The
Frederick
Douglass
Prize Essay
Contest
Compendium of Winning Entries
The Frederick Douglass Prize asked students to respond to key questions in
history. The Prize focused on the origins of citizenship and how this concept has
changed in American history.
The entrants chose two readings from the list below and compared and contrasted the
concept of citizenship in the two documents.
• Declaration of Independence (1776)
• Preamble to the Constitution (1787)
• Gettysburg Address (1863)
• John F. Kennedy’s Inaugural Address (1961)
• Letter from Birmingham Jail (1963)
The responses demonstrated an understanding of the documents’ historical context,
in addition to a strong argument on how it defines citizenship. Though we only asked
that the entrants consider two documents from the list below, our winning entries
included extensive additional research.
All students should be familiar with these documents. When teachers assign their
students these documents, they guarantee the students won’t just be familiar with
them, but will also engage critically with their deeper ideas.
The Frederick Douglass Prize is an excellent opportunity for students to demonstrate
strong research and writing skills before college applications begin and to meet some
very remarkable people.
2
1st Place
Dakota Foster
Middlesex School
The Evolution of the American Citizen
The Declaration of Independence, adopted July 4, 1776, and the Gettysburg Address, delivered on November 19,
1863, were both born out of two of the most transformative, decisive, and critical moments in American history. The
American Revolution and the Civil War have certainly played a significant role in shaping the United States. While the
ideological premise of the American Revolution was, at points, a subject of debate amongst the colonies, their leaders,
and even within families, the Revolution was undeniably an external war. Fundamentally, it pitted the fledgling United
States against the mighty British Empire, and thus widely served as a unifying mechanism. The Civil War, in contrast,
begot fragmentation. Citizenship as a concept cannot be directly tied to a single event, such as a war, for citizenship
is not a fixed constant, but rather an ever evolving and variable reflection of that perpetually changing relationship
between citizen and state. The American Revolution and the Civil War, both hugely powerful events in shaping
history, influenced and redefined this relationship and thus the concept of American citizenship.
The Declaration of Independence was the first document that widely established the fundamental principles of
American citizenship. These principles, however revolutionary they may have seemed to the former colonists, were,
in reality, very much borrowed ideas. One of the first general truths that Jefferson proposes is the idea of “unalienable
rights” including “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The idea of certain basic rights as a citizen is a reflection
of John Locke’s assertion that all are entitled to “life, liberty, and property.” Similarly, Jefferson adds that governments
“derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.” At the crux of this belief is accountability and political
efficacy; such beliefs can be traced back to Greece’s direct democracies, Rome’s Republic, or through documents like
the Magna Carta. Citizenship itself, as a concept, has its scholarly groundings in the works of Thomas Hobbes, who
referred to citizenship as a social contract, a relationship in which a citizen gives up some personal freedom in return
for the protection of his/her unalienable rights. Thus, it is clear that Jefferson weighed many historical principles of
citizenship when he crafted his definition of the American citizen.
In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson establishes two major components of American citizenship, equality
and duty. The Declaration of Independence opens with the idea that people are all equal under the “laws of nature
and of nature’s god” and later continues with the famous axiom that “all men are created equal.” Ironically, under the
Articles of Confederation and later under the original United States Constitution, equality may have existed under
God, but it certainly didn’t exist under law. Women and African Americans had no voice and no vote. It would be
almost a century until the fifteenth amendment passed and even longer until women’s suffrage was legalized in
1920 with the nineteenth amendment. Thus arises, from the very inception of the nation, one of the elemental
incongruities of American citizenship. Jefferson established equality as a cornerstone of American citizenship while
more than half of America’s population was politically silenced.
Another aspect of American citizenship that Jefferson emphasized in the Declaration of Independence was duty. For
Jefferson, the duty of an American citizen was, first and foremost, not to fight for the military or to run for office, but
rather to protect the existence of democracy at all costs. Having lived under the tyranny of King George, the founding
fathers were quick to state that it is the right and duty of a citizen to “throw off such government” that becomes one
of utter Despotism. Such thinking, of course, served not only as a blueprint for their budding nation, but also justified
the treasonous action that they were taking against Great Britain.
As a whole, the Declaration of Independence presents American citizenship as a relationship of accountability,
both between individual members of the state and between the state and its citizens, in upholding the ultimate
and inviolable principle of democracy. Citizens must respect and hold in high regard the idea of equality, including
accepting the inherent, unalienable rights of each member of the citizenry. At the same time, citizens must recognize
the need for an institution to secure such rights. This institution, the government, in its very nature, must be an
3
extension of the desires of the people, and must be held accountable by the citizens who reside within it. The
Declaration of Independence thus established American citizenship as an egalitarian-minded responsibility to ensure
the preservation of the will of the people, and therefore democracy, above all else.
The Declaration of Independence was written in America’s nascent years, years that were intrinsically full of
uncertainty about the future of the country. The Gettysburg Address was given under similarly unclear prospects.
When Lincoln made his famous address in November of 1863, Union forces had won major battles (Antietam,
Gettysburg) and suffered massive defeats (Bull Run, Fredericksburg). The only constant, it seemed, was the bloodshed,
for America as a nation was more bitterly divided than ever before in its relatively short history. While the Gettysburg
Address did commemorate those lives lost during the war, it also served as a platform from which Lincoln made an
impassioned and compelling plea that would augment and modify Jefferson’s definition of American citizenship. In
the Gettysburg Address, Lincoln acknowledges the tenets of liberty and equality established by Jefferson and the
other founding fathers in the Declaration and the Constitution, but he does not seek, as they did, to showcase their
importance, but rather their vulnerability without action on the part of the citizen.
