The Declaration of Independence Affirms the Natural Equality of Rights for Men and Women: Refuting Darrin McMahon

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.  That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.  That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." 

In Equality: The History of An Illusive Idea, Darrin McMahon argues that this declaration "that all men are created equal" really meant that only all white men and not women are created equal in their unalienable rights (see Equality, 165-166, 187).  Therefore, the Declaration of Independence did not justify the emancipation of slaves and women from despotic dominance by white men.  Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King were wrong in claiming that the Declaration promised equal liberty for all citizens regardless of race.  And Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony were wrong in claiming that the Declaration promised equal liberty for all citizens regardless of sex.

In my previous posts, I have given some reasons for rejecting McMahon's assertion that the Declaration was compatible with racial slavery.  For example, when the African American mathematician Benjamin Banneker wrote to Thomas Jefferson complaining that slavery violated the principles of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson did not dispute anything Banneker said about slavery infringing on "the rights of human nature," which is what he would have done if McMahon were right.  In fact, Jefferson was clear in declaring that the abolition of slavery would be "the complete emancipation of human nature."  McMahon says nothing about this.

Now, in this post, I will dispute McMahon's claim that "all men" in the Declaration excludes women.  In the wake of the American Revolution, advocates of natural equality of rights for women saw the principles of the Declaration as including women as well as men.  And the American Founders never denied that this was true in principle, although they worried that this would be difficult to achieve in practice.  They were right about this, as indicated by the fact that it took 150 years before American women were guaranteed the right to vote with the passage of the 19th Amendment in 1920.

The debate over women's rights was really a debate over the meaning of the Declaration of Independence, particularly the famous paragraph quoted above that affirms four "self-evident" truths.  

Does "all men are created equal" include both men and women since they are equally human?  Or are there natural differences between men and women that justify men having superior political and social authority over women?  

If "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are natural and "unalienable rights," does that mean that all human beings--female as well as male--naturally and equally have those rights?  Or can customary practices and positive laws rightly override those natural rights in assigning men and women to separate spheres of life?  

If government derives its "just powers from the consent of the governed," does that mean that all citizens--men and women--have the right to consent to being governed through voting?  Or are there practical reasons to restrict voting to men, with the assumption that the men can be trusted to represent the interests of the women?

Does "the Right of the People to alter or abolish" a form of government that has become "destructive of these ends" include the right of women to rebel against a governmental aristocracy of men over women?  Or should men and women refuse to allow such a rebellion as an unjustified disruption in the American political order?

The history of this debate can be divided into three critical periods: the early American republic from 1776 to the 1840s, the first women's rights convention in Seneca Falls in 1848, and the Reconstruction Era debates over voting rights for freedmen and women.

THE REVOLUTIONARY OPENING FOR WOMEN IN THE EARLY REPUBLIC

On March 31, 1776, Abigail Adams wrote a famous letter to her husband--John Adams--urging him to "Remember the Ladies" in drawing up new laws for Revolutionary America:

"I long to hear that you have declared an independency--and by the way in the new Code of Laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make I desire you would Remember the Ladies, and be more generous and favourable to them than your ancestors.  Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the Husbands.  Remember all Men would be tyrants if they could.  If particular care and attention is not paid to the Ladies we are determined to foment a Rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any Laws in which we have no voice, or Representation."

"That your Sex are Naturally Tyrannical is a Truth so thoroughly established as to admit of no dispute, but such of you as wish to be happy willingly give up the harsh title of Master for the more tender and endearing one of Friend.  Why then, not put it out of power of the vicious and the Lawless to use us with cruelty and indignity with impunity.  Men of Sense in all Ages abhor those customs which treat us only as the vassals of your Sex.  Regard us then as Beings placed by providence under your protection and in immitation of the Supreem Being make use of that power only for our happiness."

Abigail's teasing tone softens but does not completely hide her censorious argument.  John responded in a letter of April 14 with a patronizing humor:

"As to your extraordinary Code of Laws, I cannot but laugh.  We have been told that our Struggle has loosened the bands of Government everywhere.  That Children and Apprentices were disobedient--that schools and Colleges were grown turbulent--that Indians slighted their Guardians and Negroes grew insolent to their Masters.  But your Letter was the first Intimation that another Tribe more numerous and powerful than all the rest were grown discontented.--This is rather too coarse a Compliment but you are so saucy, I wont blot it out."

"Depend upon it, We know better than to repeal our Masculine systems.  Altho they are in full Force, you know they are little more than Theory.  We dare not exert our Power in its full Latitude.  We are obliged to go fair, and softly, and in Practice you know We are the subjects.  We have the Name of Masters, and rather than give up this, which would compleatly subject Us to the Despotism of the Peticoat, I hope General Washington, and all our brave Heroes would fight.  I am sure every good Politician would plot, as long as he would against Despotism, Empire, Monarchy, Aristocracy, Oligarchy, or Ochlocracy.--A fine Story indeed.  I begin to think the Ministry as deep as they are wicked.  After stirring up Tories, Landjobbers, Trimmers, Bigots, Canadians, Indians, Negroes, Hanoverians, Hessians, Russians, Irish Roman Catholics, Scotch Renegadoes, at last they have stimulated [blank] to demand new Priviledges and threaten to rebell."

