Michael Daniel Declaration of Independence 11-14-2006 The initial draft, congressional draft and the final draft of the

Declaration of Independence all declare the English American colonies to be independent of England. They declared their independence because of the injustices committed against the colonies by the King of England. In all 3 copies of the Declaration of Independence this section of text, or something similar occurs: “He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and (everything after these parenthesis occurs in all 3 versions) has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.” This statement assumes that all Native Americans wage total war and that the King of England has some kind of influence over the Native American tribes. All Native Americans did not and do not wage total war. At the time of the constitution, colonists hadn’t even made contact with most Native American tribes so they had no frame of reference from which to make such a statement. I see no reason why the Native Americans should care about what King George had to say, therefore, I see no way that King George could incite Native Americans to declare war on colonists. If a Native American tribe declared war on a town it is probably a result of the interaction between the town and the Native Americans. King George may hold sway over the colonial town but not over the Native Americans.

It is interesting to see what was edited out of the Declaration of Independence and what was added. I was relieved to see that the part about adopting one common king was edited out of the document. I heard that Washington wanted to be an elected president and he had the cult of personality to make that law happen. I still wonder what the conversation might have been like if there was no cult of personality behind Washington. It must have sounded crazy to try a form of government that had not been functional since the Greeks were a world power. I noticed that they accused King George of inciting slave rebellions in the first draft. That part was obviously cut because it referred to slavery as ‘cruel war against human nature itself’. There were many slave owners at the signing of the Declaration of Independence so that entire section was removed. I don’t see how King George could incite a slave rebellion when the slave is only allowed to do what their master says. The King could not have had contact with slaves against the owners wishes. Even if, somehow, King George was able to incite a slave rebellion, it was common knowledge that slave rebellions simply do not work. According to the History Channel, the only slave rebellion in history that has ever worked was the one in Hati. All other slave rebellions were eventually crushed. This begs the question: Were the slave owners who signed the declaration of independence unethical because they owned slaves? The Bible endorses slavery and at the time the Bible was the source for the ethical system of the colonists. According to ethical relativism, the slave owners were behaving ethically. If you believe in absolute ethical principles and you believe that it is absolutely wrong in all circumstances to own another person then the slave owners were unethical.