Instant Ebook Access, One Click Away – Begin at ebooknice.

com

(Ebook) The Human Rights Reader: Major Political

Essays, Speeches, and Documents From Ancient Times
to the Present by Micheline R. Ishay (editor) ISBN
9780367639426, 0367639424

[Link]
political-essays-speeches-and-documents-from-ancient-times-
to-the-present-46163562

OR CLICK BUTTON

DOWLOAD EBOOK

Get Instant Ebook Downloads – Browse at [Link]

 Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) ready for you
Download now and discover formats that fit your needs...

Start reading on any device today!

(Ebook) The Human Rights Reader by Micheline R Ishay ISBN 9780367639426,

9780367634612, 9781003121404, 9781000692419, 0367639424, 0367634619, 1003121403,
1000692418

[Link]

[Link]

(Ebook) The History of Human Rights: From Ancient Times to the Globalization Era by
Micheline Ishay ISBN 9780520234963, 0520234960

[Link]
the-globalization-era-10002710

[Link]

(Ebook) Biota Grow 2C gather 2C cook by Loucas, Jason; Viles, James ISBN
9781459699816, 9781743365571, 9781925268492, 1459699815, 1743365578, 1925268497

[Link]

[Link]

(Ebook) Matematik 5000+ Kurs 2c Lärobok by Lena Alfredsson, Hans Heikne, Sanna
Bodemyr ISBN 9789127456600, 9127456609

[Link]

[Link]
(Ebook) SAT II Success MATH 1C and 2C 2002 (Peterson's SAT II Success) by Peterson's
ISBN 9780768906677, 0768906679

[Link]
ii-success-1722018

[Link]

(Ebook) Master SAT II Math 1c and 2c 4th ed (Arco Master the SAT Subject Test: Math
Levels 1 & 2) by Arco ISBN 9780768923049, 0768923042

[Link]
the-sat-subject-test-math-levels-1-2-2326094

[Link]

(Ebook) Cambridge IGCSE and O Level History Workbook 2C - Depth Study: the United
States, 1919-41 2nd Edition by Benjamin Harrison ISBN 9781398375147, 9781398375048,
1398375144, 1398375047

[Link]
workbook-2c-depth-study-the-united-states-1919-41-2nd-edition-53538044

[Link]

(Ebook) A History of Money: From Ancient Times to the Present Day by Glyn Davies
ISBN 0708317170

[Link]
present-day-2257868

[Link]

(Ebook) Encyclopedia of invasions and conquests from ancient times to the present by
Paul K. Davis ISBN 9781592371143, 1592371140

[Link]
ancient-times-to-the-present-1220274

[Link]
 THE HUMAN RIGHTS READER

The third edition of The Human Rights Reader presents a variety of new primary documents and readings
and elaborates the exploration of rights in the areas of race, gender, refugees, climate, Artificial Intelligence,
drones and cyber security, and nationalism and Internationalism. In the wake of the Covid-​19 crisis, it
addresses human rights challenges reflected in and posed by global health inequities. Each part of the
reader corresponds to five historical phases in the history of human rights and explores the arguments,
debates, and issues of inclusiveness central to those eras. This edition is the most comprehensive and up-​
to-​date collection of essays, speeches, and documents from historical and contemporary sources, all of
which are placed in context with Micheline Ishay’s substantial introduction to the Reader as a whole and
context-​setting introductions to each part and chapter.

New to the Third Edition

• 60 new readings and documents cover subjects ranging from human rights in the age of globalization
and populism, debates of the rights of citizens versus those of refugees and immigrants, transgender
rights, the new Jim Crow, and the future of human rights as they relate to digital surveillance, the
pandemic, and bioengineering.
• Part I has been reorganized into three chapters: the Secular Tradition, Asian and African Religions
and Traditions, and the Monotheistic Religions.
• Part V has been significantly updated and expanded with the addition of an entirely new c­ hapter —​
“Debating the Future of Human Rights.”
• Each of the six parts in the book is preceded by an editorial introduction and, in four of the parts,
a separate selection providing the reader with a general background on the history and themes
represented in the readings that follow.
• Each part and several chapters conclude with new Questions for Discussion authored by the volume
editor.
• An extensive new online resource includes 62 key human rights documents ranging from the Magna
Carta to the United Nations Glasgow Climate Pact.

