as worthy of inclusion. They were politically invisible. Though practical needs gave women a certain authority in the home, on the farm, or in occupations such as midwifery, they were simply overlooked in any consideration of political rights, any notions of civic equality.
To say that the Declaration of Independence, even by its own language, was limited to life, liberty, and happiness for white males is not to denounce the makers and signers of the Declaration for holding the ideas expected of privileged males of the eighteenth century. Reformers and radicals, looking discontentedly at history, are often accused of expecting too much from a past political epoch—and sometimes they do. But the point of noting those outside the arc of human rights in the Declaration is not, centuries late and pointlessly, to denounce the moral failures of that time. It is to try to understand the way in which the Declaration functioned to mobilize certain groups of Americans, ignoring others. Surely, inspirational language to create a secure consensus is still used, in our time, to cover up serious conflicts of interest in that consensus, and to cover up, also, the omission of large parts of the human race.
The reality behind the words of the Declaration of Independence was that a rising class of important people needed to enlist on their side enough Americans to defeat England, without disturbing too much the relations of wealth and power that had developed over 150 years of colonial history. Indeed, 69 percent of the signers of the Declaration of Independence had held colonial office under England.
When the Declaration of Independence was read, with all its flaming radical language, from the town hall balcony in Boston, it was read by Thomas Crafts, a member of the Loyal Nine group, conservatives who had opposed militant action against the British. Four days after the reading, the Boston Committee of Correspondence ordered the townsmen to show up on the common for a military draft. The rich, it turned out, could avoid the draft by paying for substitutes; the poor had to serve. This led to rioting and shouting: “Tyranny is Tyranny let it come from whom it may.”
Exercises
1. Before reading the chapter, make a time line which includes the following: the founding of Jamestown, Virginia; the passage of the first Navigation Act; Bacon’s Rebellion; the French and Indian War; the Stamp Act; the Coercive Acts; the battles of Lexington and Concord; and the battle of Yorktown.
2. On page 47: What does Zinn mean by “… the advantages of combining paternalism with command”?
3. Zinn argues that “It was not a conscious conspiracy, but an accumulation of tactical responses.”(p. 47) What is the difference between a “conscious conspiracy” and “tactical responses”?
4. Below are a series of arguments (a-k). For each argument, identify an example (detail/data) from the chapter that supports the argument (note: one example might be used to illustrate more than one of the arguments below, but try to find a different example for each argument):
a. “…they [took] over land, profits, and political power from favorites of the British Empire.”
b. “…create a consensus of popular support for the rule of a new, privileged leadership.”
c. “… mirroring as well as molding popular opinion”
d. “…mobilization of lower-class energy by upper-class politicians…”
e. “…class hatred be focused against the pro-British elite…”
f. “…class hatred be…deflected from the nationalist elite.”
g. “… they [won] over the mechanics…”
h. “…[the local elites kept] the propertyless people…under control… [by using the] mob energy against England, but also [contained] it so that it would not demand too much from them.”
i. “…language…specific enough in its listing of grievances to charge people with anger against the British, vague enough to avoid class conflict among the rebels…”
j. “…language [to] persuade even those who had grievances against one another to turn against England.”
k. “…without disturbing too much the relations of wealth and power that had developed over 150 years of colonial history.”
5. Research: What role did each of the events listed below play in causing conflict between the colonial elites and England (or their representatives in America); the colonial people (lower orders) and colonial elites; OR the colonial people (lower orders) and England (or their representatives in America)?
[NOTE: You will have to go to texts other than Zinn for some of the answers.]
a. French and Indian War
b. growth of trade between England and its American colonies
c. Proclamation Line of 1763
d. “… six black rebellions… and forty riots” all occurring between 1676 and 1760
e. Stamp Act of 1765
f. mechanics’ demand for political democracy in the cities
g. Privates Committee’s bill of rights
h. tenant riots from the 1740s through the 1760s
i. Regulator Movement
j. Townshend Acts of 1767
k. quartering of British troops in 1768
l. impressment of sailors
m. impounding of ships in admiralty courts under the specifications of the Sugar Act
n. Tea Act of 1773
o. Boston Port Act of 1773
p. Massachusetts Government Act of 1774
6. Define the “lower orders” in terms of their:
7. Define the “local political and social elite” in terms of their:
8.
