Ben Young

Professor Caitlin Kelly

FSSY 185I: Age of Revolutions

12 December 2017

False Proponents of Equality: Hypocrisy in Revolutionary America

History is often interpreted in different ways by opposing schools of thought. As with

many ideological disputes, it often pits a progressive, revisionist view against a more

conservative one. The issue of Americas founding fits into this pattern. The traditional view

idealizes the Founding Fathers, painting them in an extremely positive light that highlights their

accomplishments and largely ignores their flaws. However, an examination of several relevant

works, including The Female Review by Herman Mann, Lin-Manuel Mirandas musical

Hamilton, and Frederick Douglass famous speech The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro,

reveals a consistent hypocrisy not only present in the founders, but permeating American society

itself. By reexamining the founders intentions through a more critical and progressive lens, we

can better understand why they claimed to be proponents of equality while simultaneously

resisting its advance. We will see that the founders and other influential figures in early America

professed their liberal ideas more out of a desire for political gain than a passion for the ideas

themselves, and that this led to their apparent hypocrisy.

The traditional view of Americas founding revolves around the famous words written by

Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence: 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. This idealistic perspective
suggests that Jefferson meant this literally, and that the founders support of the revolution was

based entirely on this principle. However, this ignores the fact that the actions of Jefferson and

other wealthy white men at the time did not reflect this ideal in their own lives.

In contrast to the classical view, the progressive, revisionist perspective of this time

period does not present a feel-good story that glorifies the founders. Rather, it provides a theory

about their ideals more in line with their tangible actions. In almost Marxist fashion, it

reconsiders their motives in terms of a class struggle. Alexander Hamilton himself refuted the

idea that the founders believed in universal equality above all else when he said of America, It

was certainly true that nothing like an equality of property existed; that an inequality would exist

as long as liberty existed, and that it would unavoidable result from that liberty itself. (qtd in

Redenius 19). Here, Hamilton, one of the founders, who we associate with equality,

acknowledges that America was never meant to be a haven of perfect equality, and that liberty,

the other cause championed be the founders, caused this. If the reader finds this odd, your

confusion likely results from the difference between the early Americans definition of liberty

and our modern definition. Michal Jan Rozbickis book Culture and Liberty in the Age of the

American Revolution, which argues against the familiar, conservative theories of the Revolution,

presents the old definition of liberty through the lens of class struggle: One Persons liberty was

anothers constraint different amounts of freedom were dispensed across society in proportion

to social rank (Rozbicki 35). While today we view liberty as a force that alleviates the class

struggle by removing the oppressive force on the lower class and enabling them to advance in

society, the early Americans instead viewed liberty as a privilege reserved for the upper class,

and withheld from the lower classes. This damages the theory that the founders cared for the
common man above all else, and reinforces the idea that their motives lay more in preservation

of their elite status.

The founders, comprised almost entirely of wealthy, landowning white men, certainly

held themselves among the ranks of the new worlds elite. However, while they stood above the

rest of America, they were themselves subjected to Britains elite. The Kings increasing

attempts to reduce the colonies autonomy and ability to rule themselves posed a threat to the

colonial elites dominance. Rozbicki writes that they had the most to lose as a result of

Londons new imperial policy, in terms not only of authority and honor, but also wealth

(Rozbicki 84). This meant that the founders had personal motives in inciting a revolution, not

solely ideological ones as the traditional view suggests. To achieve their personal goals of

overthrowing the British tyranny, the elites had to inspire the common people to do so. To this

end, they used the language of universal equality that can be found in the Declaration of

Independence. Rozbicki writes that it was primarily for the purpose of legitimating [the

Revolution] that [the founders] produced an open-ended narrative build around such highly

abstract notions as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and natural rights (Rozbicki 84).

Thus the founders apparent hypocrisy arose from the fact that, although they claimed to

subscribe by these radically liberal ideals, they primarily used them to achieve political goals.

