution against the British government for the simple reason that the body of the people (of which the Americans would be only one part) did not support the American cause. For America to move against the government in such circumstances would not be a justifiable act of resistance but "a sort of Sedition, Tumult, and War . . . aiming only at the satisfaction of private Lust, without regard to the public Good." By defining the Americans as a separate people, Congress could more readily satisfy the requirement for invoking the right of revolution that "the whole Body of Subjects" rise up against the government "to rescue themselves from the most violent and illegal oppressions." 10

Like the introduction, the next section of the Declaration--usually referred to as the preamble--is universal in tone and scope. It contains no explicit reference to the British- American conflict, but outlines a general philosophy of government that makes revolution justifiable, even meritorious:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Like the rest of the Declaration, the preamble is "brief, free of verbiage, a model of clear, concise, simple statement." 11 It capsulizes in five sentences--202--words what it took John Locke thousands of words to explain in his Second Treatise of Government. Each word is chosen and placed to achieve maximum impact. Each clause is indispensable to the progression of thought. Each sentence is carefully constructed internally and in relation to what precedes and follows. In its ability to compress complex ideas into a brief, clear statement, the preamble is a paradigm of eighteenth-century Enlightenment prose style, in which purity, simplicity, directness, precision, and, above all, perspicuity were the highest rhetorical and literary virtues. One word follows another with complete inevitability of sound and meaning. Not one word can be moved or replaced without disrupting the balance and harmony of the entire preamble.

The stately and dignified tone of the preamble--like that of the introduction--comes partly from what the eighteenth century called Style Periodique, in which, as Hugh Blair explained in his Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres, "the sentences are composed of several members linked together, and hanging upon one another, so that the sense of the whole is not brought out till the close." This, Blair said, "is the most pompous, musical, and oratorical manner of composing" and "gives an air of gravity and dignity to composition." The gravity and dignity of the preamble were reinforced by its conformance with the rhetorical precept that "when we aim at dignity or elevation, the sound [of each sentence] should be made to grow to the last; the longest members of the period, and the fullest and most sonorous words, should be reserved to the conclusion." None of the sentences of the preamble end on a single-syllable word; only one, the second (and least euphonious), ends on a two-syllable word. Of the other four, one ends with a four-syllable word ("security"), while three end with three-syllable words. Moreover, in each of the three-syllable words the closing syllable is at least a medium- length four-letter syllable, which helps bring the sentences to "a full and harmonious close." 12

It is unlikely that any of this was accidental. Thoroughly versed in classical oratory and rhetorical theory as well as in the belletristic treatises of his own time, Thomas Jefferson, draftsman of the Declaration, was a diligent student of rhythm, accent, timing, and cadence in discourse. This can be seen most clearly in his "Thoughts on English Prosody," a remarkable twenty-eight-page unpublished essay written in Paris during the fall of 1786. Prompted by a discussion on language with the Marquis de Chastellux at Monticello four years earlier, it was a careful inquiry designed "to find out the real circumstance which gives harmony to English prose and laws to those who make it." Using roughly the same system of diacritical notation he had employed in 1776 in his reading draft of the Declaration, Jefferson systematically analyzed the patterns of accentuation in a wide range of English writers, including Milton, Pope, Shakespeare, Addison, Gray, and Garth. Although "Thoughts on English Prosody" deals with poetry, it displays Jefferson's keen sense of the interplay between sound and sense in language. There can be little doubt that, like many accomplished writers, he consciously composed for the ear as well as for the eye--a trait that is nowhere better illustrated than in the eloquent cadences of the preamble in the Declaration of Independence. 13

The preamble also has a powerful sense of structural unity. This is achieved partly by the latent chronological progression of thought, in which the reader is moved from the creation of mankind, to the institution of government, to the throwing off of government when it fails to protect the people's unalienable rights, to the creation of new government that will better secure the people's safety and happiness. This dramatic scenario, with its first act implicitly set in the Garden of Eden (where man was "created equal"), may, for some readers, have contained mythic overtones of humanity's fall from divine grace. At the very least, it gives an almost archetypal quality to the ideas of the preamble and continues the notion, broached in the introduction, that the American Revolution is a major development in "the course of human events."

Because of their concern with the philosophy of the Declaration, many modern scholars have dealt with the opening sentence of the preamble out of context, as if Jefferson and the Continental Congress intended it to stand alone. Seen in context, however, it is part of a series of five propositions that build upon one another through the first three sentences of the preamble to establish the right of revolution against tyrannical authority:

Proposition 1: All men are created equal.

Proposition 2:  They [all men, from proposition 1] are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights

Proposition 3:  Among these [man's unalienable rights, from proposition 2] are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

Proposition 4:  To secure these rights [man's unalienable rights, from propositions 2 and 3] governments are instituted among men

Proposition 5:  Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [securing man's unalienable rights, from propositions 2-4], it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it.

When we look at all five propositions, we see they are meant to be read together and have been meticulously written to achieve a specific rhetorical purpose. The first three lead into the fourth, which in turn leads into the fifth. And it is the fifth, proclaiming the right of revolution when a government becomes destructive of the people's unalienable rights, that is most crucial in the overall argument of the Declaration. The first four propositions are merely preliminary steps designed to give philosophical grounding to the fifth.

At first glance, these propositions appear to comprise what was known in the eighteenth century as a sorites--"a Way of Argument in which a great Number of Propositions are so linked together, that the Predicate of one becomes continually the Subject of the next following, until at last a Conclusion is formed by bringing together the Subject of the First Proposition and the Predicate of the last." In his Elements of Logick, William Duncan provided the following example of a sorites:

God is omnipotent. An omnipotent Being can do every thing possible. He that can do every thing possible, can do whatever      involves not a Contradiction. Therefore God can do whatever involves not a      Contradiction. (14)

Although the section of the preamble we have been considering is not a sorites (because it does not bring together the subject of the first proposition and the predicate of the last), its propositions are written in such a way as to take on the appearance of a logical demonstration. They are so tightly interwoven linguistically that they seem to make up a sequence in which the final proposition--asserting the right of revolution--is logically derived from the first four propositions. This is accomplished partly by the mimicry of the form of a sorites and partly by the sheer number of propositions, the accumulation of which is reinforced by the slow, deliberate pace of the text and by the use of "that" to introduce each proposition. There is also a steplike progression from proposition to proposition, a progression that is accentuated by the skillful use of demonstrative pronouns to make each succeeding proposition appear to be an inevitable consequence of the preceding proposition. Although the preamble is the best known part of the Declaration today, it attracted considerably less attention in its own time. For most eighteenth-century readers, it was an unobjectionable statement of commonplace political principles. As Jefferson explained years later, the purpose of the Declaration was "not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of . . . but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take." 15

Far from being a weakness of the preamble, the lack of new ideas was perhaps its greatest strength. If one overlooks the introductory first paragraph, the Declaration as a whole is structured along the lines of a deductive argument that can easily be put in syllogistic form:

  • Major premise: When government deliberately seeks to reduce the people under absolute despotism, the people have a right, indeed a duty, to alter or abolish that form of government and to create new guards for their future security.
  • Minor premise:  The government of Great Britain has deliberately sought to reduce the American people under absolute despotism.
  • Conclusion:  Therefore the American people have a right, indeed a duty, to abolish their present form of government and to create new guards for their future security.

As the major premise in this argument, the preamble allowed Jefferson and the Congress to reason from self-evident principles of government accepted by almost all eighteenth-century readers of the Declaration. 16

The key premise, however, was the minor premise. Since virtually everyone agreed the people had a right to overthrow a tyrannical ruler when all other remedies had failed, the crucial question in July 1776 was whether the necessary conditions for revolution existed in the colonies. Congress answered this question with a sustained attack on George III, an attack that makes up almost exactly two-thirds of the text.

The indictment of George III begins with a transitional sentence immediately following the preamble:

Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

Now, 273 words into the Declaration, appears the first explicit reference to the British-American conflict. The parallel structure of the sentence reinforces the parallel movement of ideas from the preamble to the indictment of the king, while the next sentence states that indictment with the force of a legal accusation:

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these states.