Micheline R. Ishay is Distinguished Professor of International Studies and Human Rights at the Josef
Korbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver.
Praise for The Human Rights Reader, Third Edition

“Ishay’s Human Rights Reader is a monumental work, chronicling the force of human rights ideas and
documents in the time they emerged and beyond. For activists like myself, joined in the campaign to forge
enduring peace founded on universal rights, this book offers a wealth of knowledge with unparalleled
breadth. It is a truly important resource.”
—​Leymah Gbowee, Nobel Peace Laureate

“The Human Rights Reader offers a sweeping documentary history of the struggle for human rights. Ishay’s
selections and commentary go beyond illuminating the intellectual development of human rights discourse
to depict emerging challenges that human rights defenders will surely face in coming decades. This volume
represents the best form of human rights advocacy, combining scholarly understanding with activist passion
while upholding all rights for everyone.”
—​Nadine Strossen, New York Law School (Emerita);
Past President, American Civil Liberties Union

Praise for Previous Editions

“In tracing the complex intellectual history of human rights, Micheline R. Ishay’s insightful and provocative
selection of texts illuminates many of today’s most fundamental rights debates. Are human rights Western
impositions or universal values? Does globalization advance or undermine them? Do they originate in or
constrain religion? Are they the product of socialism or among its victims? Did the anti-​colonial movement
respond to repression or simply shift its source? None of these questions admits simple answers, but no one
should address them without considering the deep and varied perspectives provided in Ishay’s new Human
Rights Reader.”
—​Kenneth Roth, Executive Director, Human Rights Watch

“Micheline R. Ishay’s excellent collection provides all the material that anyone needs to participate in the
critical debates about human rights. Differing views of cultural diversity, economic justice, national self-​
determination, and humanitarian intervention are fairly and intelligently represented.”
—​Michael Walzer, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, NJ

“Following her masterly History of Human Rights: From Ancient Times to the Era of Globalization, Micheline
R. Ishay now presents us with an extraordinarily rich, original, and illuminating compilation of sources on
the history and philosophy of human rights. Insightful introductions to each part provide the appropriate
historical context. A ‘must’ for courses on human rights.”
—​David Kretzmer, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Emeritus
 THE HUMAN
RIGHTS READER
M A J O R P O L I T I C A L E S S A Y S,
S P E E C H E S, A N D D O C U M E N T S F R O M
A N C I E N T T I M E S T O T H E P R E S E N T

T HI R D E DITION

Edited by
M IC H E LINE R. I SHAY
Designed cover image: The Freedom Sculpture by Zenos Frudakis. The bronze sculpture is located at GSK World
Headquarters, on 16th and Vine Streets in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Third edition published 2023
by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
and by Routledge
4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2023 selection and editorial matter, Micheline R. Ishay; individual readings, the licensed copyright holders
The right of Micheline R. Ishay to be identified as the author of her texts and the editorial material, and the authors
for their individual chapters and sections, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic,
mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any
information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are
used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
First edition published by Routledge 2007
Second edition published by Routledge 2012
Library of Congress Cataloging-​in-​Publication Data
Names: Ishay, Micheline, editor.
Title: The human rights reader : major political essays, speeches, and
documents from ancient times to the present / edited by Micheline R. Ishay.
Description: Third edition. | New York, NY : Routledge, 2023. |
Includes bibliographical references. |
Identifiers: LCCN 2022013344 (print) | LCCN 2022013345 (ebook) |
ISBN 9780367639426 (hardback) | ISBN 9780367634612 (paperback) |
ISBN 9781003121404 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Human rights–History–Sources.
Classification: LCC JC571 .H7699 2023 (print) |
LCC JC571 (ebook) | DDC 323.09–dc23/eng/20220630
LC record available at [Link]
LC ebook record available at [Link]
ISBN: 978-​0-​367-​63942-​6 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-​0-​367-​63461-​2 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-​1-​003-​12140-​4 (ebk)
DOI: 10.4324/​9781003121404
Typeset in AmasisMT Light
by Newgen Publishing UK
Access the Support Material: [Link]​[Link]/​978036​7634​612
Pour mon père, Edmond Ishay
BRIEF CONTENTS

Preface to the Third Edition xxi

Acknowledgments xxv

Introduction: Human Rights: Historical and Contemporary Controversies 1

PART I
THE ORIGINS: SECULAR, ASIAN, AND MONOTHEISTIC TRADITIONS

1. The Secular Tradition 17

2. Asian and African Religions and Traditions 44

3. Monotheistic Religions 67

PART II
THE LEGACY OF EARLY LIBERALISM AND THE ENLIGHTENMENT

4. Liberal Visions of Human Rights 93

5. How to Promote a Liberal Conception of Human Rights 125

6. Human Rights for Whom? 158

PART III
THE SOCIALIST CONTRIBUTION AND THE INDUSTRIAL AGE

7. Challenging the Liberal Vision of Rights 195

8. How to Promote a Socialist Perspective of Human Rights: Free Trade, Just War,
and International Organizations 226

9. Human Rights for Whom? 261

viii Brief Contents

PART IV
THE RIGHT TO SELF-​DETERMINATION AND THE IMPERIAL AGE

10. On the National Question 291

PART V
HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE ERA OF GLOBALIZATION AND POPULISM

11. Redefining Rights 357

12. How to Protect and Promote Human Rights 397

13. Human Rights for Whom? 464

14. Debating the Future of Human Rights 550

PART VI
HUMAN RIGHTS AND LEGAL DOCUMENTS: A BRIEF HISTORICAL NARRATIVE

15. Selected International Human Rights Documents 613

16. International Human Rights Documents (Online Supplement)

Permission Acknowledgements 672

Index 677
DETAILED TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dedication Page v
Brief Contents vii
Detailed Table of Contents ix
Preface to the Third Edition xxi
Acknowledgments xxv