Had they truly lived by these ideals, their elite standing in society would have suffered. In The

American Ideal of Equality, Charles Redenius writes that the absence of Jeffersons charge

against slavery in the Declaration adopted by the Second Continental Congress attests to the

willingness of the members to declare equality and deny it at the same time (Redenius 84). As
we will see, this ability to declare support for a progressive cause while simultaneously opposing

it existed in multiple people in multiple fields in early America.

Lin-Manuel Mirandas musical Hamilton demonstrates one of the most significant forms

of this hypocrisy: the existence of legal slavery in early America. While claiming to build a

society based on freedom and equality the founding fathers turned a blind eye to the subjugation

of a significant slice of the countrys population to forced labor. Thomas Jefferson, slaveholder

and author of the famous words All men are created equal, epitomized the capacity of the

American mind to hold contradictory attitudes (Redenius 22). Miranda highlights Jeffersons

contradiction in the Hamilton song Cabinet Battle #1. When Jefferson brings up Virginias

lack of debt in their policy debate, Alexander Hamilton attacks his hypocrisy, rapping Hey

neighbor / Your debts are paid cuz you dont pay for labor / We plant seeds in the South. We

create. / Yeah, keep ranting / We know whos really doing the planting (Miranda, Cabinet

Battle #1). Jefferson used his slaves to help maintain and grow his wealth, which suggests that he

didnt subscribe by the ideals he expressed in the Declaration that each person should have equal

opportunity to pursue happiness. Instead, he decreased his slaves ability to ascend the social

ladder by exploiting them for his own ability to do so.

This idea of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps (using ones innate talents to

improve ones position in society), occurs throughout Hamilton and is quintessentially

American. Its roots run all the way back to the founders professed ideas of innate equality and

freedom: everyone should have the same opportunity to improve their lives. In the musicals first

song, which introduces Alexander Hamilton, John Laurens raps that Hamilton Got a lot farther

by working a lot harder / By being a lot smarter / By being a self-starter (Miranda, Alexander
Hamilton). Hamilton is described as the ideal American citizen, utilizing the freedom America

presented to him to improve his life. This theme of self-improvement also appears in Herman

Manns 1797 work The Female Review. Throughout his book, Mann emphasizes the point that

the protagonist, Deborah Sampson, used her inherent qualities to overcome the difficulties of her

life. He writes that, as compared to her peers, Sampson had stronger propensities for

improvement, and less opportunities to acquire it (Mann 16). In her article She Bled in Secret,

Judith Hiltner argues that Mann projected his own Republican ideals onto the character of

Deborah Sampson, stating that Mann attempts to Mold Sampson into a model of the

independent learning and thinking that fosters Republican virtue (Hiltner 195). Much like

Hamilton, Sampson is portrayed patriotically as a disadvantaged individual pulling themselves

up by their bootstraps. However, although these ideals are glorified in the collective American

psyche, a casual examination of the past and present United States reveals that they are lacking

in practical application. African-Americans (especially before the end of legal slavery), women,

and other minorities have long lacked the opportunities provided societys elite. Thus, much like

the early beliefs off of which it is based, the idea of pulling oneself up by ones bootstraps is

hypocritical and has often been used for political gain, including recently in advocating for

eliminating government-funded welfare programs. Just as the ideal of equality was used to

inspire the colonists to rebel, the idea of self-improvement can be used to prevent the lower

classes from rebelling, as it gives them hope for a better future without societal upheaval.

Mann further expressed his patriotism in his claims that all humans have innately equal

intellect. In The Female Review, he discusses the critical role of public education to the

preservation of the new American republic in its current democratic state. He believed that
education provided one of the most effective methods of supporting the idea expressed in the

Declaration of Independence that All men are created equal. Mann rejects the idea that

nature is unequal in her intellectual bestowments on the human species (Mann 14-15),

instead expressing the idea that the apparent difference in these bestowments Must be in the

manner in which they are exhibited (Mann 15). In other words, people only seem to vary in

innate intelligence because they have different levels of training in how to express it. Thus

human equality can be demonstrated by training everyone equally, so Mann believes that, to the

problem of apparent inequality, the greatest remedy is education (Mann 15). By using this

tactic, Mann achieves both of his goals at once: he demonstrates that he is a patriot, in agreement

with the ideas of the Revolution, and he advocates for his dream of universal education, which is

otherwise completely unrelated to Sampsons story.