Lincoln states that the civil war is being fought to preserve a nation “conceived in liberty and dedicated to the
proposition that all men are created equal.” Equality and liberty for all, therefore, are not rights that people are
endowed with by their creator, but rather are rights that must be, at points, fought for to achieve. Thus, American
citizens not only, according to Lincoln, value such rights, but are willing to die for their greater preservation. Lincoln
does not only consider these values to be values of immense importance, he also links their existence with the
continuation of a democratic system of governance, a government “of the people, for the people, and by the people.”
Consequently, in regard to democracy, Lincoln and Jefferson share the idea that citizenship in America must be
fundamentally democratic. Lincoln, like Jefferson, speaks of duty. Lincoln presents the “unfinished work” of the civil
war as the “great task” which remains before all Americans. Lest the thousands of lives claimed by the war be lost
“in vain,” the American people must be devoted to continuing the fight for liberty and equality for all. Lincoln also
equates this fight for liberty and equality with the continuation of American democracy and thus rhetorically makes
the case that the American citizen’s duty is to defend democracy. This argument, of course, shares many obvious
parallels with that of Jefferson and his notion that it is the duty of the citizenry to throw off an unjust, undemocratic
government.
The main objective of both Jefferson and Lincoln is to unite Americans; through two powerful documents, they both
advocate the fight for the preservation of democracy as a duty of the American citizen. Each document invokes God
or divine providence, as well as an eloquent rhetorical style to lend credence and prerogative. Whether it is Jefferson’s
idea of a people “endowed by their creator” or Lincoln’s hope that America shall have a new birth of freedom “under
God,” both men understand that with religious invocation comes authority and a connection to many people. Lincoln
and Jefferson make the case that citizenship is born out of the desire to ensure that certain unalienable rights are
protected. Government is the institution that facilitates this protection, sometimes through requisite force, as Lincoln
so argues, but as Jefferson warns, government, such as the tyrannical British monarchy, can also be injurious to these
rights. Thus, citizenship is, in many ways, a duty-the duty to ensue that a democratic relationship exists between the
state and the citizen, so that the state represents and is held accountable by the citizen. The evolution of the duty
of the citizen is the most marked difference between these two documents. While both ultimately believe that the
citizen must fight for democracy, Jefferson argues that the citizen is obliged to throw off any unjust government, for in
his opinion, such action epitomizes democracy. Lincoln, in contrast, urges the people to fight against the dissolution
of America, and instead for the preservation of the country, for he believes that any such dissolution would lead to
the end of a government by the people. Jefferson, of course, probably would have argued that the South was just
in breaking away from the North if they believed their rights to be infringed upon. Thus, Jefferson proposes a more
passive form of duty, for the citizen must only hold the government accountable. Lincoln adds to this duty, calling for
citizens to hold both the government and themselves responsible.
The relationship between the American citizen and the American state has been changing since Jefferson penned
the Declaration of Independence in 1776. Over the course of American history, there have been moments and events
that have fundamentally shaped the development of this relationship. The Civil War, both World Wars, the Civil Rights
4
Movement, and the September 11th attacks and their aftermath have all profoundly altered the dynamic between
citizens and the state. That is not to say, however, that the current concept of American citizenship does not retain
those ideas of liberty, equality, duty, and democratic preservation put forth by Jefferson and Lincoln centuries ago.
Liberty and equality, once hindered by voting limitations, slavery, and segregation, are now facing the challenges of
a digital era and expansive income inequality. Perhaps the greatest question that remains for the American citizen
today is that of duty. Is the duty of an American to, as Jefferson advocated, throw off any unjust and tyrannical
government? Or is it a more active duty? Should citizens work to ensure that those initiatives of the government are
carried out for the betterment of society as a whole? Such questions will always exist, their nature changing with the
evolution of the American citizen. One constant, however, that has held firm over the last two hundred plus years, is
the importance of democracy. Both Jefferson and Lincoln emphasize that accountability and action are a means by
which to ensure the preservation of a democratic government, a democratic citizenry, and a democratic relationship
between the two.
Works Cited
Cassidy, John. “American Inequality in Six Charts.” The New Yorker. 18 Nov. 2013. Web. 16 Mar. 2014.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2013/11/inequality-and-growth-what-do-we-know.html.
Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. 1651. Print.
Jefferson, Thomas. “The Declaration of Independence.” Adopted 4 July. 1776.
Lincoln, Abraham. “The Gettysburg Address.” Pennsylvania, Gettysburg. 19 Nov. 1863. Speech.
Locke, John. Two Treatises of Government. 1689. Print.
Packer, George. The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2013. Print.
5
2nd Place
Charlotte Grove Reynders
Pingree School
The founding principles of the United States have produced a lasting vision, unifying the priorities of American
citizenship. Transcending the constraints of time, ideals of universal justice, equality, and liberty have embedded
themselves in the American psyche. With this timeless vision has come an enduring responsibility to translate sacred,
democratic values into national realities. While the framers of the nation developed a sovereign state promising justice
in theory, citizens throughout history have come to realize the implausibility of democratic perfection. The realities of
war, industrialization, and social conflict proved that traditional institutions often failed to guide the modern world.
As distance grew between the nation’s origins and the true experiences of citizens, exact obedience to traditional law
proved less possible and less pertinent. Gradually, a need for active citizenship developed, and a need to question
American institutions in their application of just principles took hold. From the drafting of the Constitution to the
distinctive voices of the Civil Rights Movement, citizens stepped outside of American institutions to reconsider the
implementation of the people’s traditional rights. The Preamble to the Constitution and Martin Luther King’s “Letter
from Birmingham Jail” shaped an era in American history in which citizenship transitioned from a controlled state of
conformity to a dynamic process emanating from the individual.
