Foundational Documents
Analyze central ideas, argument structure, diction, and appeals in foundational American documents and speeches.
A lesson of English 11, in American Literature Foundations, about 10 minutes.
By the end of this lesson, you will be able to analyze foundational American texts (Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Federalist Papers) as rhetorical arguments, identify their foundational claims and their exclusions, and connect them to enduring American debates.
Foundational Documents as Rhetorical Acts
The foundational documents of the United States are not neutral records — they are arguments. Understanding them as rhetoric (claims made in specific contexts for specific audiences with specific purposes) reveals both their power and their limitations.
The Declaration of Independence (1776)
Context: The colonies needed to justify independence to themselves, to each other, and to potential allies (especially France).
Rhetorical structure:
- Premise: all men are created equal and have natural rights
- Major argument: governments exist to protect those rights; when they don't, the people can alter or abolish them
- Evidence: a list of grievances against King George III
- Conclusion: therefore, independence is justified
The ethos problem: Jefferson's "all men are created equal" was written by a slaveholder, about colonists of European descent, for an audience that did not include women, enslaved people, or indigenous people. This tension between the document's ideals and its exclusions has driven American political debate ever since.
The Federalist Papers (1787–1788)
Context: Written by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay to persuade New York to ratify the Constitution.
Key arguments:
Federalist No. 10 (Madison): Extended republics are better than small democracies because they contain and control factions. Diversity of interests prevents any one group from dominating.
Federalist No. 51 (Madison): Separation of powers and checks and balances prevent tyranny. "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition."
The enduring relevance: These arguments continue to shape Constitutional interpretation and American political theory today.
The Constitution
Rhetorical context: Designed to be ratified and to function as law — required enough vagueness to gain broad consensus, enough specificity to be useful.
Tensions built in:
- Federal vs. state authority
- Rights of individuals vs. power of government
- Original text vs. interpretation
enslaved people counted as 3/5 of a person for congressional apportionment. A compromise that embedded slavery in the structure of the republic.