The Declaration of Independence vs. The Declaration of the Rights of Man

The full texts of the DOI and DORM
Credit: Teachers Pay Teachers

Imagine for a moment that you are back in elementary school – kindergarten to be exact. It’s playtime. Another opportunity to just forget about the goldfish back at home swimming in circles and taunting you daily to reach in and stop him every now and then, the annoying sister who is constantly blaming you for everything that goes wrong with her life, the flustered parents who simply cannot just leave you alone when you don’t want to eat your porridge, the looming teachers who could care less whether you’re actually having fun but will always find an excuse to stop you for the slightest grin.

Yes, it is that time again. The playground…the calm and peaceful playground. The FUUUUN playground!! You rush to the infamous hangout spot which you have been scurrying off to since the very first time you laid eyes on it – none other than The Sandbox. Today is another day in the sand. You brought your toys and you are ready once again. As you turn the corner and leap into the sand, you can’t help but contain your joy! But it is only a matter of time before Georgie shows up. That’s right Georgie again from last week – Big Bully Georgie.

He jumps in the ring, he splashes sand in your face, he marks his territory taking up all the space he wants, and he swipes your toys to keep for himself when he is ready to go. No matter what you do, no matter how hard you try to share and plead with Georgie, he won’t play nicely and he will not budge – he is here to stay and there is nothing you can do to stop him. But, today is different. Today, this is YOUR sandbox. This is YOUR playtime. This is YOUR home…and he is goldfish.

This is a scenario that my American history teacher taught me in 7th grade. The story is a metaphor for the tension between the fledgling U.S. colonies and the British Monarchy under King George III. However, it was through much bloody conflict through the events of the American Revolution that this struggle took place. This was a time of great hostility as the colonists resisted what they felt was oppressive rule and the British subjects, in turn, resisted the pressure that was brought against them.

A similar fight was also raging across the world in Europe around this time and afterwards. This was the French Revolution. At the conclusion of both of these events, 2 historical documents were drafted which are both as similar to each other as they are different. Both stand out to us even today as a mark of the will of the 2 sovereign nations. But I believe that one of these documents is fundamentally greater both in regards to its’ approach to resolving a historical matter and its’ lasting sensibility. This would be the Declaration of the Rights of Man.

First Draft of the Declaration of Independence presented to the Second Continental Congress
Credit: Architect of the Capitol

The Declaration of Independence finalized in 1776 starts with a word that brings it’s context to the reader instantaneously – When. This establishes a notion of time and “in the course of human events”, meaning any point in the history of all humanity. Thus, the same line identifies “Who”, which is any “one people”. So what? What is going on? What is this all about? “Dissolv[ing]…political bands which have connected” and “assum[ing]…the separate and equal station”. Where? “Among the powers of the earth. And why is that? Because the “laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them” to it. How should such a people go about doing this? By first “declar[ing] the causes which impel them to the separation”.

No doubt, we have here, a full disclaimer of the reason behind the document in the first place. It could not be clearer.

The Tennis Court Oath taken by members of the early National Assembly. They agreed not to separate until they had given France a constitution.
Credit: L'Agence Photo

Now, let’s take a look at the Declaration of the Rights of Manfinalized in 1789. The “who” of this address? As determined by “the representatives of the French people…as a National Assembly”, the grievances belong to “the citizens”, and these statements are about “man and of the citizen”. This is rather direct and so is the “where” which is clearly France. What? “Set forth in a solemn declaration…rights of man”. Bam. The why is also stated, which follows the phrase “so that”. When? “Based hereafter” and “continually”. How? Through the recognition and proclamation of the rights of man.

As we can see, the Declaration of the Rights of Man is very specific in its method. Where the Declaration of Independence speaks broadly, making general statements about how any and everyone who ever walked the face of the earth are somehow involved in the scope of a single, limited political sphere, the Declaration of the Rights of Man gets right to it with who should be paying attention. Where the Declaration of Independence stops at “the rights of man”, the Declaration of the Rights of Man continues with “and of the citizen” so that one is reminded of their own involvement in the situation at hand and cannot excuse themselves from the scope of the statements being made. Essentially, the opening of the Independence document is a “to whom it may concern” open letter while the Rights document is a “Dear Mr./Ms…” confidential address.

In my analysis of these 2 documents, I can find more conflicting statements in the Declaration of Independence which are almost entirely indicative of what can only be described as narcissistic bias. For example, in the opening, the author(s) speaks of a separate and equal station by Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God. However, to invoke the essence of a “Supreme Being” (as the DORM puts it) who’s domain is ALL of nature and then claim that nature and the “Supreme Being” who is usually regarded as transcendent of purely secular affairs, must somehow have entitled humanity to a station that is exclusively political, is quite a significantly human assertion.