Unlike the preamble, however, which most eighteenth-century readers could readily accept as self-evident, the indictment of the king required proof. In keeping with the rhetorical conventions Englishmen had followed for centuries when dethroning a "tyrannical" monarch, the Declaration contains a bill of particulars documenting the king's "repeated injuries and usurpations" of the Americans' rights and liberties. The bill of particulars lists twenty-eight specific grievances and is introduced with the shortest sentence of the Declaration:

To prove this [the king's tyranny], let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

This sentence is so innocuous one can easily overlook its artistry and importance. The opening phrase--"To prove this"--indicates the "facts" to follow will indeed prove that George III is a tyrant. But prove to whom? To a "candid world"--that is, to readers who are free from bias or malice, who are fair, impartial, and just. The implication is that any such reader will see the "facts" as demonstrating beyond doubt that the king has sought to establish an absolute tyranny in America. If a reader is not convinced, it is not because the "facts" are untrue or are insufficient to prove the king's villainy; it is because the reader is not "candid."

The pivotal word in the sentence, though, is "facts." As a term in eighteenth-century jurisprudence (Jefferson, like many of his colleagues in Congress, was a lawyer), it meant the circumstances and incidents of a legal case, looked at apart from their legal meaning. This usage fits with the Declaration's similarity to a legal declaration, the plaintiff's written statement of charges showing a "plain and certain" indictment against a defendant. If the Declaration were considered as analogous to a legal declaration or a bill of impeachment, the issue of dispute would not be the status of the law (the right of revolution as expressed in the preamble) but the facts of the specific case at hand (the king's actions to erect a "tyranny" in America). 17

In ordinary usage "fact" had by 1776 taken on its current meaning of something that had actually occurred, a truth known by observation, reality rather than supposition or speculation. 18 By characterizing the colonists' grievances against George III as "facts," the Declaration implies that they are unmediated representations of empirical reality rather than interpretations of reality. They are the objective constraints that make the Revolution "necessary." This is reinforced by the passive voice in "let Facts be submitted to a candid world." Who is submitting the facts? No one. They have not been gathered, structured, rendered, or in any way contaminated by human agents--least of all by the Continental Congress. They are just being "submitted," direct from experience without the corrupting intervention of any observer or interpreter.

But "fact" had yet another connotation in the eighteenth century. The word derived from the Latin facere, to do. Its earliest meaning in English was "a thing done or performed"--an action or deed. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries it was used most frequently to denote an evil deed or a crime, a usage still in evidence at the time of the Revolution. In 1769, for example, Blackstone, in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, noted that "accessories after the fact" were "allowed the benefit of clergy in all cases." The Annual Register for 1772 wrote of a thief who was committed to prison for the "fact" of horse stealing. There is no way to know whether Jefferson and the Congress had this sense of "fact" in mind when they adopted the Declaration. Yet regardless of their intentions, for some eighteenth-century readers "facts" many have had a powerful double-edged meaning when applied to George III's actions toward America. 19

Although one English critic assailed the Declaration for its "studied confusion in the arrangement" of the grievances against George III, they are not listed in random order but fall into four distinct groups. 20 The first group, consisting of charges 1-12, refers to such abuses of the king's executive power as suspending colonial laws, dissolving colonial legislatures, obstructing the administration of justice, and maintaining a standing army during peacetime. The second group, consisting of charges 13-22, attacks the king for combining with "others" (Parliament) to subject America to a variety of unconstitutional measures, including taxing the colonists without consent, cutting off their trade with the rest of the world, curtailing their right to trial by jury, and altering their charters.

The third set of charges, numbers 23-27, assails the king's violence and cruelty in waging war against his American subjects. They burden him with a litany of venal deeds that is worth quoting in full:

  • He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
  • He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the Lives of our people.
  • He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
  • He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
  • He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and 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.

The war grievances are followed by the final charge against the king--that the colonists' "repeated Petitions" for redress of their grievances have produced only "repeated injury."

The presentation of what Samuel Adams called George III's "Catalogue of Crimes" is among the Declaration's most skillful features. First, the grievances could have been arranged chronologically, as Congress had done in all but one of its former state papers. Instead they are arranged topically and are listed seriatim, in sixteen successive sentences beginning "He has" or, in the case of one grievance, "He is." Throughout this section of the Declaration, form and content reinforce one another to magnify the perfidy of the king. The steady, laborious piling up of "facts" without comment takes on the character of a legal indictment, while the repetition of "He has" slows the movement of the text, draws attention to the accumulation of grievances, and accentuates George III's role as the prime conspirator against American liberty. 21

Second, as Thomas Hutchinson complained, the charges were "most wickedly presented to cast reproach upon the King." Consider, for example, grievance 10: "He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance." The language is Biblical and conjures up Old Testament images of "swarms" of flies and locusts covering the face of the earth, "so that the land was darkened," and devouring all they found until "there remained not any green thing in the trees, or in the herbs of the field" (Exodus 10:14-15). It also recalls the denunciation, in Psalms 53:4, of "the workers of iniquity . . . who eat up my people as they eat bread," and the prophecy of Deuteronomy 28:51 that an enemy nation "shall eat the fruit of thy cattle, and the fruit of thy land until thou be destroyed: which also shall not leave thee either corn, wine, or oil, or the increase of thy kine, or flocks of thy sheep, until he have destroyed thee." For some readers the religious connotations may have been enhanced by "substance," which was used in theological discourse to signify "the Essence or Substance of the Godhead" and to describe the Holy Eucharist, in which Christ had "coupled the substance of his flesh and the substance of bread together, so we should receive both." 22

From the revolutionaries' view, however, the primary advantage of the wording of charge 10 was probably its purposeful ambiguity. The "multitude of New Offices" referred to the customs posts that had been created in the 1760s to control colonial smuggling. The "swarms of Officers" that were purportedly eating out the substance of the colonies' three million people numbered about fifty in the entire continent. But Congress could hardly assail George III as a tyrant for appointing a few dozen men to enforce the laws against smuggling, so it clothed the charge in vague, evocative imagery that gave significance and emotional resonance to what otherwise might have seemed a rather paltry grievance. 23

Third, although scholars often downplay the war grievances as "the weakest part of the Declaration," they were vital to its rhetorical strategy. They came last partly because they were the most recent of George III's "abuses and usurpations," but also because they constituted the ultimate proof of his plan to reduce the colonies under "absolute despotism." Whereas the first twenty-two grievances describe the king's acts with such temperate verbs as "refused," "called together," "dissolved," "endeavored," "made," "erected," "kept," and "affected," the war grievances use emotionally charged verbs such as "plundered," "ravaged," "burnt," and "destroyed." With the exception of grievance 10, there is nothing in the earlier charges to compare with the evocative accusation that George III was spreading "death, desolation and tyranny . . . with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages," or with the characterization of "the merciless Indian Savages, whose known mode of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions." Coming on the heels of the previous twenty-two charges, the war grievances make George III out as little better than the notorious Richard III, who had forfeited his crown in 1485 for "unnatural, mischievous, and great Perjuries, Treasons, Homicides and Murders, in shedding of Infants' blood, with many other Wrongs, odious Offences, and abominations against God and Man." 24

To some extent, of course, the emotional intensity of the war grievances was a natural outgrowth of their subject. It is hard to write about warfare without using strong language. Moreover, as Jefferson explained a decade later in his famous "Head and Heart" letter to Maria Cosway, for many of the revolutionaries independence was, at bottom, an emotional--or sentimental--issue. But the emotional pitch of the war grievances was also part of a rhetorical strategy designed to solidify support for independence in those parts of America that had yet to suffer the physical and economic hardships of war. As late as May 1776 John Adams lamented that while independence had strong support in New England and the South, it was less secure in the middle colonies, which "have never tasted the bitter Cup; they have never Smarted--and are therefore a little cooler." As Thomas Paine recognized, "the evil" of British domination was not yet "sufficiently brought to their doors to make them feel the precariousness with which all American property is possessed." Paine sought to bring the evil home to readers of Common Sense by inducing them to identify with the "horror" inflicted on other Americans by the British forces "that hath carried fire and sword" into the land. In similar fashion, the Declaration of Independence used images of terror to magnify the wickedness of George III, to arouse "the passions and feelings" of readers, and to awaken "from fatal and unmanly slumbers" those Americans who had yet to be directly touched by the ravages of war. 25

Fourth, all of the charges against George III contain a substantial amount of strategic ambiguity. While they have a certain specificity in that they refer to actual historical events, they do not identify names, dates, or places. This magnified the seriousness of the grievances by making it seem as if each charge referred not to a particular piece of legislation or to an isolated act in a single colony, but to a violation of the constitution that had been repeated on many occasions throughout America.