The origins of American citizenship materialized in the Constitution, the Preamble of which defined citizenship as a
task of unity under the document itself and under the institutions it delineated. Faced with the duty of distilling the
people’s revolutionary spirit into a representative government, American leaders participated in a period of debate,
trial and error. The Articles of Confederation of 1777 had instituted an unfavorably weak central government, and as
a result, the members of the Constitutional Convention began a formative debate in Philadelphia during the spring
of 1787.1 While the empowerment of “the people” remained a central purpose of the Convention, the delegates
themselves structured citizens’ participation in the resulting government. The delegates’ final denotation of citizenship
appeared in the Preamble of the completed document:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic
Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty
to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The Preamble defined the purpose of the Constitution as the guidance of the people towards a “more perfect”
democracy. That is, it labeled the document itself as the means by which Americans would carry out the duties of
citizenship, including the preservation of justice, peace, liberty, and security. If American society were to stray from
those conditions, citizens’ responsibility would be to return to the Constitution for guidance. From the nation’s origins
emerged a uniform mode of citizenship in which the people’s freedom and well-being in the present and future
depended upon action in accordance with founding institutions.
The Civil War era, a turning point in American history, exposed cracks in the foundations of American society; the
slavery question redefined citizenship as an active process of examining institutions’ execution of human rights. Even
before war, the existence of slavery divided the North and South, and the Constitution provided few answers. In fact,
though President Lincoln expressed faith in the Union in his 1861 First Inaugural Address, he also acknowledged the
ambiguities of the nation’s founding document: “May Congress prohibit slavery in the territories? The Constitution
does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the territories? The Constitution does not expressly say.”3 The
backdrop of the impending conflict was a glaring moral dichotomy that the Constitution did not address or resolve:
while the nation upheld principles of liberty and justice, slaves in the United States lacked human rights altogether.
The path of the citizen could no longer represent strict conformity to the Constitution; instead, a new degree of
individual activism proved necessary in overcoming the flawed practice of slavery. For example, near the end of the
Civil War, Frederick Douglass spoke to the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society in support of African-American suffrage:
“This is the hour. Our streets are in mourning, tears are falling at every fireside, and under the chastisement of this
Rebellion we have almost come up to the point of conceding this great, this all-important right of suffrage. I fear
6
that…if abolitionists fail to press it now, we may not see [it] for centuries to come…”4 Here, Douglass took command of
his citizenship. Realizing that the Constitution had failed to uphold “Justice” and “Welfare,” he proposed changes to his
society outside the realm of existing institutions. Douglass further expressed his progressive vision later in the speech,
stating, “What I ask for the negro is not benevolence, not pity, not sympathy, but simply justice.”5 Douglass’ citizenship
in practice stemmed from his experience, not from obedience to the Constitution. In fact, his unique activism
contributed to the ratification of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, granting former slaves U.S. citizenship
and suffrage; acts of citizenship had begun to shape institutions, rather than being shaped by them.
In the early 20th century, urbanization and industrialization fueled corporate and political corruption, followed by
multifaceted reform; the era marked a stage in the development of independent, progressive citizenship. Between
1900 and 1918, powerful businesses monopolized the national economy; European immigrants endured harsh labor
and living conditions in cities, and municipal government tightened its new, manipulative control over the people.6
The umbrella concept of progress temporarily justified the nation’s explosive rise to a capitalist system. However, as
economic success began to eclipse democratic principles, citizens questioned American realities. The Progressive
Movement represented the people’s response to the oppressive forces of capitalism and urban life; individuals
developed a new sense of responsibility to actively uphold justice. During the Progressive Era, journalists discouraged
law-abiding passivity. Although “muckraking” journalists exposed crime and corruption, many grasped a democratic
vision and galvanized the people’s pursuit of justice. For instance, in his work The Shame of the Cities, journalist Lincoln
Steffens shook civilians from their passive compliance with urban political machines. He enforced a realist perspective,
claiming, “Not alone the triumphs and the statesmen, the defeats and the grafters also represent us, and just as truly.
Why not see it so and say it?”7 Here, Steffens’s assessment targeted the American tendency to consider ideals above
realities. He questioned citizens’ passive denial of societal imperfections, such as bribery in political rings, encouraging
the exposure of the true American experience. By enforcing truth, he directed his readers towards pragmatic
citizenship. Furthermore, Steffens highlighted passive civilians’ accountability: “The misgovernment of the American
people is misgovernment by the American people.”8 He believed citizenship required that the people recognize their
responsibility to implement justice and improve American institutions accordingly. As reform became increasingly
relevant during the Progressive Era, citizenship stemmed from “the people.” Steffens claimed that, “reform law without
reform citizenship is like a ship without a crew.”9 That is, changes in American establishments proved insignificant
without active, conscious individuals who could realize human rights. From the Progressive Era emerged expectations
of involved citizenship, which would endure throughout later social and political movements.
The Civil Rights Movement of the mid-20th century signified the culminating step in the evolution of American
citizenship from traditional Constitutional conformity to justice-oriented nonconformity. In this case, a central battle
for equality paralleled with activists’ protest of American institutional law. From 1954 to 1967, a series of court cases,
boycotts, sit-ins, marches, and Freedom Rides challenged segregation laws that impacted public education, the
workplace, transportation, and the vote.10 Martin Luther King Jr. emerged during the movement as a proponent of
equal opportunity and nonviolent protest. On April 12, 1963, the Birmingham Police Commissioner arrested King on
the grounds of demonstration with no permit.11 In his cell, King composed his “Letter from Birmingham Jail” to his
colleagues in Alabama, describing the central role of civil disobedience in producing a just, egalitarian society. King
warned against passive ignorance, stating, “I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens
in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”12 Here, King asserted his own sense of duty as
a citizen to insure just realities, noting the capacity of a single unjust act to undermine American values everywhere.