Although Mann projects his republican ideals onto Sampson and uses her to demonstrate

womens intellectual equality, he maintains his conservative views that women and men should

not be considered equals in society. In his support of a more progressive, egalitarian education

system in which women would learn skills beyond the domestic sphere, he writes Custom

constitutes the general standard of female education; yet, the best method that occurs to my mind

to be used in this important business, is that dictated by reason and convenience (Mann 31).

Mann also laments American societys treatment of women in general, writing that Sampson

determined to burst the bands, which, it must be confessed, have too often held her sex in awe

(Mann 32). However, these statements likely arose from Manns republican patriotism as

opposed to genuine support for female equality. In She Bled in Secret, Hiltner writes that

Sampsons rebellious character is figurative of America herself on the brink of revolution

(Hiltner 194). As Hiltner emphasizes, Sampson is merely a projection of Manns opinions on

education and patriotic virtue. Manns authentic views on womens place in society are much

more conservative. He writes that Sampsons experience at Yorktown must chill the blood of

the tender and sensible female (Mann 40) and is terrified that other women will follow

Sampsons rebellious example, urging them to remain in their domestic department (Mann 32).

Mann is clearly conservative. Although he expresses ideas of female equality, he does not want

that ideal put into action, as it would upend the social order that privileges him.

Manns writing fits into the pattern of early American writing discussed by Peter Messer

in Stories of Independence. He writes, The motives behind history writing in eighteenth century

America are clear, particularly the authors political agendas and their intent to shape the

character of the new republics citizens (Messer 5). The Female Review indeed seemingly

contains more of Manns personal opinions than actual facts about Sampsons life. Much like the

founders before him, Mann had an agenda in writing his work. As previously discussed, he

wanted to advocate for his plan for American education and his ideal of the model,

self-improving citizen. To this end, he expressed the idea that women are innately equal to men,

and thus should be given an equal opportunity for education. However, much like Jefferson did

not believe in racial equality, Mann did not truly believe in gender equality. He only used it for

political gain. His true views clearly bleed through in his writing, much like Jeffersons true

views reveal themselves in his refusal to free his slaves.

Despite the continued prevalence of the traditional view of history which glosses over all

this hypocrisy, it has not gone unnoticed by those whom it adversely affected. In his speech The

Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro, Frederick Douglass utilizes the ideals of freedom and
equality supported by the founders to emphasize the inherent ideological contradictions of legal

slavery in the United States. Douglass begins his argument by praising the founding fathers

ideological vision for America, describing how they pronounced the British government unjust,

unreasonable, and oppressive, and altogether such as ought not to be quietly submitted to

(Douglass 2). He emphasizes his agreement with the founders philosophy, stating Oppression

makes a wise man mad. Your fathers were wise men (Douglass 3). This sets up Douglass

primary argument. The founders believed in freedom and natural rights above all else, and these

values are supposed to be the defining qualities of American society, so how could America

accept a concept as hostile to these ideals as slavery? He says Americans! your republican

politics are flagrantly inconsistent. You boast of your love of liberty, your superior

civilization while the whole political power of the nation is solemnly pledged to support and

perpetuate the enslavement of three millions of your countrymen. (Douglass 15). This critique of

self-conflicting Americans, while in this case applied to Jeffersons flavor of hypocrisy, could

additionally be applied to Mann, who also boasted of his love of liberty while advocating for the

oppression of a large segment of the population.