The ambiguity of the grievances also made them more difficult to refute. In order to build a convincing case against the grievances, defenders of the king had to clarify each charge and what specific act or events it referred to, and then explain why the charge was not true. Thus it took John Lind, who composed the most sustained British response to the Declaration, 110 pages to answer the charges set forth by the Continental Congress in fewer than two dozen sentences. Although Lind deftly exposed many of the charges to be flimsy at best, his detailed and complex rebuttal did not stand a chance against the Declaration as a propaganda document. Nor has Lind's work fared much better since 1776. While the Declaration continues to command an international audience and has created an indelible popular image of George III as a tyrant, Lind's tract remains a piece of arcana, buried in the dustheap of history. 26

In addition to petitioning Parliament and George III, Whig leaders had also worked hard to cultivate friends of the American cause in England. But the British people had proved no more receptive to the Whigs than had the government, and so the Declaration follows the attack on George III by noting that the colonies had also appealed in vain to the people of Great Britain:

Nor have we been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

This is one of the most artfully written sections of the Declaration. The first sentence, beginning "Nor . . . ," shifts attention quickly and cleanly away from George III to the colonists' "British brethren." The "have we" of the first sentence is neatly reversed in the "We have" at the start of the second. Sentences two through four, containing four successive clauses beginning "We Have . . . ," give a pronounced sense of momentum to the paragraph while underlining the colonists' active efforts to reach the British people. The repetition of "We have" here also parallels the repetition of "He has" in the grievances against George III.

The fifth sentence--"They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity"--contains one of the few metaphors in the Declaration and acquires added force by its simplicity and brevity, which contrast with the greater length and complexity of the preceding sentence. The final sentence unifies the paragraph by returning to the pattern of beginning with "We," and its intricate periodic structure plays off the simple structure of the fifth sentence so as to strengthen the cadence of the entire paragraph. The closing words--"Enemies in War, in Peace Friends"--employ chiasmus, a favorite rhetorical device of eighteenth-century writers. How effective the device is in this case can be gauged by rearranging the final words to read, "Enemies in War, Friends in Peace," which weakens both the force and harmony of the Declaration's phrasing.

It is worth noting, as well, that this is the only part of the Declaration to employ much alliteration: "British brethren," "time to time," "common kindred," "which would," "connections and correspondence." The euphony gained by these phrases is fortified by the heavy repetition of medial and terminal consonants in adjoining words: "been wanting in attentions to," "them from time to time," "to their native justice," "disavow these usurpations," "have been deaf to the voice of." Finally, this paragraph, like the rest of the Declaration, contains a high proportion of one- and two-syllable words (82 percent). Of those words, an overwhelming number (eighty-one of ninety-six) contain only one syllable. The rest of the paragraph contains nine three- syllable words, eight four-syllable words, and four five-syllable words. This felicitous blend of a large number of very short words with a few very long ones is reminiscent of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address and contributes greatly to the harmony, cadence, and eloquence of the Declaration, much as it contributes to the same features in Lincoln's immortal speech.

The British brethren section essentially finished the case for independence. Congress had set forth the conditions that justified revolution and had shown, as best it could, that those conditions existed in Great Britain's thirteen North American colonies. All that remained was for Congress to conclude the Declaration:

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

This final section of the Declaration is highly formulaic and has attracted attention primarily because of its closing sentence. Carl Becker deemed this sentence "perfection itself":

It is true (assuming that men value life more than property, which is doubtful) that the statement violates the rhetorical rule of climax; but it was a sure sense that made Jefferson place "lives" first and "fortunes" second. How much weaker if he had written "our fortunes, our lives, and our sacred honor"! Or suppose him to have used the word "property" instead of "fortunes"! Or suppose him to have omitted "sacred"! Consider the effect of omitting any of the words, such as the last two "ours"--"our lives, fortunes, and sacred honor." No, the sentence can hardly be improved. 27

Becker is correct in his judgment about the wording and rhythm of the sentence, but he errs in attributing high marks to Jefferson for his "sure sense" in placing "lives" before "fortunes." "Lives and fortunes" was one of the most hackneyed phrases of eighteenth-century Anglo-American political discourse. Colonial writers had used it with numbing regularity throughout the dispute with England (along with other stock phrases such as "liberties and estates" and "life, liberty, and property"). Its appearance in the Declaration can hardly be taken as a measure of Jefferson's felicity of expression.

What marks Jefferson's "happy talent for composition" in this case is the coupling of "our sacred Honor" with "our Lives" and "our Fortunes" to create the eloquent trilogy that closes the Declaration. The concept of honor (and its cognates fame and glory) exerted a powerful hold on the eighteenth-century mind. Writers of all kinds--philosophers, preachers, politicians, playwrights, poets--repeatedly speculated about the sources of honor and how to achieve it. Virtually every educated man in England or America was schooled in the classical maxim, "What is left when honor is lost?" Or as Joseph Addison wrote in his Cato, whose sentiments were widely admired throughout the eighteenth century on both sides of the Atlantic: "Better to die ten thousand deaths/Than wound my honour." The cult of honor was so strong that in English judicial proceedings a peer of the realm did not answer to bills in chancery or give a verdict "upon oath, like an ordinary juryman, but upon his honor." 28

By pledging "our sacred Honor" in support of the Declaration, Congress made a particularly solemn vow. The pledge also carried a latent message that the revolutionaries, contrary to the claims of their detractors, were men of honor whose motives and actions could not only withstand the closest scrutiny by contemporary persons of quality and merit but would also deserve the approbation of posterity. If the Revolution succeeded, its leaders stood to achieve lasting honor as what Francis Bacon called "Liberatores or Salvatores"-- men who "compound the long Miseries of Civil Wars, or deliver their Countries from Servitude of Strangers or Tyrants." Historical examples included Augustus Caesar, Henry VII of England, and Henry IV of France. On Bacon's five-point scale of supreme honor, such heroes ranked below only "Conditores Imperiorum, Founders of States and Commonwealths," such as Romulus, Caesar, and Ottoman, and "Lawgivers" such as Solon, Lycurgus, and Justinian, "also called Second Founders, or Perpetui Principes, because they Govern by their Ordinances after they are gone." Seen in this way, "our sacred Honor" lifts the motives of Congress above the more immediate concerns of "our Lives" and "our Fortunes" and places the revolutionaries in the footsteps of history's most honorable figures. As a result it also unifies the whole text by subtly playing out the notion that the Revolution is a major turn in the broad "course of human events." 29

At the same time, the final sentence completes a crucial metamorphosis in the text. Although the Declaration begins in an impersonal, even philosophical voice, it gradually becomes a kind of drama, with its tensions expressed more and more in personal terms. This transformation begins with the appearance of the villain, "the present King of Great Britain," who dominates the stage through the first nine grievances, all of which note what "He has" done without identifying the victim of his evil deeds. Beginning with grievance 10 the king is joined on stage by the American colonists, who are identified as the victim by some form of first person plural reference: The king has sent "swarms of officers to harass our people," has quartered "armed troops among us," has imposed "taxes on us without our consent," "has taken away our charters, abolished our most valuable laws," and altered "the Forms of our Governments." He has "plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, . . . destroyed the lives of our people," and "excited domestic insurrections amongst us." The word "our" is used twenty-six times from its first appearance in grievance 10 through the last sentence of the Declaration, while "us" occurs eleven times from its first appearance in grievance 11 through the rest of the grievances. 30