King’s insistence upon the individual’s responsibility to challenge injustice signified a new process of citizenship in
which free, direct action originated from personal motivation. King further justified civil disobedience through his
claim that, “Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which
has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue.”13 He supported action that would remove citizens
from a cycle of passive silence, instigate discussion and debate, and ultimately resolve questions that the people
had ignored. The form of citizenship that King illustrated here was the dynamic practice of challenging societal
conditions to create new democratic possibilities. Lastly, as King described the tendency of “unjust laws” to empower
a “majority group,” he summarized the values of disobeying those laws: “I submit that an individual who breaks a
law that conscience tells him is unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the
7
conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.”14 King saw nobility
in the sacrifice of one’s own freedom for the sake of national betterment. He described citizenship of the highest
caliber in which an individual would willingly fall victim to an institution to prove its injustice.
The United States has metamorphosed over time from its Constitutional origins to Civil War and from modern
Progressivism to the Civil Rights Movement. American citizenship, too, has shifted from following institutions to
guiding those institutions towards just ends. In the wake of the Civil Rights Movement, the active role of citizenship
has set in. Nonconformity has become the norm; we have understood as a nation that the trajectory to a “more perfect
union” involves realigning institutions with American ideals. Even the role of the executive, a position outlined by the
Constitution, has developed the doubting, questioning trends of justice-oriented citizenship. In the final phases of
the Civil Rights Movement, President Lyndon B. Johnson celebrated the voices of civil disobedience that had shed
light on American hypocrisy. In his speech to Congress in March 1965, Johnson pressed that “Their cause must be our
cause too. Because it is not just Negroes, but really it is all of us, who must overcome the crippling legacy of bigotry
and injustice. And we shall overcome.”15 Embracing the message of a popular protest song, Johnson confirmed the
responsibility of all citizens witnessing injustice to change their world, not because they were victims plagued by
discontent, but because they possessed a shared, vibrant, democratic energy. Today, our citizenship demands the
same commitment to perfecting our union. In President Obama’s speech at the Democratic Convention upon his
reelection, he spoke of the current significance of “…citizenship, a word at the very heart of our founding, a word at
the very essence of our democracy, the idea that this country only works when we accept certain obligations to one
another and to future generations.” We have the same responsibility today that the Preamble described, the duty to
“secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” However, the means by which we must accomplish this
has not been inscribed in a document or fixed in law. The sacred, unmatched origins of citizenship lay in the people of
the United States and in our diverse potential.
Endnotes
1. Doug Linder, “The Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia,” University of Missouri–Kansas City School of
Law, last modified 2014, http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/convention 1787.html.
2. “The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription,” The Charters of Freedom, National Archives, accessed March
27, 2014, http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/ charters/constitution_ transcript.html.
3. Abraham Lincoln,“First Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln,” The Avalon Project: Documents in Law, History, and
Diplomacy, Yale Law School, accessed March 29, 2014, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_ century/lincoln1.asp.
4. Frederick Douglass, “What the Black Man Wants: Speech of Frederick Douglass at the Annual Meeting of the
Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society at Boston,” Frederick Douglass Project, University of Rochester, accessed March 29,
2014, http://www.lib.rochester.edu/index.cfm?PAGE=2946.
5. Frederick Douglass, “What the Black Man Wants: Speech of Frederick Douglass at the Annual Meeting of the
Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society at Boston,” Frederick Douglass Project, University of Rochester, accessed March 29,
2014, http://www.lib.rochester.edu/index.cfm?PAGE=2946.
6. “The Progressive Movement (1900-1918), American Experience, WGBH Educational Foundation, accessed March 29,
2014, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/eleanor-progressive/.
7. Lincoln Steffens, The Shame of the Cities (New York: McClure, Philips & Co., 1904), 2.
8. Lincoln Steffens, The Shame of the Cities (New York: McClure, Philips & Co., 1904), 2.
9. Lincoln Steffens, The Shame of the Cities (New York: McClure, Philips & Co., 1904), 166.
10. Thomas J. Davis, “Civil Rights Movement: Legal Battles of the Civil Rights Movement,” in American History, ABCCLIO, 2000-, accessed March 29, 2014, http://americanhistory.abc-clio.com/.
8
11. “Martin Luther King Jr. Timeline,” in American History, ABC-CLIO, 2000-, accessed March 29, 2014,
http://americanhistory.abc-clio.com/.
12. Martin Luther King, Jr.,“Letter from Birmingham Jail,” Martin Luther King, Jr. Day 2001, Bates College, accessed
March 27, 2014, http://abacus.bates.edu/admin/offices/dos/mlk/letter.html.
13. Martin Luther King, Jr.,“Letter from Birmingham Jail,” Martin Luther King, Jr. Day 2001, Bates College, accessed
March 27, 2014, http://abacus.bates.edu/admin/offices/dos/mlk/letter.html.
14. Martin Luther King, Jr.,“Letter from Birmingham Jail,” Martin Luther King, Jr. Day 2001, Bates College, accessed
March 27, 2014, http://abacus.bates.edu/admin/offices/dos/mlk/letter.html.
15. Lyndon B. Johnson, “Special Message to the Congress: The American Promise,” LBJ Presidential Library, University of
Texas, accessed March 30, 2014, http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/ speeches.hom/650315.asp.
