"The insincerity of the Declaration of Independence."
Jefferson is as eloquent as he is reckless; although his rhetoric is highly esteemed, the immortal declaration is nothing more than a glorified tantrum. While Jefferson's overall goal is to officially separate from the English Monarchy; his form of expression betrays unscrupulous connotations that are counter-intuitive to the character of the nation he is trying to portray. The doc*ment is plagued with hypocrisy, and misleading statements. From the vantage of their opportunistic position, the founding fathers seem to have been compelled less by the burden of oppression than they were by the allure of new lands, new resources, and an ocean between prosperity and old troubles.
Jefferson comes out swinging with a heavy appeal to Logos coupled with anaphora; the effect is hypnotizing. The reader is led to believe that Jefferson's word is irrefutable. By using the power packed pronoun "we" in tandem with anaphoric sentence structure, the reader is pressured to "agree" with each point enumerated because, after all, they're "self-evident". The author dismisses the fact that his appeal to Logos addresses abstract concepts that are still being molded today: equality, freedom, the role of government, etc... The final "self-evident" truth the author presents neglects government's legacy in history: "That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". Governments are not instituted to "secure the rights of the citizens", one simply has to look back to the earliest civilizations, government is implemented to manage resources of a large populace; to protect them, employ them, lead them... But it has almost NEVER been the prerogative of a Government to secure it's people's rights, let alone their happiness! It is interesting here that Jefferson does not capitalize "just powers"; it would fall in line with the arbitrary capitalization of his rhetorical diction like: "Men", "Form of Government", and "Right of the People".
Immediately following the philosophical diatribe of "self-evident obscurities" sweet Lady Prudence makes her appearance, and in an appeal to Ethos serves as a peaceful and logical bridge to the upcoming emotional fever pitch. She lets the reader know that this decision is the result of careful deliberation while simultaneously genuflecting to the humility of man's nature; yes, man is pre-disposed to suffer, but is it not more noble for man to free himself from suffering? Only Prudence is fit to ask this question, it takes her gentle, patient, wisdom to ignite the reader's sense of justice.
The second half of the doc*ment is riddled with negative diction like: abuses, neglects, refuses, obstruction, cutting off, plundered, etc. It turns out "Prudence" acted as an anacrusis to a more febrile appeal to Pathos. Anaphora is employed for the entire span of grievances, this time with less emphasis on a factual tone and more emphasis on an accusatory one. Every "he has" is coupled with the imagery of a mighty finger of judgment being cast at the King. The diction is so negative and 'obscure' that it does not leave the King any room for argument. This implies that the founding fathers were incensed beyond reasoning, making the final appeal to Ethos considerably inauthentic.
The Declaration of Independence is a brilliant example of how the dynamics of rhetoric can enhance an argument; but it's also an example of how vacuous something can become when it's sneakily crafted. Founded on logical fallacies, Jefferson and the rest of the founding fathers confound "appeal to Pathos" with "ad miseracordium", they blend an articulated "appeal to Logos" with an "authoritative spouting of nonsense"; and their "appeal to Ethos" is too smug and righteous to be taken seriously.