Throughout the grievances action is instigated by the king, as the colonists passively accept blow after blow without wavering in their loyalty. His villainy complete, George III leaves the stage and it is occupied next by the colonists and their "British brethren." The heavy use of personal pronouns continues, but by now the colonists have become the instigators of action as they actively seek redress of their grievances. This is marked by a shift in idiom from "He has" to "We have": "We have petitioned for redress . . . ," "We have reminded them . . . ," "We have appealed to their . . . ," and "We have conjured them." But "they have been deaf" to all pleas, so "We must . . . hold them" as enemies. By the conclusion, only the colonists remain on stage to pronounce their dramatic closing lines: "We . . . solemnly publish and declare . . ." And to support this declaration, "we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

The persistent use of "he" and "them," "us" and "our," "we" and "they" personalizes the British-American conflict and transfigures it from a complex struggle of multifarious origins and diverse motives to a simple moral drama in which a patiently suffering people courageously defend their liberty against a cruel and vicious tyrant. It also reduces the psychic distance between the reader and the text and coaxes the reader into seeing the dispute with Great Britain through the eyes of the revolutionaries. As the drama of the Declaration unfolds, the reader is increasingly solicited to identify with Congress and "the good People of these Colonies," to share their sense of victimage, to participate vicariously in their struggle, and ultimately to act with them in their heroic quest for freedom. In this respect, as in others, the Declaration is a work of consummate artistry. From its eloquent introduction to its aphoristic maxims of government, to its relentless accumulation of charges against George III, to its elegiac denunciation of the British people, to its heroic closing sentence, it sustains an almost perfect synthesis of style, form, and content. Its solemn and dignified tone, its graceful and unhurried cadence, its symmetry, energy, and confidence, its combination of logical structure and dramatic appeal, its adroit use of nuance and implication all contribute to its rhetorical power. And all help to explain why the Declaration remains one of the handful of American political documents that, in addition to meeting the immediate needs of the moment, continues to enjoy a lustrous literary reputation.

Originally published in the Spring 1990 issue of  Prologue: Quarterly of the National Archives and Records Administration .

Back to Main Declaration of Independence Page

Forgotten password

Please enter the email address that you use to login to TeenInk.com, and we'll email you instructions to reset your password.

  • Poetry All Poetry Free Verse Song Lyrics Sonnet Haiku Limerick Ballad
  • Fiction All Fiction Action-Adventure Fan Fiction Historical Fiction Realistic Fiction Romance Sci-fi/Fantasy Scripts & Plays Thriller/Mystery All Novels Action-Adventure Fan Fiction Historical Fiction Realistic Fiction Romance Sci-fi/Fantasy Thriller/Mystery Other
  • Nonfiction All Nonfiction Bullying Books Academic Author Interviews Celebrity interviews College Articles College Essays Educator of the Year Heroes Interviews Memoir Personal Experience Sports Travel & Culture All Opinions Bullying Current Events / Politics Discrimination Drugs / Alcohol / Smoking Entertainment / Celebrities Environment Love / Relationships Movies / Music / TV Pop Culture / Trends School / College Social Issues / Civics Spirituality / Religion Sports / Hobbies All Hot Topics Bullying Community Service Environment Health Letters to the Editor Pride & Prejudice What Matters
  • Reviews All Reviews Hot New Books Book Reviews Music Reviews Movie Reviews TV Show Reviews Video Game Reviews Summer Program Reviews College Reviews
  • Art/Photo Art Photo Videos
  • Summer Guide Program Links Program Reviews
  • College Guide College Links College Reviews College Essays College Articles

Summer Guide

College guide.

  • Song Lyrics

All Fiction

  • Action-Adventure
  • Fan Fiction
  • Historical Fiction
  • Realistic Fiction
  • Sci-fi/Fantasy
  • Scripts & Plays
  • Thriller/Mystery

All Nonfiction

  • Author Interviews
  • Celebrity interviews
  • College Articles
  • College Essays
  • Educator of the Year
  • Personal Experience
  • Travel & Culture

All Opinions

  • Current Events / Politics
  • Discrimination
  • Drugs / Alcohol / Smoking
  • Entertainment / Celebrities
  • Environment
  • Love / Relationships
  • Movies / Music / TV
  • Pop Culture / Trends
  • School / College
  • Social Issues / Civics
  • Spirituality / Religion
  • Sports / Hobbies

All Hot Topics

  • Community Service
  • Letters to the Editor
  • Pride & Prejudice
  • What Matters

All Reviews

  • Hot New Books
  • Book Reviews
  • Music Reviews
  • Movie Reviews
  • TV Show Reviews
  • Video Game Reviews

Summer Program Reviews

  • College Reviews
  • Writers Workshop
  • Regular Forums
  • Program Links
  • Program Reviews
  • College Links

A Rhetorical Analysis of The Declaration of Independence

In “The Declaration of Independence” Thomas Jefferson calls for the separation of the American colonists from the grips of an abusive and tyrannical England. He makes his position clear to the colonist and most importantly the world by using persuasive appeals, syntax and diction.

In the first two paragraphs of the Declaration, Jefferson not only establishes the credibility of the revolutionaries, but also lays out a logical argument that sets forth the philosophical beliefs upon which America was founded. In paragraph one, he acknowledges the need to justify the radical position the colonies took against their king. He says that he recognizes the need to state “the causes that impel that separation,” showing that he is conscious of his obligation to explain the actions of the colonist and that he has a “decent respect for the opinions of mankind.” The use of ethos helps Jefferson to present himself and the revolutionaries as reasonable, respectable and conscientious even though the actions they are about to take are radical and revolutionary. In paragraph two, Jefferson sets forth a logical argument for those actions. He uses deductive logic in the form of a syllogism to clearly present his argument. He states that all people have rights guaranteed by their Creator, that it is the role of government to protect those rights, and that when it does not, “it is their right, it is their duty,” to alter or abolish that government. He cautions again, using ethos, that “Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes, meaning that the grievances of the colonist regarding the King’s abuses must be so great that it is necessary to take action. He ends the paragraph with a direct accusation against the king, stating that “The history of the present King of Britain is a history of injuries and usurpations,” and then leads into a list of “facts” that will persuade his audience of the truth of these grievances. In just two paragraphs Jefferson manages to establish the need for revolution and convince the world that those supporting this radical view are indeed credible.

In lines 45 through 148 of the Declaration, Jefferson builds on his argument with inductive reasoning, syntax, and diction. Beginning in line 45 Jefferson lays down his massive list of specific grievances that the King of England has committed against America. He states that he is very well aware that King George has “refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good,” showing that he understands that the colonist have indeed been wronged. The use of inductive reasoning helps Jefferson to present himself and his fellow revolutionaries as knowing and logical. Taking place in lines 45 through 91 the phrase, “He has,” serves to further strengthen Jefferson’s argument. With its parallel and anaphora structures it hammers in with a repetition the fact that King George “has” without a doubt committed these specific actions against the colonist. Allowing Jefferson to conclude with conviction that the king is “unfit to rule free people.”  In lines 137 through 148 Jefferson ends his logical argument with a strong emotional appeal. He states that King George has “excited domestic insurrections amongst us,” and that King George has, “endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages,” to kill them. Overall, Thomas Jefferson in lines 45 through 148 of the Declaration of Independence, establishes a great logical argument by using inductive reasoning, syntax, and diction.

In the last two paragraphs Jefferson uses syntax and ethos to convey the extent to which he and the colonies are willing to sacrifice for freedom. Beginning in the first of the last two paragraphs, Jefferson uses the phrase, “We have.” It is this parallel structured phrase of, “We have,” that repeats over and over again to demonstrate that they have appealed to their, “British brethren,” and that the British are not listening. So after all of these cries for action the Americans have come to the conclusion that their so called brethren are, “Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.” The chiasmus conveys perfectly that Jefferson and the colonies are willing to go to war with even their families for the price of freedom. The chiasmus ending Jefferson’s second to last paragraph also further establishes his credibility. It shows that he and his revolutionaries will stand by their “unalienable rights,” no matter the cost. In the final paragraph Jefferson again furthers his credibility when he calls his fellow revolutionaries, “the good People of these Colonies.”  This statement in essence means that colonist are not uncivilized monsters who just want to get rid of the king, but are actual good natured people. Jefferson climaxes the last paragraph with the statement, “we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor,” a chilling statement that ultimately paints its speaker and his cohorts as heroes willing to risk their whole existence for their cause. Altogether, the final two paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence served as a final grab at credibility by using syntax.