Introduction: Human Rights: Historical and Contemporary Controversies 1

PART I
THE ORIGINS: SECULAR, ASIAN, AND MONOTHEISTIC TRADITIONS

Introduction 9
Questions for Part I 10
I.1 UNESCO: The Grounds for an International Declaration of Human Rights (1947) 10
I.2 Jacques Maritain: On Opposing Ideologies and a Common List of Rights
(UNESCO Symposium, 1948) 14
I.3 United Nations: Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), Preamble,
Articles 1, 3, 5–​12, 18–​19, 27 15

1. The Secular Tradition 17

Liberty, Tolerance, and Codes of Justice 18

1.1 The Code of Hammurabi: On Freedom of Speech and Civil Rights (c. 1700 B. C . E. ) 18
1.2 Cyrus: On Religious Tolerance (The Cyrus Cylinder, c. 539 B. C . E. ) 19
1.3 Plato: Justice In State and Individual (The Republic, c. 360 B. C . E. ) 19
1.4 Aristotle: On Justice and Political Constitutions (Politics, c. 350 B. C . E. ) 21
1.5 Cicero: On Universal Justice (The Treatise on the Laws, 52 B. C . E. ) 24

Social and Economic Justice 26

1.6 The Code of Hammurabi: On Property (c. 1700 B. C . E. ) 26
1.7 Plato: On the Community of Property (The Republic, c. 360 B. C . E. ) 27
1.8 Aristotle: On Property (Politics, c. 350 B. C . E . ) 29
x Detailed Table of Contents

Justice, War, and Peace 31

1.9 Thucydides: On Justice Versus Power: “The Melian Dialogue” (The History of the
Peloponnesian War, c. 411 B. C . E .)
1.10 Plato: On How to Treat One’s Enemy (The Republic, c. 360 B. C . E. ) 34
1.11 Aristotle: On the Purpose of War (Politics, c. 350 B. C . E. ) 36

Justice for Whom? 37

1.12 The Code of Hammurabi: On Women and Slaves (c. 1700 B. C . E. ) 37
1.13 Plato: On Women’s Abilities (The Republic, c. 360 B. C . E. ) 38
1.14 Plato: On Homosexuals (The Symposium, c. 360 B. C . E. ) 40
1.15 Aristotle: On the Justification of Slavery (Politics, c. 350 B. C . E. ) 41

2. Asian and African Religions and Traditions 44

Liberty, Tolerance, and Codes of Justice 45

2.1 Confucius: On Rightful Conduct of Rulers and Subjects (The Analects, c. 479–​221 B. C . E. ) 45
2.2 Kautilya: On the Penal System (The Arthashastra, c. 300 B. C . E. ) 47
2.3 Asoka: On Religious Intolerance and Discrimination (The Edicts, c. 272–​231 B. C . E. ) 50
2.4 Chinese Buddhist Verses: On Moral Conduct (Mahāparinirvāna Sūtra, Early
Fourth Century) 51
2.5 The Mande Charter of Kurukan Fuga (c. 1235) 52

Social and Economic Justice 52

2.6 Confucius: On Fair Distribution and Education (The Analects, c. 551–​479 B. C . E. ) 53
2.7 Kautilya: On Labor and Property Rights (The Arthashastra, c. 300 B. C . E. ) 54
2.8 Manu: On Property Rights (The Laws, 9:27–​60, c. 200 B. C . E. ) 55
2.9 Mahayana Buddhism: On Altruism (Bodhicaryāvatāra of Sāntideva, c. Eighth Century) 56
2.10 Buddhism: On the Limitation of Property (Dhār mika Subhūti, c. Tenth Century) 57
2.11 The Mande Charter of Kurukan Fuga (c. 1235) 58

Justice, War, and Peace 58

2.12 Confucius: On Peace and Economic Justice (The Analects, c. 551–​479 B. C . E. ) 58
2.13 Mencius: On the Right to Overthrow a Tyrant (c. 372–​289 B. C . E. ) 59
2.14 Asoka: On Peace and Justice (The Edicts, c. 272–​231 B. C . E. ) 60
2.15 The Mande Charter of Kurukan Fuga (c. 1235) 61

Justice for Whom? 61

2.16 Kautilya: On Women, Slavery, and Homosexuality (The Arthashastra, c. 300 B. C . E. ) 62
2.17 Manu: On Women and the Caste System (The Laws, c. 200 B. C . E .) 64
2.18 Mahayana Buddhism: On the Afflictions of Womanhood And Poverty (Sutra of the
Medicine Buddha, Seventh Century) 66
2.19 The Mande Charter of Kurukan Fuga (c. 1235) 66