 If John thought that his weak sarcastic banter would silence Abigail, he was wrong.  In a letter of May 7th, she renewed her challenge:

"I can not say that I think you very generous to the Ladies, for whilst you are proclaiming peace and good will to Men, Emancipating all Nations, you insist upon retaining an absolute power over Wives.  But you must remember that Arbitrary power is like most other things which are very hard, very liable to be broken--and notwithstanding all your wise Laws and Maxims we have it in our power not only to free ourselves but to subdue our Masters, and without violence throw both your natural and legal authority at our feet."

In complaining about men insisting on "an absolute power over Wives," Abigail was probably referring to the common law doctrine of coverture, which denied that women had any independent legal identity.  Before they were married, women were under the guardianship of their fathers.  After marriage, their husbands took over their legal identity.  Women could not sue or be sued in court.  They could not make contracts or own property.  Wives had no legal right to defend themselves from the physical or mental abuse by their husbands. 

As I said in a post some years ago, by suggesting that women could form a coalition to challenge such male dominance and oppression of women, Abigail was anticipating the women's movement of the 19th century.  And without knowing it, she was adopting a behavioral strategy employed by bonobo females, who form strong social bonds with one another so that coalitions of females can check the power of aggressive males.  In contrast to chimpanzees, bonobo females can challenge male dominance and aggression, so that bonobo groups are more peaceful and more egalitarian than chimpanzee groups.  

The challenge to male dominance coming from American women like Abigail was rhetorical--appealing to the American Lockean principles of equal liberty and government by the consent of the governed and pointing out that the arbitrary power of men over women contradicted those principles.  The Declaration of Independence became the most concise and eloquent statement of those principles, so that the rhetoric of the women's rights movement was grounded fundamentally in the Declaration.

Although John Adams' first response to Abigail sounded dismissive and mocking, some of his other correspondence at the same time shows how serious he took her arguments.  One can see that in a letter he wrote to James Sullivan on May 26th, 1776.  Sullivan had argued that since the American Revolutionaries agreed that law and government are founded on the consent of the people, then they need to establish new governments in which all citizens would have the right to vote, which meant eliminating the property requirement for voting.  Adams warned that although this was true in theory, there were practical problems in proposing this:

"It is certain in Theory, that the only moral Foundation of Government is the Consent of the People.  But to what an Extent Shall We carry this Principle?  Shall We Say, that every Individual of the Community, old and young, male and female, as well as rich and poor, must consent, expressly to every Act of Legislation?  No, you will Say.  This is impossible.  How then does the Right arise in the Majority to govern the Minority, against their Will?  Whence arises the Right of the Men to govern Women, without their Consent?  Whence the Right of the old to bind the Young, without theirs."

Although Sullivan had not mentioned the possibility of women voting, Adams thought that women would inevitably demand this: "Depend upon it, sir, it is dangerous to open So fruitful a Source of Controversy and Altercation, as would be opened by attempting to alter the Qualifications of Voters.  There will be no End of it.  New Claims will arise.  Women will demand a Vote."

In fact, beginning in 1790, some women had the right to vote in New Jersey, where the New Jersey Assembly had passed an election statute saying: "No Person shall be entitled to Vote in any other Township or precinct, than that in which he or she doth actually reside at the time of the Election."  But while this "he or she" opened up voting for women, only a small group of women could vote, because there was a property qualification, and married women could not own property.  Consequently, the women most likely to vote were widows who had inherited their deceased husbands' estates (Zagarri 2007: 31).

Abigail Adams took notice of this.  In a letter to Mary Smith Cranch on November 15, 1797, Abigail wrote that "if our state constitution had been equally liberal with that of New Jersey and admitted the females to a Vote, I should certainly have exercised it."

In later years, John Adams moved ever more in the direction of granting the right to vote to women.  Writing to his grandson (also named "John Adams") on November 26, 1821, he agreed with "universal suffrage," but he worried about the difficulties of defining its boundaries.  He was not persuaded by his grandson's assumption that women could be excluded.  "You make very light of the argument for the ladies and evade it by a turn of wit and gallantry, but this is not argument.  Upon what principle of liberty, justice, equity, and fraternity would you exclude them?  Once let them know they have the right, and you will find them as fond of displaying . . . their charms and their eloquence in public as the men and as ardently aspiring to offices and dignities."

Notice that he criticized his grandson for "making light of the argument for the ladies" just as he had done in response to Abigail in 1776.

If you exclude women from the vote, he observed, "you will exclude the better half of mankind."

But still, Adams suggested that landed property as a qualification for voting was "the safest, the most equitable, and the most likely to produce education, independence, discretion, and will."  And so, he seemed to say, women with landed property should have the right to vote.

To be continued . . .