In writing the Declaration of Independence not only did Jefferson create a historically appreciated document, but a persuasive masterpiece that thoroughly convinces its audience of the extreme importance of America needing to separate from Britain. Its powerful use of persuasive appeals, syntax, and diction are in fact what made it great. Without these the world as we know it might not have been. 

Similar Articles

Favorite Quote: Failures help one grow as a person.

  • 25 comments

Favorite Quote: FLOAT LIKE A BUTTERFLY, STING LIKE A BEE- MUHAMMID ALI

  • 10 comments

JOIN THE DISCUSSION

This article has 0 comments.

  • Subscribe to Teen Ink magazine
  • Submit to Teen Ink
  • Find A College
  • Find a Summer Program

Share this on

Send to a friend.

Thank you for sharing this page with a friend!

Tell my friends

Choose what to email.

Which of your works would you like to tell your friends about? (These links will automatically appear in your email.)

Send your email

Delete my account, we hate to see you go please note as per our terms and conditions, you agreed that all materials submitted become the property of teen ink. going forward, your work will remain on teenink.com submitted “by anonymous.”, delete this, change anonymous status, send us site feedback.

If you have a suggestion about this website or are experiencing a problem with it, or if you need to report abuse on the site, please let us know. We try to make TeenInk.com the best site it can be, and we take your feedback very seriously. Please note that while we value your input, we cannot respond to every message. Also, if you have a comment about a particular piece of work on this website, please go to the page where that work is displayed and post a comment on it. Thank you!

Pardon Our Dust

Teen Ink is currently undergoing repairs to our image server. In addition to being unable to display images, we cannot currently accept image submissions. All other parts of the website are functioning normally. Please check back to submit your art and photography and to enjoy work from teen artists around the world!

rhetorical analysis declaration of independence

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser or activate Google Chrome Frame to improve your experience.

The Suffolk News-Herald

A Rhetorical Analysis of the United States Declaration of Independence 

Published 10:20 pm Monday, September 11, 2023

By Staff Reports

Usa independence day concept with old declaration

Source: Freepik

Sponsored content

Email newsletter signup

There are three models of rhetorical persuasion – ethos, pathos, and logos. The Greek philosopher Aristotle developed the model. To persuade an audience, a speaker has to appeal to their authority, emotions, and logic. Interestingly, the mechanics are still applied in schools today when students write a thesis on the Declaration of Independence. Ethos, in the rhetorical analysis of the Declaration, establishes a speaker’s trustworthiness by underlying their authority or credibility.

In contrast, pathos evokes empathy, sympathy, or other emotional responses to support an argument. Declaration of Independence logos rely on facts, evidence, and sound reasoning to make a persuasive argument. Thomas Jefferson combined these skills to call for separation from tyrannical England. Let us analyze the document to discover more. 

Declaration Of Independence Historical Context 

The only way to understand why the Statement was written is to check the events that led to calls for separation. However, analyzing archives and databases is daunting for any writer. Consider using the Declaration of Independence essay examples on PapersOwl as materials for inspiration if you’re writing a research paper on the Declaration of Independence and find this subject challenging. The free sample papers explore the topic from different angles.

The American colonies adopted the document on July 4, 1776. The aim was to break their relationship with Great Britain. Here is an overview of the factors that contributed to its creation: 

  • By the mid-18th century, the British had ruled the American colonies for over 150 years. Taxation without representation, colonial trade restrictions, and tensions grew during this period. Events like the Boston Tea Party of 1773 and the Stamp Act of 1765 further worsened the relationship. 
  • The Battles of Lexington and Concord in April 1775 snowballed into the American Revolution or War for Independence. 
  • Thomas Paine wrote Common Sense in early 1776, questioning British rule and monarchy. 
  • Richard Henry Lee of Virginia called for Independence on June 7, 1776. 
  • The committee of five drafted the document.

Rhetorical Appeals 

Take a look at the techniques Jefferson used to persuade the audience to accept his message:

Ethos in the Declaration of Independence

Jefferson earned respect by explaining the reasons for the colonies’ actions. In the first paragraph, he stated examples of ethos that “it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands” and “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind.” Prominent figures who signed the document further strengthened the Declaration’s claims. In the second paragraph, he opined that humans bore equal and unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 

Pathos in the Declaration of Independence 

The text included special language that evoked strong emotions. Before listing the grievances, it’s stated, “Let facts be submitted to a candid world.” Then, he detailed the hardships colonists endured and described the British actions as “a long train of abuses and usurpations.” Others are: 

  • Taxation without representation.
  • Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
  • Absolutism and despotism. 

Logos in the Declaration of Independence

Jefferson affirmed that the colonists had tried to appeal to the king and “our British brethren.” To show humility and respect. The document followed a logical progression: 

  • Purpose of independence. 
  • List of grievances. 
  • Conclusion with a formal Declaration of Independence. 

Legacy and Influence

The Declaration has a lasting legacy in American History. They include: 

  • The foundational document of democracy . 
  • Incorporation in the U.S. Constitution and legal systems. 
  • Symbol of American identity.
  • Human rights protection. 
  • Democratic movement expansion. 

Criticism and Controversy 

The Declaration faced many criticisms despite its well-meaning design. For example, “equality and unalienable rights” did not address racial inequality and slavery. Other controversies attached to the effect of the Declaration of Independence are: 

  • Exclusion of women. 
  • Native American displacement. 
  • Non-property owner exclusion. 
  • Selective interpretation. 

The Impact of the American Declaration of Independence

The Declaration of Independence is the philosophical foundation of American democracy. The writer used statements with moral, ethical, and legal overtones to answer the question, Why separation? To create a vivid picture, they wrote, “He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.” Beyond emotions, the drafters interwove logic into every argument to describe the relationship between the two countries. Jefferson’s use of persuasive syntax and dictionaries made the document so appealing. It went on to serve as a role model for countries like France and women experiencing similar conflicts. 

Featured Local Savings

More sponsored content.

rhetorical analysis declaration of independence

Rising Demand for Insurance Claim Assistance: Stephanie Corona Uncovers Key Factors

5 must-try nfl betting systems this 2023-24.

rhetorical analysis declaration of independence

UGC Marketing: Boost Your Business with User-Generated Content

Understanding the legal landscape of online casinos in minnesota.

rhetorical analysis declaration of independence

Special Section

Calendar of events.

  • Classifieds
  • Small Business
  • E-Newsletter Signup
  • Submit a News Tip
  • Submit a Photo
  • Birth Announcement
  • Engagement Announcement
  • Wedding Announcement
  • Submit A Classified Ad
  • Submit a Letter to the Editor
  • © 2024, The Suffolk News-Herald

EWU Digital Commons

  • < Previous

Home > STUDENT_RESEARCH > THESES > 514

EWU Masters Thesis Collection

From ‘sacred and undeniable’ to ‘self-evident’: a rhetorical analysis of jefferson's original draft of the declaration of independence.

Patrick A. McHugh , Eastern Washington University

Date of Award

Spring 2018

Document Type

Degree name.

Master of Science (MS) in Communications

Communication Studies

This research examines Thomas Jefferson’s original draft of the Declaration of Independence. Ostensibly written for the simple purpose of justifying the American separation from Great Britain, the Declaration nevertheless utilizes persuasive techniques and narrative themes that are not necessary to the rhetorical goal of justification. Of particular interest is Jefferson’s curious choice to base his argument for independence around the theme of enslavement. In order to uncover Jefferson’s possible reasons for doing so, the original draft of the Declaration is examined using a combination of three methods of rhetorical criticism: analysis of the rhetorical situation, close textual analysis, and Dramatistic analysis. The use of these methods reveal that Jefferson’s purpose in writing his draft was to turn George III into a scapegoat for all forms of tyranny within the colonies, including the institution of slavery, so that by expunging the King they would be absolved of their attachment to the slave trade and could reform their new American identity in opposition to British tyranny. The study then explores how the removal of his indictment of the slave trade weakened its ideological integrity and corrupted its popular impact.