3. Monotheistic Religions 67

Liberty, Tolerance, and Codes of Justice 67

3.1 The Hebrew Bible: On Universalism and Moral Injunctions 67
3.2 The New Testament: On Universalism, Faith, and the Law (c. 80) 69
3.3 The Qur’an: On Tolerance and Just Society (c. 632) 71
Detailed Table of Contents xi

Social and Economic Justice 72

3.4 The Hebrew Bible: On the Welfare of the Poor, the Laborer, and the Stranger 72
3.5 The New Testament: On Poverty, Greed and Charity (c. 80) 73
3.6 The Qur’an: On Social and Economic Aid (c. 632) 75

Justice, War, and Peace 76

3.7 The Hebrew Bible: On War and Peace among Nations 77
3.8 New Testament: “Never Pay Back Evil for Evil” (c. 80) 78
3.9 The Qur’an: On Just War (c. 632) 79
3.10 Augustine of Hippo: On Just War (397–​427) 80
3.11 Thomas Aquinas: On Just War (Summa Theologica, 1265–​1273) 81
Justice for Whom? 83
3.12 The Hebrew Bible: On Women, Slavery, and Homosexuality 83
3.13 The New Testament: On Women, Slavery, and Homosexuality (c. 80) 85
3.14 The Qur’an: On Women, Slavery, and Homosexuality (c. 632) 87

PART II
THE LEGACY OF EARLY LIBERALISM AND THE ENLIGHTENMENT

Introduction 91
Questions for Part II 92
II.1 United Nations: Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948): Articles 1–​3 92

4. Liberal Visions of Human Rights 93

The Fight for Freedom of Expression and Against Religious Oppression 93

4.1 United Nations: Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948): Articles 18–​19 94
4.2 John Milton: On Censorship (Areopagitica, 1644) 94
4.3 John Locke: On the Separation of Religion and State (A Letter Concerning
Toleration, 1689) 95
4.4 Voltaire: Treatise on Tolerance (1763) 97
4.5 Voltaire: “Fanaticism” (Philosophical Dictionary, 1764) 98

The Right to Life (The Cases Against Torture and Capital Punishment) 99
4.6 United Nations: Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948): Articles 3 and 5–​12 100
4.7 United Nations: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(Adopted 1966, Entry into Force 1976): Part III, Article 6 101
4.8 Thomas Hobbes: On the Inalienable Right to Life (The Leviathan, 1652) 101
4.9 Cesare Beccaria: On Torture and the Death Penalty (Treatise on
Crimes and Punishments, 1766) 104

The Right to Property 110

4.10 United Nations: Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948): Article 17 111
4.11 Gerrard Winstanley: “A Declaration from the Poor Oppressed People of
England” (1649) 111
4.12 John Locke: On Property (The Second Treatise, 1690) 113
4.13 Jean-​Jacques Rousseau: On the Limits of Property (The Geneva Manuscript
or the First Draft of the Social Contract, c. 1756) 117
xii Detailed Table of Contents

4.14 Maximilien de Robespierre: On Property Rights (1793) 119

4.15 Thomas Paine: On the Origin of Universal Basic Income (Agrarian Justice, 1797) 120

Counterpoint 123
4.16 Edmund Burke: On Inheritance and the Principle of Inequality (Reflections
on the Revolution in France, 1790) 123

5. How to Promote a Liberal Conception of Human Rights 125

Just War and the Right to Rebel 125

5.1 United Nations: Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), Preamble 127
5.2 Hugo Grotius: On the Rights of War and Peace (The Law of War and Peace, 1625) 127
5.3 John Locke: On the Separation of Powers and the Right to Rebel
(The Second Treatise, 1690) 131
5.4 Jean-​Jacques Rousseau: On Peace and War (The State of War, c. 1753–​1755) 136

Protectionism Versus Free Trade 137

5.5 Jean-​Jacques Rousseau: On the General Will and Commercial Inequity
(The Geneva Manuscript or the First Draft of the Social Contract, c. 1756) 137
5.6 Jean-​Jacques Rousseau: On Isolationism and Protectionism (Consideration
on Government of Poland, 1772) 139
5.7 Adam Smith: On Individual Liberties, Free Trade and Mutual Advantage
(The Wealth of Nations, 1776) 140
5.8 Adam Smith: The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) 145

Republicanism, International Law and Global Governance 146

5.9 Thomas Paine: On Just Revolutionary Wars, Commerce and Republicanism
(The Rights of Man, 1791–​1792) 146
5.10 Maximilien de Robespierre: On Revolutionary Government (1793) 149
5.11 Immanuel Kant: On Republican Peace and Cosmopolitan Order
(Perpetual Peace, 1795) 150
5.12 Immanuel Kant: On Republican Peace and Cosmopolitan Order
(The Metaphysics of Morals, 1797) 151