16. “Transcript: President Obama’s Convention Speech,” NPR, accessed March 29, 2014,
http://www.npr.org/2012/09/06/160713941/transcript-president-obamas-convention-speech.
9
3rd Place
Domenic Narducci
Franklin High School
The concept of citizenship throughout American history has always been fluid, and one’s definition of American
identity may change to reflect different eras in American history. Yet, the definition citizenship has always relied on
basic tenets of American identity: liberty, equality, and democracy. These ideals form the foundation upon which
American identity was established and upon which it still stands today. The Declaration of Independence instilled
these ideologies into American identity from the very birth of the nation. This definition of citizenship is still prevalent
nearly 200 years later with president John F. Kennedy’s inaugural address. These two documents exhibit clearly the
changes in the definition of American citizenship throughout history through their differences and similarities.
The composition of the Declaration of Independence took place in an era of war between the then British colonists
and Great Britain. The revolutionary war was a result of perceived oppression on the side of the colonists. After the
period of salutary neglect, in which the colonists became accustomed to Britain’s lack of intervention in American
affairs, came a period of increased control by the British. Acts such as the Stamp Act, the Townshend Acts, the Tea Act
and the Intolerable Acts economically hurt the colonists angering them. In some instances, colonists caught breaking
these acts would be tried in a vice-admiralty court in which the law-breakers would be tried without a jury before
British judges often far away from their homes. In addition to lack of representation on the side of the colonists in
British parliament, these injustices contributed much to The Declaration of Independence. For example, the document
accuses the King of “imposing taxes on [them] without [their] consent” and “depriving [them] in many cases, of the
benefits of Trial by Jury” referring to the lack of representation and the vice-admiralty courts respectively.
Similarly, John F. Kennedy’s inaugural address was written in response to political and social issues during the 1950s
and 60s, and foreshadowed many of his achievements as president. Like the Declaration of Independence, John
F. Kennedy’s inaugural address was given in a time of war and fear. Communism was a taboo that marked the end
of freedom as Americans had defined and known it. Kennedy belonged to a generation, which, as he put it, was
“defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger”. The Cold War reached its height during Kennedy’s presidency
with the Cuban Missile Crisis, in which the U.S. and the Soviets came dangerously close to nuclear war. As a result of
the Cold War, John F. Kennedy was president to a generation of Americans who were gripped with fear. Additionally,
Kennedy’s speech reflects his initiative to ensure equality for all peoples. During his presidency he created the Peace
Corps to help “those people in the huts and villages of half the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery”.
Understanding the reasons behind the writing of these documents is important to better understanding how they
contribute to the definition of American citizenship.
Differences in the contexts of these documents highlight the change in the definition of liberty throughout American
history. Such statements as “all men are created equal” and “[all men] are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable rights” take on a different meaning when one understands that Jefferson wrote those words because of
perceived lack of liberty in the American colonies due to Great Britain. These “unalienable rights” are not extended
towards natives, slaves, or women as the document was intended to shed light on the wrongdoings of King George III,
not give liberty to all people. Similarly, when one understands the implications of the cold war, the “role of defending
freedom” also takes on a different meaning. The greatest threat to liberty in John F. Kennedy’s time was that of
communism. As a result, the definitions of liberty in 1776 vary greatly in comparison with definitions of the same
ideas in 1961. In 1776, the liberty referenced by Thomas Jefferson referred to the liberty of the colonists to govern
themselves freely. Contrastingly, John F. Kennedy’s inaugural address promotes the extension of liberty to all peoples
around the world as a countermeasure to the Soviet Union’s communist regime.
Furthermore, the definition of American equality differs significantly from 1776 to 1961. Again, the meaning of
the statement “that all men are created equal” changes with the understanding that “all men” truly refers to male
citizens of European descent. In 1776, rights were withheld from blacks and women because of society’s view of
inferiority; slaves were considered property (and free blacks were subject to the racism that helped to oppress the
10
slaves) and women were subject to the restrictions of 1776’s patriarchal society. Similarly, natives, like all people of
color at the time, were considered an inferior race due to ideas of white superiority. Though over time the idea of
American equality was extended to all people, it was, in 1776, highly restricted. However, by 1961 the emancipation
proclamation of 1862 had been passed, women’s suffrage had been granted in 1920 by the 19th amendment, and
citizenship was granted to all native Americans by the Indian Citizenship act of 1924. As a result, John F. Kennedy’s
inaugural address deals not with these resolved inequalities, but rather with the issue of “[assisting] free men and free
governments in casting off the chains of poverty”. Within the country Kennedy passed legislation raising the minimum
wage. Furthermore, he enacted the Peace Corps, which helped economic development of countries around the world.
The definition of American citizenship has changed greatly over the near 200 years from the advent of the American
nation to the delivery of John F. Kennedy’s inaugural address. The contrast between the definitions of specific tenets
of American Identity in the Declaration of Independence and John F. Kennedy’s inaugural address exhibits the change
in the interpretation of citizenship over time. However, despite these differences, these documents both share
remarkable similarities regarding the core values of American identity.
Although the liberties afforded by the Declaration of Independence were only granted to a restricted group of people,
the Declaration of Independence provided the core values of American citizenship that would extend throughout
history. Regardless of context, these truths that were held to be “self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they
are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, [and] that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit
of Happiness” are principles that have extended and defined citizenship throughout all of American history. Perhaps
more important than the short-term context of the Declaration of Independence is the long-term historical effect.
The Declaration of Independence has inspired movements for freedom such as the Declaration of Sentiments at the
Seneca Falls convention which uses the wording of the Declaration of Independence and which called for women’s
rights and the abolition of the patriarchy. It also inspired John F. Kennedy’s inaugural address. In his address, Kennedy
fights for “the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought [and] are still at issue around the globe”. Both
documents reference the common element of American citizenship that all people should be afforded the same
liberties.