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 International License

Recommended Citation

McHugh, Patrick A., "From ‘sacred and undeniable’ to ‘self-evident’: a rhetorical analysis of Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence" (2018). EWU Masters Thesis Collection . 514. https://dc.ewu.edu/theses/514

Since July 19, 2018

Included in

Other Rhetoric and Composition Commons , United States History Commons

Advanced Search

  • Notify me via email or RSS
  • Colleges, Departments, and Programs
  • Disciplines

Author Corner

  • EWU Libraries
  • Contact EWU Libraries

509.359.7888 | Email

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Contact | Accessibility | EWU Libraries | EWU Home

Privacy Copyright

A rhetorical analysis of The Declaration of Independence:   persuasive appeals and language

NARA [National Archives and Records Administration.   Exhibit Hall.   The Declaration of Independence:   A Transcription .    21 Oct. 2002.   <http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of_freedom/declaration

Analysis of persuasive appeals

Language analysis

TimBurgoyne's Blog

Just another weblog.

TimBurgoyne's Blog

Declaration of Independence Analyzed Rhetorically

Please criticize my rough draft. Though take it easy on the conclusion there is none, I know I have to work on that.

Obviously no artifact of any kind never exists in a vacuum and the declaration of independence is no exception. It was written in a volatile time for specific purposes which I will discuss. It also used a variety of rhetorical appeals including logos, pathos, and ethos. There are also other appeals involving the tone and how it was written, which is a direct result of the purpose of the document.

The declaration of independence was written by Thomas Jefferson in 1776. England and the United States of America, which consisted of 13 colonies at this point, had been at war for a year now. When the declaration of Independence was signed in 1776 it was the official separation of the colonies from Great Britain. When reading the declaration of independence, you might think that its main audiences are Great Britain, and probably the citizens of the 13 colonies. While both of these parties most definitely did read the declaration of independence, they weren’t the main audience. Foreign countries were the main target of the declaration of independence, because the colonies wanted to convince them of their cause so that the other countries would provide support to the war effort.

Since the intended audience was foreign countries, you can see why the writers chose the appeal that they did. The beginning of the declaration of independence is very structured and  logical trying to gain foreign support. You can see this from the very first line alone. It gives the reason for writing the declaration of independence in general.

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

This says that when political ties such as this are severed, people should have a right to know why. Not only does that sentence do a good job of showing why the document was written,  but it also gives the reader a good idea of what to expect in the rest of the document. This makes it easier to follow when you understand that this declaration will state exactly why the United States of America felt it necessary to separate from Great Britain.

Another thing that you can take away from even the very first sentence, is the formal and proper tone that the document seems to have. For one, this was written in 1776 and people talked and wrote more formally back then, but even so there’s still another reason for this. They need to make sure that they are taken seriously because the 13 colonies are trying to start their own country. By just taking a more formal tone it shows that you are serious and should be taken seriously. It also implies that they don’t take this separation lightly and that they have put a lot of thought into it.

When it comes to the actual content of the declaration of independence it is extremely logical and well structured. It lays out every single point trying to prove to other countries that America is waging the just war in this particular situation. There are also some distinctions that I think are worth noting.

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed-”

I think that it is important to note that in this sentence of the declaration the flow of power in the social contract is critical. Men give up some of their rights to form a state which means that government gets their power from the people, rather than people getting their power from the government. If any foreign nations were to disagree with this flow of power than they most likely wouldn’t support the rebellion. I think that the writers simply believed that nearly everyone would take this claim at face value, which is why they didn’t elaborate on it. Its also possible that they didn’t think they would persuade anyone who disagreed with this point to reverse their position. Another point made in the declaration is that you cannot revolt in good conscience unless the grievances are incessant and severe. The writers wanted to persuade other countries that they weren’t revolting from trivial offenses, and they didn’t think it would be right it they did. Logos is probably the most prevalent in the declaration of independence because of who their audience is. Further examples of logos is seen in the numerous grievances listed. Every single one of them is one reason why the colonies are choosing to separate from Britain. After they are all listed, the document then addresses any counter arguments that could be possibly had. It shows that they have exhausted any other options of communication because Britain wasn’t responding to the negotiations. the declaration also states how none of the grievances were unknown to the British. Each one was made known to them and met with further injury leaving them with only one choice; to revolt.

The last paragraph is the one that actually declares the independence of the United States of America. Because this is a momentous thing to do, this whole paragraph is dripping with pathos. You can almost hear the pride and excitement of the written words of this document.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

This is a very lengthy sentence but it achieves its purpose. From beginning to end it is a crescendo of emotion. When reading it you can picture Thomas Jefferson saying it, standing up proud and sitting down in a huff out of breath when he’s finished it. The use of are and ought to be is effective as well. They are saying not only are we free but we ought to be free as well, further trying to support their cause as the right one.

3 thoughts on “ Declaration of Independence Analyzed Rhetorically ”

Tim, I’m glad you chose the Declaration of Independence, a document I always enjoy returning to and re-reading. When you have time someday (I know there’s no time for leisure-time reading in college), you should take a look at Garry Wills’s book “Inventing America: Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence.”

As someone who’s really interested in American history, I really liked the topic behind this essay. The Declaration of Independence is a great choice because there’s so much to work with. The whole document is filled with rhetoric, commonplaces, and ideologies. You did a great job of incorporating the text into your paper, so that really helped the reader understand your points. Your points about pathos are spot on, so well done. I would possibly talk about the ethos of the document and maybe the various ideologies. However, this is a really well-written paper, so keep it up!!

I thought that this was a good rough draft, and I basically have two comments on how you can improve it. First, it needs polishing. Double check your word use (then vs. than etc.), double check that your tenses all make sense, and generally search for typos, because I did see some. I’d also let it sit without looking at it for a couple of days, and then read over it again; usually when I do that I do a much better job of self-editing, and I can really improve the flow of my writing. Secondly, and I didn’t do this either in my rough draft, because I didn’t know we had to, but I think he wants us to explain why we chose the artifact we did. That shouldn’t be too difficult, but it’s something to keep in mind. And you already know you need to tag on a conclusion, so I think you did a really good job here!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Rhetoric of The Declaration of Independence Essay

The ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle, prescribed three modes of rhetorical persuasion – ethos, pathos, and logos. An outstanding rhetoric persuasion should have an ethical appeal, an emotional appeal, as well as a logical appeal. In the Declaration of Independence document, and Thomas Jefferson’s account, the founding fathers not only aired grievances, truths, and the denial of liberty, but they also artistically embroidered all the elements of rhetoric persuasion in their assertions. The Declaration of Independence appeals to ethics, emotions, and logic – the three fundamental elements of rhetoric.

The Declaration of Independence’s appeal to ethics is undisputable. In the opening paragraphs of the declaration, there is an ethical appeal for why the colonists needed separation from the colonizer. The first paragraph of the declaration read,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth […] decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation (“The Declaration of Independence”).

In the statement above, Jefferson and the founding fathers were appealing to ethics. It was necessary and essential to have an ethical explanation for that desire to gain support for their need to be independent. The founding fathers needed to explain why they needed to separate as decent respect to the opinions of humankind. In the second paragraph, the declaration continued on the ethical appeal stating that humans bore equal and unalienable rights – “to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” (“The Declaration of Independence”).

These statements are moral, ethical, and legal overtones that the audience can associate themselves with. If someone were to ask, “Why is this separation necessary?” The answer would come right from the second paragraph. Jefferson and the founding fathers were more than aware that such a move as declaring independence required an ethical appeal with salient and concrete causes in place of light and transient causes, and they appealed to ethics right at the beginning of the declaration.

Other than appealing to ethics, Jefferson and the founding fathers required the audience to have an emotional attachment to the Declaration of Independence. The audience had to feel the same way as the founding fathers did. In the second paragraph of the declaration document, the drafters appealed that the people had a right to change and abolish a government that had become destructive of the equal and inalienable rights of all humankind. “Humankind is more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to the right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed” (“The Declaration of Independence”).