6. Human Rights for Whom? 158

6.1 United Nations: Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), Articles 2 and 4 160
6.2 Bartolomé de Las Casas (In Defense of the Indians, c. 1548) 160
6.3 Hugo Grotius: On the Rights of the Stranger and the Refugee (The Law of War
and Peace, 1625) 163
6.4 Olaudah Equiano: On the Memoirs of an African Slave (The Interesting
Narrative, 1789) 164
6.5 Adam Smith: On Slavery and Serfdom (The Wealth of Nations, 1776) 166
6.6 Maximilien de Robespierre: On the Propertyless and Male Suffrage (1791) 168
6.7 Immanuel Kant: On the Right to Hospitality (Perpetual Peace, 1795) 170
6.8 Olympe de Gouges: The Declaration of the Rights of Woman (1790) 171
6.9 Mary Wollstonecraft: A Vindication of the Rights of Women (1792) 177
6.10 On The Admission of Jews to Rights of Citizenship (1791) 184
Detailed Table of Contents xiii

PART III
THE SOCIALIST CONTRIBUTION AND THE INDUSTRIAL AGE

Introduction 187
Questions for Part III 188
III.1 T. H. Marshall: On Civil, Political, and Social Rights (Citizenship and Social Class, 1950) 188
III.2 United Nations: Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), Articles 20–​26 192

7. Challenging the Liberal Vision of Rights 195

A Historical Materialist Approach 197

7.1 Friedrich Engels: On the Question of Class Morality and Rights Relative to History
(The Anti-​Dühring, 1878) 197

The Struggle for Voting Rights 202

7.2 Chartism: On the Petition for Voting Rights (1837) 202
7.3 Karl Marx : On Universal Suffrage (1852) 204
7.4 Ferdinand Lassalle: On Universal and Direct Suffrage (The Working Class
Program, 1862) 204
7.5 Manifesto of the Paris Commune (1871) 206

The Struggle for Economic, Educational, and Social Rights 207

7.6 Pierre-​Joseph Proudhon (What is Property? An Inquiry into the Principle of
Right and of Government, 1840) 207
7.7 Louis Blanc: On the Material Basis for Health and Other Social Rights
(Organization of Labor, 1848) 210
7.8 Karl Marx: On Limitation of the Working Day (1866) 213
7.9 Karl Marx: On Freedom of Association and Trade Unions (1866) 214
7.10 Karl Marx: On Education for Both Sexes (1866) 215
7.11 Karl Marx: On National Education (1869) 216
7.12 Karl Marx: On Social and Economic Rights (Critique of the Gotha Program, 1891) 217

Counterpoints 218
7.13 Charles Darwin: On the Superiority of the Fittest (The Descent of Man, 1871) 218
7.14 John Stuart Mill: On the Right to Education (On Liberty, 1859) 220
7.15 John Stuart Mill: On the Right to Vote (Considerations on Representative
Government, 1861) 222

8. How to Promote a Socialist Perspective of Human Rights: Free Trade, Just War,
and International Organizations 226

On Free Trade’s Virtues and Injustices 226

8.1 Karl Marx: The Communist Manifesto (1848) 226
8.2 Karl Marx: “Speech on the Question of Free Trade” (1848) 229

Just War: Violence or Political Reform? 230

8.3 Karl Marx: On the History of Class Warfare (The Communist Manifesto, 1848) 231
8.4 Karl Marx: The Class Struggles in France (1850) 232
8.5 Karl Marx: On the Possibility of a Non-​Violent Revolution (1872) 233
xiv Detailed Table of Contents

8.6 Rosa Luxemburg: On World War I and Imperialism (The Junius Pamphlet, 1916) 234
8.7 Karl Kautsky: On Political Reform and Socialism (The Dictatorship of the
Proletariat, 1918) 240
8.8 Leon Trotsky: Their Morals and Ours (1938) 247

International Organizations 252

8.9 Pierre-​Joseph Proudhon: The Principle of Federalism (1863) 253
8.10 Karl Marx: “Inaugural Address of the Workingmen’s International Association” (1864) 256
8.11 Leonard S. Woolf: On International Government and International Court
(International Government, 1916) 258

9. Human Rights for Whom? 261

9.1 Robert Owen: On Children (“An Address to the Inhabitants of Lanark,” 1816) 263
9.2 Karl Marx: The Jewish Question (1843) 264
9.3 Karl Marx: Letter to Abraham Lincoln on the Abolition of Slavery (1864) 272
9.4 Sojourner Truth: On Women’s Rights (1851) 273
9.5 August Bebel: Woman And Socialism (1883) 273
9.6 Clara Zetkin: On Women’s Rights and Social Classes (1896) 278
9.7 Vladimir I. Lenin: On the Emancipation of Women (1919) 281
9.8 J. Henry Dunant: On the Rights of Wounded Soldiers (A Memory of Solferino, 1862) 282
9.9 August Bebel: On Homosexual Rights (“Speech to the Reichstag,” 1898) 283

