Mediaboss Marketing

David Wolfford| Opinion contributor

The Declaration of Independence makes for a glorious story. A united front of downtrodden colonists, through Thomas Jeffersons quill, challenged tyrannical King George III. When commemorating the United States birth, we may revel too much in a patriotic, School House Rock tale of good and evil. This story is more nuanced.

Public opinion on separating from Britain was divided throughout the crisis and as late as July 1776. The American-British relationship had declined, and Parliaments Coercive Acts of 1774 to punish Boston for the Tea Party brought about the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia. Delegates included radicals leaning toward separation, moderates, and conservatives loyal to the Crown; the latter two wanted a peaceful political solution without separation. On the ground in revolution-prone Boston, one historians measure reveals a divided merchant class. Of 318 merchants, 118 became committed loyalists, 37 remained neutraland 163 actively sided with the patriots. In New York, merchants overall favored loyalty.

British soldiers, hostilitiesand essayists changed minds. The king sent more troops to enforce new law. The armies faced off in nine battles or skirmishes with over 1,000 American casualties. Common Sense persuaded. In Congress, in a preliminary tally on the day before the vote to declare independence, Pennsylvania and South Carolina voted "No,"Delawares delegation was split and New York abstained. The next day, the late arrival of a key Delaware radical, the conspicuous absence of a conservative Pennsylvanian, and a shift by South Carolina resulted in a 12-0 vote. New York still abstained.

Thomas Jefferson was not the sole author, and his draft was not the final draft. It began as a three-sentence resolution introduced on June 7, 1776. Congress still debated and created a committee to explain the possible separation. Jefferson, a published critic of Britain, became the obvious draftsman. Ben Franklin and John Adams made 26 alterations to Jeffersons work before submitting it to Congress. Most were simple changes in phrasing. They added to Jeffersons list of accusations three new paragraphs accusing the king of dissolving colonial legislatures, pushing oppressive trade lawsand impressing sailors into the British navy.

Jefferson included a paragraph-long critique of slavery and blamed King George. He has violated "the persons of a distant people …captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere." He also commented on the deadly Middle Passage and on the hypocrisy of George only granting slaves their freedom to win a war. How the slave-owning Jefferson writing in Philadelphia could criticize slavery while over 100 slaves labored back at Monticello is a question suitable for another day. Other southerners wouldnt have it, others thought it went too far to pin slavery on George. Congress deleted the passage.

Conditions in the colonies werent that bad, and the king takes a disproportionate brunt of the blame. The average citizen residing in Britain paid 26 shillings per year in taxes to the Crown, the average New Englander one shilling. The colonists enjoyed a higher standard of living with larger incomes and more purchasing power than fellow Britons. The economic and trade regulations the Parliament put on the Americans were rather mild.

Unpopular British policy inevitably originated in Parliament or in the kings council. Through most of the conflict, the Americans viewed him as their protector, a taming check on Parliament and his scheming counselors. There was little direct personal criticism of George between the 1766 Stamp Act repeal and the Coercive Acts. Even the Congress referred to him politely in debate and in the pre-Declaration documents. But published pamphlets and discourse moved from explicit expressions of loyalty to suggestions of rebellion.

Some argue the king is a bit of a fall guy. Though the Tea Act, the Townsend Acts, and the Coercive Acts so riled the revolutionaries, "Parliament"is nowhere directly named in the Declaration. "What they needed was a fundamental presupposition against kings in general," wrote historian Carl Becker a century ago. Andrew Roberts, Georges biographer from across the pond, more recently accuses Jefferson of "padding the brief," with exaggerations, overgeneralizationsand complaints of a British law-and-order response to colonial violations. I guess its all a matter of perspective.

So when you celebrate the Red, Whiteand Blue this Fourth of July, cherish the natural rights, representation and liberty that conceived the United States, but remember our countrys birth wasnt that black and white.

David Wolfford teachers at Mariemont High School and is author of "Advanced Placement U.S. Government and Politics" (AMSCO/Perfection Learning).

Continued here:
Opinion: Story of America's birth is more nuanced than usually told - The Cincinnati Enquirer