Furthermore, both documents exhibit the tenet of American citizenship that everyone is created equal. The selfevident truth that all men are created equal contributes to the idea that all people should be given the same
opportunities for success in life. This is the idea that brought the slaves to freedom, and effected the women’s rights
movement. Similarly, John F. Kennedy’s inaugural address extends this idea by bringing to other nations similar
opportunities of success in life. By creating the Peace Corps and helping “those people in the huts and villages of half
the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery”, he bestowed upon other nations American freedom and
opportunity. Throughout America’s history people have always battled towards equality, from the civil war to women’s
rights movements to LGBT rights movements today. Equality is what makes America the land of opportunity, and it is a
core value of American Citizenship.
The Declaration of Independence and John F. Kennedy’s Inaugural address are benchmark examples of American
identity. As shown by these documents, citizenship in America is constantly being redefined. However, and perhaps
more importantly, the ideologies that define American identity at its core have always remained constant. Liberty,
equality, and democracy are consistent undertones throughout American history. Although the contrast between
these two documents emphasizes the constant redefinition of citizenship in American culture, the similarities between
the two documents highlight the important core values of American citizenship.
11
Bibliography
Henretta, James A, Rebecca Edwards and Robert O Self. America’s History. 7th Edition. Boston: Bedford/
St. Martin’s, 2011.
Jefferson, Thomas. “Declaration of Independence.” 4 July 1776. National Archives. 29 March 2014
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html.
John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum. Peace Corps - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum.
29 March 2014 http://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK/JFK-in-History/Peace-Corps.aspx.
Peters, Gerhard and John T Woolley. “John F. Kennedy: Inaugural Address.” 20 January 1961. The American Presidency
Project. 29 March 2014 http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=8032.
Stanton, Elizabeth Cady. “Internet History Sourcebooks.” 1848. Fordham University the Jesuit University of New York. 29
March 2014 http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/senecafalls.asp.
12
Honorable
Mention
Magdalene Stathas
Dracut High School
One of the most important responsibilities that an individual in a society can perform is to disobey and challenge any
law which denies the dignity and freedom of any of its members. Throughout history, champions of freedoms have
existed, and important documents have been written, advocating the need for basic human rights and the need for
action when such rights are violated. The Declaration of Independence, one of the greatest observations on the rights
of people, written by Thomas Jefferson and adopted by the founding fathers in 1776, and the timeless “Letter from a
Birmingham Jail,” written by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., 187 years later, are two such influential documents. Although
both of these documents were written for different reasons and advocated different outcomes, they each indentified
abuses perpetrated against individuals and they emphasized the importance of citizens’ responsibility to confront
evil and tyranny in whatever form it existed. An analysis of the similarities and differences of each of these important
works would help shed light on the responsibility of citizens to use civil disobedience in the face of injustice.
To begin with, it is important to note that both the Declaration of Independence and Dr. King’s “Letter” each upheld
the fundamental human rights of individuals. Thomas Jefferson referred to these as “inalienable rights,” including “Life,
Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Dr. King referred to such rights as basic “constitutional and God given rights,”
namely the right to be treated as human beings with respect and dignity. Both referred to one’s civic responsibility to
disobey any law which violates human rights and/or degrades people.
The second similarity found between both documents is that each sought to fight unjust laws. In his letter, Dr. King
states that an unjust law is one which is not moral, and “any law that degrades human personality.” Furthermore, King
pointed out that a law which is legal is not necessarily moral. For example, the horrific murders committed by Hitler
were technically “legal,” while the humanitarian actions of Hungarian freedom fighters during the war were “illegal”
(King).
Furthermore, Dr. King emphasized that people have a responsibility to disobey unjust laws. In one of his most famous
statements on civil disobedience, Dr. King stated, “I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience
tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the
community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law” (King). Similarly, the Declaration
observes 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” (Jefferson). In other words, it is our right, as well as our moral
duty, as citizens to violate unjust laws.
Lastly, both documents sent a powerful message which caused change in their respective societies. The Declaration of
Independence expressed the point that the purpose of government was to protect people’s rights. Since Britain had
violated the rights of colonists through the many grievances listed in the Declaration, the colonists had the right to
separate from the English. The Declaration of Independence launched the American Revolution and established the
birth of the American nation. Dr. King, who was in jail for violating an immoral and unjust law, had set an important
precedent by being there. He wrote a simple letter which started a civil rights movement, which would ultimately
bring the end to immoral segregationist laws.
One of the main differences between the Declaration of Independence and “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” is that
each was written to a different audience. Thomas Jefferson was declaring to not only King George III of Great Britain
but also to the world that the thirteen British colonies in America wanted to separate from England and form an
independent country because the British had violated their rights. Dr. King, on the other hand, was, specifically
addressing his famous letter to eight clergymen who had sent “A Call for Unity,” a letter to the editor in a local
newspaper. They had criticized Dr. King for disobeying laws; they did not agree with his “nonviolent direction action”
method and wanted him to go to the courts to fight unjust laws. Once King’s letter was published, however, citizens
throughout America and the world understood the importance of its message.
13
Another difference highlighted between both documents is that the types of abuses or injustices that were being
committed. The Declaration of Independence identified a list of abuses that were committed by King George III
against the British government. The colonists, in effect, were being treated like second class citizens and were being
unfairly taxed. Such abuses included forced taxes such as the Stamp Act of 1765, which imposed taxes on documents,
and the forced quartering of British troops in the colonies. The abuses levied against African Americans in King’s time
included the unfair and inhuman segregationist laws known as Jim Crow, which had existed in the South for many
years. Once again, a group of people (African Americans) were treated like second class citizens. Although the abuses
were different in each case, both the British colonists and African-Americans had had their rights violated, which was
clearly wrong.