PART IV
THE RIGHT TO SELF-​DETERMINATION AND THE IMPERIAL AGE

Introduction 285
Questions for Part IV 286
IV.1 Eleanor Roosevelt: “The Universal Validity of Man’s Right to Self-​
Determination” (1952) 286
IV.2 United Nations: Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), Preamble,
Articles 1–​2, 15 289
IV.3 United Nations: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and
International Covenant On Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (Adopted 1966,
Entry into Force 1976), Article 1 290

10. On the National Question 291

10.1 Giuseppe Mazzini: On the Right to Country (The Duties of Man, 1844, 1858) 293
10.2 John Stuart Mill: Considerations on Representative Government (1861) 298
10.3 Ernest Renan: What is a Nation? (1882) 305
10.4 Rosa Luxemburg: The National Question and Autonomy (1909) 310
10.5 Vladimir I. Lenin: The Right of Nations to Self-​Determination (1914) 316
10.6 Woodrow Wilson: “The Fourteen Points Address” (1918) 320
10.7 Mahatma Gandhi: “Passive Resistance” (1909) 323
10.8 Mahatma Gandhi: “An Appeal to the Nation” (1924) 325
10.9 Mahatma Gandhi: “Means and Ends” (1909–​1947) 326
10.10 Mahatma Gandhi: “Equal Distribution Through Nonviolence” (1940) 328
10.11 Sati’ Al-​Husri: “Muslim Unity and Arab Unity” (1944) 329
Detailed Table of Contents xv

10.12 Ho Chi Minh: “Declaration of Independence of the Democratic Republic

of Vietnam” (1945) 333
10.13 Frantz Fanon: The Wretched of the Earth (1963) 334

PART V
HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE ERA OF GLOBALIZATION AND POPULISM

Introduction 341
V.1 Thomas L. Friedman and Ignacio Ramonet: “Dueling Globalizations” (1999) 342
V.2 Micheline Ishay: “Human Rights In The Age of Populism” (2020) 346

11. Redefining Rights 357

Questions for Chapter 11 357

On Labor and Development Rights 357

11.1 Milton Friedman: “Economic Freedom, Human Freedom, Political Freedom” (1991) 358
11.2 Charles Tilly: “Globalization Threatens Labor’s Rights” (1995) 365
11.3 Amnesty International: “Amnesty International on Human Rights and Labour
Rights” (1998) 371
11.4 Amartya Sen: Development as Freedom (1999) 374
11.5 John G. Ruggie: On Business and Human Rights (2020) 377

On Environmental Rights 383

11.6 Ken Saro-​Wiwa: On Environmental Rights of the Ogoni People in Nigeria (1995) 384
11.7 Ramachandra Guha: “Radical American Environmentalism and Wilderness
Preservation: A Third World Critique” (1989) 386
11.8 Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights: “Understanding
Human Rights and Climate Change” (2015) 392

12. How to Protect and Promote Human Rights 397

Questions for Chapter 12 397

On Security Rights versus Torture 397

12.1 U.S. Department of Justice Memorandum: On Torture (2002) 398
12.2 U.S. Department of Justice Memorandum: On Torture (2004) 400

Counterpoints 401
12.3 Charles Krauthammer: “The Truth about Torture” (2005) 401
12.4 Stephen Holmes: On Torture and the Defiance of Law in the War on Terror (2006) 405

On Humanitarian Interventions 415

12.5 Samantha Power: “Raising the Cost of Genocide” (2002) 416
12.6 Michael Ignatieff: “The Burden” (2003) 421
12.7 Eric Hobsbawm: “Spreading Democracy” (2004) 423
12.8 Micheline Ishay: “Debating Globalization and Intervention: Spartacists versus
Caesarists” (2005) 425
12.9 United Nations Secretary-​General: “Implementing the Responsibility
to Protect” (2009) 434
12.10 Michael Walzer: “The Aftermath of War: Reflections on Jus Post Bellum” (2012) 438
xvi Detailed Table of Contents

On the International Criminal Court and Human Rights Governance 444

12.11 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998) 445
12.12 Micheline Ishay: “Liberal Internationalisms, Human Rights and International
Criminal Justice: Looking Back to Reclaim the Future” (2015) 452