However, if there is “a long train of abuses and usurpations” (“The Declaration of Independence”), there was a need to reduce the adversities under absolute Despotism, as the people’s right and duty. At the beginning of paragraph 30, the drafters of the declaration called their preceding assertions oppressions. An oppressed person is not a happy person. By making the audience – the colonists – remember their suffering and how patient they had been with the colonizers, Jefferson and the drafters appealed to the audience’s emotions.

The other rhetorical appeal in the Declaration of Independence is that of logic – logos. Other than bearing ethical and emotional overtones, the declaration equally bore logical sentiments. At the end of paragraph two, The Declaration of Independence reads, “To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world” (“The Declaration of Independence”), after which follows a string of grievances against the King of England and the colonizers. The entire draft bears logical appeal and the rationale behind the call for independence. How the founding fathers interwove the causes for independence in the declaration is a representation of logic.

There is evidence of inductive reasoning showing what the colonists required – independence from England – and why that was the only resort. The declaration is also logically appealing because it is not that the colonists have not sought the colonizer’s ear for the grievances they had; they had “In every stage of these Oppressions Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms, but their repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury” (“The Declaration of Independence”). Reason would only dictate that the colonists resort to other measures such as declaring themselves independent from a tyrannical system.

A rhetorical analysis of the Declaration for Independence shows the employment of ethical (ethos), emotional (pathos), and logical (logos) appeals by the drafters. In the statement of their reasons for calling to be independent of the crown, the founding fathers elucidated an ethical appeal. In the statement of their grievances against the King of England, the drafters appealed emotionally to their audience. Lastly, the drafters of the declaration interwove logic into every argument they presented by employing inductive reasoning in the description of the relationship between the colonies and the colonizer and why they formerly needed emancipation from the latter.

“ The Declaration of Independence: The Want, Will, and Hopes of the People . “ Ushistory.org , 2018. Web.

  • Chicago (A-D)
  • Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, November 2). Rhetoric of The Declaration of Independence. https://ivypanda.com/essays/rhetoric-of-the-declaration-of-independence/

"Rhetoric of The Declaration of Independence." IvyPanda , 2 Nov. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/rhetoric-of-the-declaration-of-independence/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'Rhetoric of The Declaration of Independence'. 2 November.

IvyPanda . 2023. "Rhetoric of The Declaration of Independence." November 2, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/rhetoric-of-the-declaration-of-independence/.

1. IvyPanda . "Rhetoric of The Declaration of Independence." November 2, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/rhetoric-of-the-declaration-of-independence/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Rhetoric of The Declaration of Independence." November 2, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/rhetoric-of-the-declaration-of-independence/.

  • Interrupting Various Cycles of Oppressions
  • The Declaration of Independence: The Three Copies and Drafts, and Their Relation to Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense”
  • Alice Gerstenberg’s Overtones Review
  • The Exclusion of Validity and Property Issues
  • Transparency in Financial Statements
  • International Issues and Discrimination
  • Branches of Government: Separating Powers
  • European Security and Defense Policy
  • Dr.Knightly’s Problems in Academic Freedom
  • Use of Details to Fuel Mission
  • Martin Luther King’s Public Speech
  • The Technique of a Great Speech
  • Carmine Gallo's "Talk Like TED": Concepts and Ideas
  • "Confessions of a Public Speaker" by Scott Berkun
  • Smoking Bans: Protecting the Public and the Children of Smokers

HCCS Learning Web

  • Houston Community College
  • Eagle Online

HCCS Learning Web

  • Peggy Porter
  • Reading Selections

Rhetorical Analysis of The Declaration of Independence

The link address is: https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/edblogs.olemiss.edu/dist/4/821/files/2016/09/Color-Coded-Rhetorical-Analysis-Sample-10-Core-Concepts-zh0q4t.pdf

rhetorical analysis declaration of independence

  • Free Case Studies
  • Business Essays

Write My Case Study

Buy Case Study

Case Study Help

  • Case Study For Sale
  • Case Study Service
  • Hire Writer

A Rhetorical Analysis of The Declaration of Independence

In “The Declaration of Independence” Thomas Jefferson calls for the separation of the American colonists from the grips of an abusive and tyrannical England. He makes his position clear to the colonist and most importantly the world by using persuasive appeals, syntax and diction. In the first two paragraphs of the Declaration, Jefferson not only establishes the credibility of the revolutionaries, but also lays out a logical argument that sets forth the philosophical beliefs upon which America was founded. In paragraph one, he acknowledges the need to justify the radical position the colonies took against their king. He says that he recognizes the need to state “the causes that impel that separation,” showing that he is conscious of his obligation to explain the actions of the colonist and that he has a “decent respect for the opinions of mankind.

” The use of ethos helps Jefferson to present himself and the revolutionaries as reasonable, respectable and conscientious even though the actions they are about to take are radical and revolutionary. In paragraph two, Jefferson sets forth a logical argument for those actions. He uses deductive logic in the form of a syllogism to clearly present his argument. He states that all people have rights guaranteed by their Creator, that it is the role of government to protect those rights, and that when it does not, “it is their right, it is their duty,” to alter or abolish that government. He cautions again, using ethos, that “Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes, meaning that the grievances of the colonist regarding the King’s abuses must be so great that it is necessary to take action.

We Will Write a Custom Case Study Specifically For You For Only $13.90/page!

He ends the paragraph with a direct accusation against the king, stating that “The history of the present King of Britain is a history of injuries and usurpations,” and then leads into a list of “facts” that will persuade his audience of the truth of these grievances. In just two paragraphs Jefferson manages to establish the need for revolution and convince the world that those supporting this radical view are indeed credible. In lines 45 through 148 of the Declaration, Jefferson builds on his argument with inductive reasoning, syntax, and diction. Beginning in line 45 Jefferson lays down his massive list of specific grievances that the King of England has committed against America. He states that he is very well aware that King George has “refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good,” showing that he understands that the colonist have indeed been wronged. The use of inductive reasoning helps Jefferson to present himself and his fellow revolutionaries as knowing and logical.

Taking place in lines 45 through 91 the phrase, “He has,” serves to further strengthen Jefferson’s argument. With its parallel and anaphora structures it hammers in with a repetition the fact that King George “has” without a doubt committed these specific actions against the colonist. Allowing Jefferson to conclude with conviction that the king is “unfit to rule free people.”In lines 137 through 148 Jefferson ends his logical argument with a strong emotional appeal. He states that King George has “excited domestic insurrections amongst us,” and that King George has, “endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages,” to kill them. Overall, Thomas Jefferson in lines 45 through 148 of the Declaration of Independence, establishes a great logical argument by using inductive reasoning, syntax, and diction.

In the last two paragraphs Jefferson uses syntax and ethos to convey the extent to which he and the colonies are willing to sacrifice for freedom. Beginning in the first of the last two paragraphs, Jefferson uses the phrase, “We have.” It is this parallel structured phrase of, “We have,” that repeats over and over again to demonstrate that they have appealed to their, “British brethren,” and that the British are not listening. So after all of these cries for action the Americans have come to the conclusion that their so called brethren are, “Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.” The chiasmus conveys perfectly that Jefferson and the colonies are willing to go to war with even their families for the price of freedom. The chiasmus ending Jefferson’s second to last paragraph also further establishes his credibility.

It shows that he and his revolutionaries will stand by their “unalienable rights,” no matter the cost. In the final paragraph Jefferson again furthers his credibility when he calls his fellow revolutionaries, “the good People of these Colonies.”This statement in essence means that colonist are not uncivilized monsters who just want to get rid of the king, but are actual good natured people. Jefferson climaxes the last paragraph with the statement, “we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor,” a chilling statement that ultimately paints its speaker and his cohorts as heroes willing to risk their whole existence for their cause. Altogether, the final two paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence served as a final grab at credibility by using syntax. In writing the Declaration of Independence not only did Jefferson create a historically appreciated document, but a persuasive masterpiece that thoroughly convinces its audience of the extreme importance of America needing to separate from Britain.

Its powerful use of persuasive appeals, syntax, and diction are in fact what made it great. Without these the world as we know it might not have been.