Finally, Dr. King and Jefferson advocated different tactics or methods to combat the injustices being perpetrated
against each respective group of citizens. Dr. King wanted to use nonviolent direct means, such as sit-ins, boycotts,
and marches and demonstrations to get their point across: “we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the
creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive” (King). Thomas Jefferson,
on the other hand, sought more violent means to fight the British oppressors. He acknowledged that the American
colonies, “as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War” (Jefferson). Furthermore, Jefferson
believed 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” (Jefferson). It was the founding fathers’ firm conviction that the
colonies should go to war in order to become a free and independent nation.
The Declaration of Independence and the “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” were remarkable documents because they
both motivated and influenced citizens to take action against the oppressors of their times. Each identified the need
and the responsibility to act against unjust and immoral (although technically legal) laws and to stop the violation of
their natural rights. Each, however, advocated a different path to achieve freedom and equality- African-Americans of
the segregationist era chose a nonviolent direct approach while the British colonists wanted more violent means. It
should be noted, however, that each emphasized the great importance of citizens to use civil disobedience against
unjust laws. As the Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle rightly stated, “It is not always the same thing to be a good
man and a good citizen.” We must always be ready to be good citizens and fight injustices wherever they exist in our
society, because it is our civic responsibility to do so.
Works Cited
“Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript.” Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript. 03 Jan. 2014
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html.
“It is not always the same thing to be a good man and a good citizen.” Goodreads. 04 Jan. 2014
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/130123-it-is-not-always-the-same-thing-to-be-a.
“Letter from a Birmingham Jail [King, Jr.].” Letter from a Birmingham Jail [King, Jr.]. 02 Jan. 2014
http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html.
14
Honorable
Mention
Mehitabel Glenhaber
Commonwealth School
The Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address
In 1776, the American Colonies declared their independence from England. However, the Declaration of
Independence was much more than an address to England informing them of America’s secession; It was also an
address to Americans, solidifying not only America’s complaints against Europe, but also the American vision of a new
style of government. This new, almost Utopian vision based off of John Locke’s philosophy of natural rights, was not
only the cause that united the American colonies in the revolutionary war, but it also influenced the American Identity
and the sense of American government as tied to the advancement of freedom and liberty in the world. In some ways,
it was more important than the Constitution, especially at times like the Civil War, when people were losing faith in
the established government, since it outlined not only one government, but the principles of any government to be
established in America.
During the 10 years leading up to the American Revolution, what started out as American protests against taxation
ended as the American colonies declaring their independence from England on philosophical grounds in opposition
to the entire concept of monarchical government. After the end of the 7 Years War, when England ended it’s policy
of salutary neglect with the colonies and began taxing them to pay off the war debts, there was a huge amount of
rage about taxation without representation, which originally stemmed from people’s shock and outrage at having
to pay taxes. However, as the conflict between England and America escalated, England responded to the colonies’
increasingly violent protests by infringing on more and more of their Magna Carta rights, such as taking away the right
to a trial of peers, forcing colonists to quarter troops in their homes, shutting down the ports, and ultimately dissolving
colonial legislatures. Americans began to object to these infringements on much more political grounds, and rather
than protesting against specific laws, they began to protest against monarchy as a whole, which they now saw as “a
history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over
these states,” and as equivalent to “absolute despotism.” In this protest, American’s rediscovered the language of John
Locke and the ideas that all men “are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights,” and government as a
social contract, where kings “[derive] their just powers from the consent of the governed,” and not from their inherent
kingship. The Declaration of Independence not only outlines all of the colonies complaints against England, but also
this new theory of government, practically a paraphrasing of Locke.
This Lockean language was not only a justification for separation from England though, it was also the theoretical
basis for a new, democratic system of government. The Declaration of Independence not only describes the right of
the people to “alter and abolish” tyrannical governments, it also describes their power to “institute new government.”
And in the same way that monarchy was seen as despotic and incompatible with the idea that governments should
“derive their just powers from the consent of the governed,” the government which seemed to the colonists “most
likely to effect their safety and happiness” was a democratic one. This new government would be constructed
“laying it’s foundation on [the] principles” of the equality and natural rights of men. These principles influenced the
whole of American society, from the grand political scale of declaring independence from England to personal and
social matters as well. As Gordon Wood writes, after the American Revolution, in people’s everyday lives, society
became more egalitarian: the structure of traditional families became less hierarchical, servants demanded to be
called by less demeaning titles. In fact, in Shay’s Rebellion shortly after the American Revolution, a group of farmers
in Massachusetts seized the courthouse and demanded lower taxes, using the language of the Declaration of
Independence and claiming that they were the true heirs to the ideas of liberty and equality, which they saw the elite
as not taking far enough. In separating themselves from Europe after the American revolution, there is an emphasis
in American writings on how America does not suffer from the same sort of corruption that plagues the old world,
brought on by their despotism and aristocracy. In all of these cases, it is clear how profoundly the principles of the
15
equality of all men and their entitlement to certain rights profoundly influenced what people thought it meant to be
American.