13. Human Rights for Whom? 464

Questions for Chapter 13 464

On The Rights of Citizens Versus the Rights of Refugees and Immigrants 465
13.1 Hannah Arendt: On the Rights of the Stateless (The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951) 466
13.2 Bryan Caplan: On the Libertarian Case for Open Borders (“Why Should We Restrict
Immigration?,” 2012) 469
13.3 Angela Nagle: “The Left Case Against Open Borders” (2018) 473
13.4 Lea Ypi: “Why the Left Should Unite Behind Open Borders” (2019) 478
13.5 Documents: Refugee and Migrant Rights and Human Trafficking 480
I. United Nations: Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (Adopted 1951,
Entry into Force 1954) 480
II. United Nations: Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (1967) 481
III. United Nations: Convention on the Rights of the Child (Adopted 1989, Entry into
Force 1990) 482
IV. United Nations: International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All
Migrant Workers and Members of their Families (Adopted 1990, Entry into
Force 2003) 483
V. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights: Protocol to
Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons Especially Women and
Children (Adopted 2000, Entry into Force 2003) 484

On Cultural and Group Rights versus Universalism 485

13.6 United Nations: Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), Articles 1–​2 and 29 488
13.7 United Nations: International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights
(Adopted 1966, Entry into Force 1976), Article 15 489
13.8 United Nations: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Adopted 1966,
Entry into Force 1976), Article 27 489
13.9 Steven Lukes: “Five Fables about Human Rights” (1993) 489
13.10 Eric Hobsbawm: “The Universalism of the Left” (1996) 499
13.11 Rhoda E. Howard-​Hassman and Jack Donnelly: “Liberalism and Human Rights:
A Necessary Connection” (1996) 502
13.12 Richard Rorty: “Human Rights, Rationality, and Sentimentality” (1993) 507
13.13 Liu Xiaobo: Charter 08 (2008) 511
13.14 Chandra Muzaffar: On Western Imperialism and Human Rights (1994) 515
13.15 Will Kymlicka: On Indigenous Rights (“The Good, the Bad, and the Intolerable:
Minority Group Rights,” 1996) 520
13.16 Martha Nussbaum: “Women and Cultural Universals” (Sex and Social Justice, 1999) 523
13.17 Carl F. Stychin: “Same-​Sex Sexualities and the Globalization of Human Rights
Discourse” (2004) 530
13.18 Tia Powell, Sophia Shapiro, and Ed Stein: “Transgender Rights as Human
Rights” (2016) 534
Detailed Table of Contents xvii

13.19 Michelle Alexander: The New Jim Crow (2010) 537

13.20 Frédéric Mégret: “The Disabilities Convention: Human Rights of Persons with
Disabilities or Disability Rights?” (2008) 543

14. Debating the Future of Human Rights 550

Questions for Chapter 14 550

Digital Surveillance, Discrimination, and Human Rights 550

14.1 Michelle Bachelet: “Human Rights in the Digital Age” (2019) 551
14.2 Shoshana Zuboff: “Surveillance Capitalism and the Challenge of Collective
Action” (2019) 554
14.3 Shoshana Zuboff: On Digital Behavioral Control and the Right to Have
Rights (2019) 560
14.4 Andrew Feenberg: On Claiming Digital Governance (2019) 565

The Right to Health after the Pandemic 569

14.5 Michel Foucault: On Surveillance and the Plague (Discipline and Punish, 1975) 570
14.6 World Health Organization: “Human Rights and Health” (2017) 572
14.7 Yuval Noah Harari: “The World after Coronavirus” (2020) 576
14.8 António Guterres: “The World Faces a Pandemic of Human Rights Abuses
in the Wake of Covid-​19” (2021) 580

Artificial Intelligence, Bioengineering, and Human Rights 582

14.9 Mathias Risse: “Human Rights and Artificial Intelligence: An Urgently
Needed Agenda” (2019) 583
14.10 Rumiana Yotova: “Regulating Genome Editing under International Human
Rights Law” (2020) 591
14.11 Walter Isaacson: On Genome Editing and the Future of the Human Race
(The Code Breaker, 2021) 597

PART VI
HUMAN RIGHTS AND LEGAL DOCUMENTS: A BRIEF HISTORICAL NARRATIVE

Introduction 607

15. Selected International Human Rights Documents 613

15.1 The Magna Carta (1215) 613
15.2 The Habeas Corpus Act (1679) 614
15.3 The English Bill of Rights (1689) 616
15.4 The United States Declaration of Independence (1776) 618
15.5 The French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen (1789) 620
15.6 United Nations: Charter of the United Nations (1945) 621
15.7 United Nations: Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide (Adopted 1948, Entry into Force 1951) 622
15.8 United Nations: Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) 623
15.9 Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (Adopted 1949,
Entry into Force 1950) 626
xviii Detailed Table of Contents

15.10 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 (Adopted 1977,

Entry into Force 1979) 628
15.11 Council of Europe: Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms (Adopted 1950, Entry into Force 1953) 629
15.12 United Nations: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(Adopted 1966, Entry into Force 1976) 634
15.13 United Nations: International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural
Rights (Adopted 1966, Entry into Force 1976) 640
15.14 Organization of American States: American Convention on Human Rights
(Adopted 1969, Entry into Force 1978) 645
15.15 United Nations: Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
Against Women (Adopted 1979, Entry into Force 1981) 652
15.16 United Nations: Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Adopted 1984, Entry into Force 1987) 658
15.17 United Nations: Convention on the Rights of the Child (Adopted 1989,
Entry into Force 1990) 660
15.18 Constitution of the Republic of South Africa: Chapter Two, Bill of Rights (1996) 665

