Buy term paper on Declaration of Sentiments

The Declaration of Sentiments claims to succeed the Declaration of Independence, the abolitionists claim to continue the honourable deeds of the Revolutionary patriots who “were few in number – poor in resources” but nevertheless were able to relieve themselves of the unfairly imposed burden which was too intolerable for the Americans of those days.
Throughout paragraphs 2 – 6 Garrison draws parallels between the abolitionists and the Framers. First of all they gathered at the same place, they confess the same principles of the Declaration of Independence, but now these principles refer to the black people as well, the activity of the anti-slavery movement is a logical “sequel” of the Fathers’ deeds, the abolitionists are devoted to their principles and aims not less than their predecessors. But there are some different features too, the strugglers for the independence called to arms, but they are rather pacifists. The maltreatment of the slaves was much greater compared to that of the white Americans on the verge of the revolution.
Garrison compares the adherents of abolitionism with the strugglers for independence, there are much in common, but there are still differences. As for the parallels between the two movements, the former convened at the same place where Continental Congress devised “measures for the deliverance of this country from a foreign yoke” (310). The patriots declared the inalienable rights including life and liberty, and the abolitionists declare that the enslaved must also exercise the same rights, they are expanding liberty and freedom for each person in America. The patriots were not numerous, and the abolitionists are in minority (in Philadelphia and the whole South). Both movements recognized the legality of the legislature – “[the] parliament unquestionably possesses a legal authority to regulate the trade of Great-Britain, and her colonies” (93); “we fully and unanimously recognise the sovereignty of each State, to legislate exclusively on the subject of the slavery which is tolerated within its limits” (313) – both of them are sure of victory – John Hancock is confident that his “struggle will terminate gloriously for America” (106) and Garrison echoes virtually the same, i.e. their principles will be never defeated. Patrick Henry calls on the president and the people to fight – “If we wish to be free […] we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight!” (110 – 111); and the Declaration of Sentiments is trumpeting with the same determination – “we will do all that in us lies […] to overthrow the most execrable system of slavery” (313).

buy essay

The methods of struggle, however, differ, i.e. the abolitionists did not call to arms, but still they offered the means not less effective or energetic.
6. Wendell Phillips delivers his speech on the supporters of the murder of Elijah Lovejoy and saturates it with much irony and indignation. It is inconceivable for him to find any parallels between the Revolutionary Patriots and the mob that killed the pastor. The mere exclamation that the Lovejoy murderers were compared to the “patriot fathers” evoked applause and displayed the attitude of the speaker to such manipulations.
Disproving the arguments of his opponents, Phillips focuses both on the executers of the crime and on those who justify their crime and violence. First, the mob fought against the rights of their victim – the freedom of word, the right to life – while the patriots were struggling for their own rights and against the royal and parliamentary abuse (327). He asserts that the man who compared the murderers of the minister to Hancock and Otis deserves “being swallowed up by earth” (328).
The author also indicated that the mob did not have right to execute the law of one state on the territory of the other, although St Louis and Alton lie on the opposite banks of the same river, they are the constituents of different states, each with its own laws and legislature. The activity of the pastor should have been regarded from the angle of Illinois legal regulations, and with the latter it was in full accord.
Phillips appeals also to the freedom of thought which was infringed by the abusers, he does not agree with the thesis that “the want to write and speak as we think, is an evil inseparable from republican institutions. The postulate preferring the illusionary safety of community to the freedom of press is unacceptable in opinion of the speaker. The Hancock and especially the Henry rebut the infringement of the British authorities in the same way, but with an important difference the patriots call on active struggle while Phillips calls on to restore the pure memory of the Revolutionaries.
The very spirit of the Forefathers and “the mob” was diametrically opposite, the former were expressing the interests of the whole population of the Colonies, the latter were concerned only with their own ones. He is contrasting the motivation of the murderer’s of Lovejoy and those who fought for the independence. He is labelling them as “the mob,” “rioters,” “incendiaries” and many others. The very comparison of the murderers and the Fathers causes “great applause” of the audience.