Another controversy that is found in this document is how the statement is made that “all men are created equal” and yet, the same text refers to the Indian man further down in the grievances section as “merciless savages”. This is hypocritical best and outright racist at worst. To think that a room full of intellectuals listened to those 2 lines being read and did not see any sort of idiocy…But then again, on the eve of American Independence, when the bombs were yet bursting through the air and the star spangled banner waved over the land of the free, even while Thomas Jefferson and the Assembly were reviewing this document in 1776, America was still legally home of the slave until almost a whole 100 years later in 1865! (and technically not abolished until 2013) Besides that, the “Founding Fathers” gathered there were still slaveowners themselves. The phrase which recognizes the equality of men even serves to discount the women in society. In fact, it is pathetic, to say the least, that the writer(s) and, by accessory, the signers, of this document do not allow us who study it today to pass off these slights as misguided. The punks went as far as to make the assertion that from experience mankind is more likely to tolerate than to self-liberate when accustomed to suffering or abuse. It then begs the question: Which mankind is it that they were referring to? Was it men such as themselves or every human being who has an experience of suffering in their society? The document exposes their own foolery, I’d say.

The main contradiction I found in the Declaration of the Rights of Man is that it says social distinctions are allowable in society right after it says that all men are born and remain free and equal. This can only mean that some men really are more equal than others here, and those others would be determined by the society of men that declare themselves to be equal to each other. This is not real equality and if everyone remained equal, why would some be labeled at any time as apart from others on terms of equality? It is most likely that this statement was written at the time to satisfy the advocates for the institution of slavery since the equality is specifically “in rights”. Apparently, slavery was not abolished in the French colonies until 1794 but then it was restored by Napoleon in 1802 and was ended it the wealthy St. Domingue with the Haitian revolution in 1804. (You can find a complete timeline of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade here) However, as the “general good” is cited as the judge, this is not a terrible idea in itself since the heart of a society does change over time.

One thing I like about the Declaration of the Rights of Man is that it is personal. As I mentioned, it speaks to the citizenry, the average Joe. When it speaks of rights, it provides three aspects to this word – natural, inalienable, and sacred. I see this as an appeal to the three schools of thought that exist in society: science, reason, and religion, respectively. The document is clearly written with the common man in mind so that it’s interpretation is made plain. Unlike the Declaration of Independence, it is not overly wordy and does not use a complex vocabulary.  It is also not blatantly repetitive. For example, the DOI uses the phrase about King George “refusing to assent to laws” twice in the grievances. It also lists one as him trying to “harass our people, and eat out their substance” which is pretty unnecessary. One would think that that the American people were not just making a statement – they were preaching!

The writer(s) of the DOI were trying pretty hard to establish their credibility. In citing examples of injustices against them, they made general statements which were arguably not even fair for them to make. For example, they accused the king of inciting domestic insurrections and leaving loyalist government leaders to the whims of the people to be swallowed in the ensuing state of anarchy. These were actually things the patriots themselves were guilty of.  The standing armies were then ordered to station themselves near the communities for that very reason. I’m sure they understood that as colonies, they were supposed to be subject to Britain by law. Yet, they complained that they couldn’t do political things on their own like independent nations like trade with other nations and naturalize foreigners. They even said that taxes were imposed on them without their consent as if they should have all rights to determine for themselves whether they should ever pay taxes to the ruling government or not.

An English cartoon attacking the excesses of the Revolution as symbolized by the guillotine; between 18,000 and 40,000 people were executed during the Reign of Terror. The tricolor ribbon is inscribed “No God! No Religion! No King! No Constitution!” At their feet are the Magna Charta and a Bible.
Credit: Columbia College

In conclusion, I believe that the Declaration of the Rights of Man is a greater document than the Declaration of Independence. Despite what I think, however we can probably give Jefferson and his crew the benefit of the doubt here because upon comparing the 2, it became clearer to me that the writer of the Declaration of the Rights of Man were able to read the DOI first and then form the remarkable document that defined their nation while leaving out all that they deemed unnecessary. The DORM showed more of a focus on the responsibility of the people to each other while the DOI was overly concerned with the responsibility of the government to the people. The DOI focused more on greivances and less on rights while the DORM focused entirely on the rights of the people. (Perhaps there was no one left to address after all that bloody Reign of Terror stuff that was going on).

- Omri Coke

It doesn’t get any clearer than this.

(This is a re-publication. The original 4/05/16 article can be found here: 

https://americandreamclass.wordpress.com/2016/04/05/declaration-of-independence-vs-declaration-of-the-rights-of-man/)