Related posts:

  • Ode to the Declaration of Independence
  • The Declaration of Independence and John Locke
  • The Declaration of Independence Essay
  • Benjamin Banneker Rhetorical Analysis
  • Independence, Only on Paper?
  • Rhetorical Analysis on Kennedy Steel Speech
  • Analysis of the Melbourne Declaration

' src=

Quick Links

Privacy Policy

Terms and Conditions

Testimonials

Our Services

Case Study Writing Service

Case Studies For Sale

Our Company

Welcome to the world of case studies that can bring you high grades! Here, at ACaseStudy.com, we deliver professionally written papers, and the best grades for you from your professors are guaranteed!

[email protected] 804-506-0782 350 5th Ave, New York, NY 10118, USA

Acasestudy.com © 2007-2019 All rights reserved.

rhetorical analysis declaration of independence

Hi! I'm Anna

Would you like to get a custom case study? How about receiving a customized one?

Haven't Found The Case Study You Want?

For Only $13.90/page

IMAGES

  1. Thomas Jefferson Declaration Independence Rhetorical Analysis writing

    rhetorical analysis declaration of independence

  2. Declaration of Independence rhetorical analysis example 1 .pdf

    rhetorical analysis declaration of independence

  3. Rhetorical Analysis on The Declaration of Independence.edited.docx

    rhetorical analysis declaration of independence

  4. Jefferson's Rhetorical Mastery in the Declaration of Independence Free

    rhetorical analysis declaration of independence

  5. 🎉 The declaration of independence rhetorical analysis. Rhetorical

    rhetorical analysis declaration of independence

  6. Rhetorical Analysis “The Declaration of Independence” worksheet

    rhetorical analysis declaration of independence

VIDEO

  1. Math Based Rhetorical Analysis Project

  2. Course Overview: AP Language Rhetorical Analysis

  3. Module 1 Overview: AP Language Rhetorical Analysis

  4. Module 2 Overview: AP Language Rhetorical Analysis

  5. Infographic Assignment Rhetorical Analysis

  6. Rhetorical Analysis Presentation

COMMENTS

  1. The Declaration of Independence Rhetorical Analysis

    Rhetorical Analysis PDF Cite During the early stages of the American Revolution, Thomas Jefferson and the Continental Congress recognized that many colonists remained unpersuaded that the...

  2. Rhetorical Devices in The Declaration of Independence of the United

    Appeals to Ethos, Pathos, Logos: The Declaration of Independence employs all three of the rhetorical modes of persuasion Aristotle set forth: ethos, the ethical appeal, pathos, the emotional appeal, and logos, the logical appeal.

  3. The Stylistic Artistry of the Declaration of Independence

    The present essay is derived from a more comprehensive study, "Justifying America: The Declaration of Independence as a Rhetorical Document," in Thomas W. Benson, ed., American Rhetoric: Context and Criticism (1989). 1 Moses Coit Tyler, The Literary History of the American Revolution (1897), vol. 1, p. 520. The best known study of the style of ...

  4. A Rhetorical Analysis of The Declaration of Independence

    A Rhetorical Analysis of The Declaration of Independence October 1, 2015 By Aver78 GOLD, Fontana, California More by this author In "The Declaration of Independence" Thomas Jefferson calls...

  5. A Rhetorical Analysis of the United States Declaration of Independence

    Ethos, in the rhetorical analysis of the Declaration, establishes a speaker's trustworthiness by underlying their authority or credibility. In contrast, pathos evokes empathy, sympathy, or other emotional responses to support an argument. Declaration of Independence logos rely on facts, evidence, and sound reasoning to make a persuasive argument.

  6. From â•Ÿsacred and undeniableâ•Ž to â•Ÿself-evidentâ•Ž: a rhetorical

    A RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF JEFFERSON'S ORIGINAL DRAFT OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE by Patrick A. McHugh Spring 2018 This research examines Thomas Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence. Ostensibly written for the simple purpose of justifying the American

  7. "From 'sacred and undeniable' to 'self-evident': a rhetorical analysis

    From 'sacred and undeniable' to 'self-evident': a rhetorical analysis of Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence Patrick A. McHugh, Eastern Washington University Date of Award Spring 2018 Document Type Thesis Degree Name Master of Science (MS) in Communications Department Communication Studies Abstract

  8. Rhetorical analysis of the Declaration of Independence

    Rhetorical analysis of the Declaration of Independence IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776. The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

  9. Analysis of The Declaration of Independence

    Our analysis of "The Declaration of Independence" is based on the rhetorical pentagram model. Here are its main points: In this guide we will look at the topics the text covers - independence, legitimacy, and tyranny - focusing on how they are explored by the writers.

  10. Rhetorical devices in The Declaration of Independence

    The Declaration of Independence; Analysis; Language [0] Rhetorical devices. Rhetorical devices are language strategies used to capture and keep readers' attention, as well as to make arguments sound more convincing. In what follows, we will look at some of the most important rhetorical devices that you can identify in "The Declaration of ...

  11. Declaration of Independence Analyzed Rhetorically

    When the declaration of Independence was signed in 1776 it was the official separation of the colonies from Great Britain. When reading the declaration of independence, you might think that its main audiences are Great Britain, and probably the citizens of the 13 colonies. While both of these parties most definitely did read the declaration of ...

  12. Rhetoric of The Declaration of Independence Essay

    Rhetoric of The Declaration of Independence Essay Exclusively available on IvyPanda Updated: Nov 2nd, 2023 The ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle, prescribed three modes of rhetorical persuasion - ethos, pathos, and logos. An outstanding rhetoric persuasion should have an ethical appeal, an emotional appeal, as well as a logical appeal.

  13. Logos, ethos, and pathos in The Declaration of Independence

    The whole Declaration is a logical argumentation used to prove that declaring independence is legitimate, given the oppressiveness of the British rule. The twenty-seven crimes of King George III and the British rule listed in the text are meant to represent factual evidence that the American colonies are entitled to declare independence.

  14. A Rhetorical Analysis Of The Declaration Of Independence

    Rhetorical Analysis of "The Declaration of Independence" Delegate of the Second Continental Congress, Thomas Jefferson, in the "Declaration of Independence," listed the various abuses that the colonies received at the hands of the British government.

  15. Rhetorical Analysis of The Declaration of Independence

    Rhetorical Analysis of The Declaration of Independence The link address is: https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/edblogs.olemiss.edu/dist/4/821/files/2016/09/Color-Coded-Rhetorical-Analysis-Sample-10-Core-Concepts-zh0q4t.pdf

  16. A Rhetorical Analysis of The Declaration of Independence

    A Rhetorical Analysis of The Declaration of Independence In "The Declaration of Independence" Thomas Jefferson calls for the separation of the American colonists from the grips of an abusive and tyrannical England. He makes his position clear to the colonist and most importantly the world by using persuasive appeals, syntax and diction.

  17. Rhetorical Analysis of the Declaration of Independence by Thomas

    Thomas Jefferson's skillful use of persuasive rhetoric in the Declaration of Independence, conveyed through compelling arguments, sophisticated syntax, and carefully chosen language, transformed the document into an influential that solidified the American colonies' resolve for separation from oppressive England, resonating not only with the col...

  18. Declaration of Independence Rhetorical Analysis Flashcards

    Syntax. "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all mean are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Glittering Generality. " we mutually pledge to each other of our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor".

  19. Rhetorical Tools in the Declaration of Independence Diagram

    Start studying Rhetorical Tools in the Declaration of Independence. Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools. ... Declaration of Independence Rhetorical Analysis. 19 terms. rcichock2314. Preview. 7th Grade Chapter 9 Review 5th Ed. Teacher 38 terms. Kent_Ritchie5. Preview. global studies unit 1 test 2 .

  20. Rhetorical Analysis of the Declaration of Independence

    Rhetorical Analysis of the Declaration of Independence Category:, , Last Updated: Essay type: Pages: Download The Declaration of Independence is considered by many to be the finest piece of political prose ever written.

  21. The Declaration of Independence: Rhetorical Devices/Sentence ...

    In order to rally the American people behind his cause for independence, Thomas Jefferson's Declaration for Independence must be strongly worded to boost morale, yet clear cut like Thomas Paine's Common Sense to develop a line of logical reasoning as to why the common American people of British North American colonies should revolt against a British despot