These grand philosophical ideas made the cause of American Independence, and later, the continuation of the
American nation, into a cause far huger and more important than just the government of one country. As Thomas
Paine wrote in Common Sense, a political tract arguing for American Independence published 6 months before the
Declaration of Independence, “the sun never shone on a worthier cause” than American liberty since it was “not the
affair of a City, a County, a Province, or a Kingdom; but of a Continent ... not the concern of a day, a year, or an age” but
of the entire human race. The opening to the Declaration of Independence, “we hold these truths to be self evident...”
and the way that the American declaration of independence is described as one occurrence “in the course of human
events” out of many, expands the arguments made in the declaration to the whole of humanity, establishing them,
in the true style of the Enlightenment, as universal principles of government. By many, the United States was viewed
as a grand experiment in government, an attempt to prove to the world that Locke’s principles of government could
be implemented in reality. America would act as a beacon of the possibility of self-government to the world, and
would help to fight tyranny everywhere by proving that it was possible to throw off the shackles of despotism. And
preserving America as a republic was also seen as a hugely important undertaking. As George Washington wrote in a
letter to Henry Lee during Shay’s rebellion, if democracy in America failed, it would prove to “our trans-atlantic foe” that
“mankind when left to themselves are unfit for their own government.” This idea that Robert Middlekauff describes as
“The Glorious Cause,” that America has a great purpose, to advance the cause of liberty and democratic government in
the world, has also continued to influence the identities of American Citizens. It was the banner under with Americans
pledged their “lives,” “fortune,” and “sacred Honor” ans took up arms under during the American Revolution, but it also
embedded itself as a part of American culture.
The Civil War was perhaps the only time in American history where the principles of the Declaration of Independence
became as important as they were when it was first written. The seceding south justified their leaving the united
states under their right to “dissolve the political bands” that connected them to the united states, and viewed the
Civil War in many ways as a repeat of the Revolutionary War, where they saw themselves as America and the north as
tyrannical England. In the same way that the south rediscovered the spirit of the Declaration of Independence in their
justifications for the Civil War, the north did as well. However, rather than adopting what Confederates referred to as
the “right of compact” as the most important part of the Declaration of Independence, Northerners latched onto the
continuation of self-government and, later in the war, the natural rights of man as the most important of American
values.
In the Gettysburg Address, Lincoln taps into the language of the “glorious cause,” using it to describe the preservation
of American government rather than the establishment of it. At the time when the speech was given, Lincoln had
legitimate reason to fear that self-government was failing and to ask whether “whether any nation so conceived and
so dedicated [could] long endure.” For many people, including Lincoln, the Civil War seemed inevitable, since not only
had the question of slavery had split America since the Declaration of Independence, but in recent years sectional
tensions between the North and South had seemed so irreconcilable for many years that the only solution seemed to
be to avoid any mention of slavery, and at times to even legally enforce this with the Gag Rule. As Lincoln said in his
House Divided Speech, America “could not endure half slave and half free.”It seemed increasingly that self government
had no ability to reconcile two groups of people with far different interests, a fear that had plagued Americans since
the Declaration of Independence warned that “governments long established should not be changed for light and
transient causes.” In keeping with the vision of America as a beacon of self government, Lincoln saw the preservation
of the union as the preservation “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” In the Gettysburg Address,
Lincoln specifically stated that he saw the battle to preserve the union as a fight to protect the principles laid out by
“our fathers” “four score and seven years ago.” In the same way that Washington feared that Shay’s Rebellion would
prove self-government a failure, Lincoln feared that if America was destroyed by the test of the Civil War, it would not
only mean the destruction of “that nation,” but would be a blow against the possibility of “any nation so conceived and
so dedicated,” and a blow against “liberty” and the “proposition that all men are created equal.” He viewed the “great
task” of the civil war as the same as the great task of American independence, the fight to ensure that self government
“shall not perish from the earth.”
16
However, over the course of the Civil War, Northerners’ justifications for fighting shifted, it became a war not only
to preserve the Union, but also a war to abolish slavery. In fact, by the time of the emancipation proclamation, the
popular belief is that the war would have been a waste if the Confederacy rejoined the Union but the slaves were not
freed. The Gettysburg Address perhaps marks a turning point in justifications for the Civil War, when Lincoln, and likely
many Northerners as well, realized that there was no point in fighting for a “nation conceived in liberty” if that fight
did not also preserve the principles that nation was based on and “the proposition that all men are created equal.”
Since the Declaration of Independence, abolitionists (and, indeed, many guilty slaveholders as well) had been aware of
the inherent contradiction between the “self-evident” truth of “unalienable rights” and American slavery. Throughout
abolitionist writings there were constant reminders of the hypocrisy of Americans who claim the natural rights of
all men and oppress others, and among slaveholders, there was a tremendous fear after the American Revolution
that the principles of the Declaration of Independence would give slaves ideas and cause them to rebel. As Lincoln
wrote in a private letter to Joshua Speed, the Declaration of Independence would more accurately read “all men are
create equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and catholics,” the way it was implemented, and these personal beliefs
of Lincoln’s began to come out politically much more during the Civil War. In the Gettysburg Address, there are hints
of this idea, in Lincoln’s constant talk of “the unfinished work”, “the great task remaining before us”, and “that cause.”
The cause that he describes is more than just the cause of continuing and preserving self-government; It is the cause
of refining it, and “advance[ing]” it. Not only must that nation “live,” but it must also have a “new birth of freedom”
in which the American concept of liberty is actually expanded, to include the abolition of slavery and to redefine
American citizens deserving of their “unalienable rights” to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” as well as their
right to participation as citizens of that government. The “second birth of freedom” meant rewriting the Declaration of
Independence to truly read “all men are created equal.”
17
185 Devonshire Street, Suite 1101, Boston, MA 02110
Twitter.com/PioneerBoston | Facebook.com/PioneerInstitute
www.pioneerinstitute.org
617.723.2277