Mann further expressed his support for individual freedom in his discussion of religion in

The Female Review. The desire to practice their own individual religions and escape the

oppression of Europes dominant orthodoxy drove many pilgrims to the New World. Freedom of

religion thus became a central tenet of American society, reflecting the general ideal of the

freedom of individual choice. Mann, in his republican zeal, supported the common persons right

to decide their own system of faith. As such, he opposed the orthodox religions, which, with their

strict guidelines, limited the individuals ability to explore their own religious ideas. Hiltner
writes that Manns aversion to orthodox Calvinism was rooted in his conviction that,

proscribing moral choice and therefore any possibility of virtue, it was a dangerous faith for a

free republic (Hiltner 194). As with his other philosophies, Mann projected this onto his

description of Sampson. Her character believed that the being bound to any set religion, by the

force of man, would not only be an infraction of the laws of Nature, but a striking and effectual

blow at the prime root of that liberty, for which our nation was then contending (Mann 29).

Mann discusses religion in much the same way as he discusses education. He believed that

Americas democracy depended on these institutions fitting with his ideological model of

republican society. Additionally, like his discussion of education, Manns religious arguments

contain a fair amount of hypocrisy behind their apparent good intentions.

The American religious ideals exemplified by Mann provided Douglass with another

argument against the institution of slavery. In his book A Revolutionary People at War, Charles

Royster discusses how the Americans used religion to inspire a passion for liberty in recruits for

the Continental Army, writing that by Stopping the British and the tories from enslaving

America, [a recruit] would also escape the bondage of his soul to sin (Royster 16). Douglass

sees the terrible irony in the fact that the descendants of the revolutionary-era preachers who

raised a rebellion against slavery were supporting a different form of slavery seventy years later.

He criticizes these 19th century preachers, who share Manns passion for religious freedom, for

embracing slavery at the very moment that they are thanking God for the enjoyment of civil and

religious liberty, and for the right to worship God according to the dictates of their own

consciences (Douglass 12). This argument must have left a strong impact on Douglass

audience, especially those who shared Manns, passions for religious liberty and equality. It
would be difficult for them to reconcile their hatred of the religious slavery from which the

colonists desired to escape with their current oppression of the natural rights of a significant

segment of Americas population.

Upon comparing the professed views of influential early Americans and their actual

actions, one can conclude that the traditional view of colonial history, which hails the founders

as flawless heroes, is incorrect. If you instead consider the idea that the founders had personal

motivations to inciting a revolution as well as ideological ones, you will find it much easier to

explain the discrepancy between their claims and their actions. The pattern of using an idea for

political gain without truly supporting it still exists in society today. In almost every political

dispute, politicians are adept at using ideas solely for the purpose of supporting their argument.

Both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of variously supporting and opposing the

Constitution depending on which argument theyre making at the time, demonstrating that we

care more about our own aspirations than defending the documents ideals. Appreciating

Frederick Douglass argument against hypocrisy and understanding the ideological discrepancies

at the heart of our countrys founding can go a long way towards seeing past the illusions of

modern politicians and making sense out of the business of politics as a whole.
Works Cited:

Alexander Hamilton. Genius,

https://genius.com/Lin-manuel-miranda-alexander-hamilton-lyrics. Accessed 21

November 2017

Cabinet Battle #1. Genius, https://genius.com/Lin-manuel-miranda-cabinet-battle-1-lyrics.

Accessed 21 November 2017

Douglass, Frederick. The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro. 5 July, 1892, Rochester, NY.

Hiltner, Judith. She Bled in Secret: Deborah Sampson, Herman Mann, and The Female

Review. Early American Literature Vol. 34, 1999, pp. 190-220.

Mann, Herman. The Female Review: Or, Memoirs of an American Young Lady, Nathaniel and

Benjamin Heaton, 1797.

Messer, Peter. Stories of Independence: Identity, Ideology, and History in Eighteenth-Century

America. Northern Illinois University Press, 2005.

Rozbicki, Michal Jan. Culture and Liberty in the Age of the American Revolution. University of

Virginia Press, 2011.

Redenius, Charles. The American Ideal of Equality: From Jeffersons Declaration to the Burger

Court, National University Publications, Kennikat Press, 1981.

Royster, Charles. A Revolutionary People at War: The Continental Army and American

Character, 1775-1783, The University of North Carolina Press, 1979.

The Declaration of Independence