Seventy years having passed away, since this celebrated production was published, it will not be deemed disrespectful to its signers, or invidious toward any order of partisans, if we bring to its examination the same rigid impartiality, allowable in criticising passages of Longinus or a composition of Aristotle.
As it may be said of the Declaration, that it accomplished the purposes for which it was designed, all unfavorable observations are as supererogatory, as were the sinister reflections of Buonaparte on the disposition of the British forces at Waterloo—a triumphant reply to all which consisted in the brief assertion of the respondants, "we beat you." So it may be rejoined with like propriety; for as much as it was the end to be attained, and not the means to attain that end which became important on the day of that eventful battle; it is true, neither the glory of the victory is diminished, or the consolations of the vanquished increased, by the imperfection of the means used. But so far as an analogy exists in the two cases, it bears on the political aim and sequences of the Declaration of Independence; upon which topic I do not propose at present to remark. Its literary merits and demerits are a different, and as I think, a fair subject of critical examination. To this aspect, and to this alone, do I invite the attention of all those whose curiosity or peculiarities lead them to make a distinction between what is good and bad, proper and improper.
The document proposed for consideration, has every where and at all times received the plaudits and huzzas of the multitude. The question comes now to be considered, whether upon a careful review, it deserves the approbation of the scholar. Whether we ought to have a more exalted idea of some of the actors in the drama of the revolution, in consequence of this production, or a