16. International Human Rights Documents (Online Supplement)

16.1 The Magna Carta (1215)
16.2 The Habeas Corpus Act (1679)
16.3 The English Bill of Rights (1689)
16.4 The United States Declaration of Independence (1776)
16.5 The French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen (1789)
16.6 The Factory Health Act (1802)
16.7 First Reform Bill (for the Expansion of Universal Suffrage, 1832)
16.8 Factory Act (1833)
16.9 Chartism, London Working Men’s Association: The People’s Charter (1838)
16.10 Chartism, London Working Men’s Association: The People’s Petition (1838)
16.11 The Ten Hour Act (1843)
16.12 Seneca Falls Convention: Declaration of Sentiments (1848)
16.13 General Act of the Berlin Conference on West Africa (Adopted 1885, Entry
into Force 1886)
16.14 Amsterdam International Socialist Congress: Resolution Against Colonialism (1904)
16.15 Vladimir Lenin: Declaration of the Rights of Working and Exploited Peoples (1918)
16.16 The Covenant of the League of Nations (1919), Articles 1–​26
16.17 International Labour Organization: The ILO Charter (1919)
16.18 Polish Minority Treaty (1919)
16.19 The League of Nations: Slavery Convention (Adopted 1926, Entry into Force 1927,
Amended by the United Nations 1953, Entry into Force 1955)
16.20 Constitution (Fundamental Law) of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1936)
16.21 Franklin D. Roosevelt: “The Four Freedoms” (1941)
16.22 United Nations: Charter of the United Nations (1945)
16.23 United Nations: Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (Adopted
1948, Entry into Force 1951)
16.24 United Nations: Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)
Detailed Table of Contents xix

16.25 Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (Adopted 1949,
Entry into Force 1951)
16.26 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms (Adopted 1950, Entry into Force 1953)
16.27 United Nations: Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (1951)
16.28 The European Social Charter (Adopted 1961, Entry into Force 1965)
16.29 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
(Adopted 1965, Entry into Force 1969)
16.30 United Nations: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Adopted 1966,
Entry into Force 1976)
16.31 United Nations: International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(Adopted 1966, Entry into Force 1976)
16.32 United Nations: Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (1967)
16.33 Organization of American States: American Convention on Human Rights
(Adopted 1969, Entry into Force 1978)
16.34 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Convention 1949 (Protocol 1) (Adopted 1977,
Entry into Force, 1979)
16.35 Declaration of Alma Ata (1978)
16.36 United Nations: Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
Against Women (Adopted 1979, Entry into Force 1981)
16.37 African Banjul Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Adopted 1981, Entry into
Force 1986)
16.38 United Nations: Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Adopted 1984, Entry into Force 1987)
16.39 United Nations: Convention on the Rights of the Child (Adopted 1989, Entry
into Force 1990)
16.40 International Labour Organization: Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention
(Adopted 1989, Entry into Force 1991)
16.41 Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam (1990)
16.42 African Union: African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child
(Adopted 1990, Entry into Force 1999)
16.43 United Nations: International Convention on the Protection of the Rights
of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (Adopted 1990,
Entry into Force 2003)
16.44 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992)
16.45 United Nations: The Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, Chapters I–​III
(Fourth World Congress on Women, 1995)
16.46 The South African Bill of Rights, Constitution Chapter 2 (Adopted 1996, Entry into
Force 1997)
16.47 Council of Europe: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine (The Oviedo
Convention) (Adopted 1997, Entry into Force 1999)
16.48 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998), Preamble Parts 1–​3, 5
16.49 United Nations: The Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling,
Production and Transfer of Anti-​Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction
(Mine Ban Treaty) (Adopted 1997, Entry into Force 1999)
16.50 United Nations Millennium Declaration (2000)
xx Detailed Table of Contents

16.51 European Union: Charter of Fundamental Rights (2000)

16.52 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights: Protocol
to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons Especially Women
and Children (Adopted 2000, Entry into Force 2003)
16.53 United Nations: Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
(Adopted 2006, Entry in Force 2008), Preamble, Articles 1–​33
16.54 International Convention for the Protection of all People from Enforced
Disappearance (Adopted 2007, Entry into Force 2010)
16.55 United Nations: Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007)
16.56 Association of Southeast Asian Nations: ASEAN Human Rights Declaration (2012)
16.57 World Medical Association: Helsinki Declaration (2013)
16.58 United Nations: 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (2015)
16.59 Organization of American States: American Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous People (2016)
16.60 United Nations Human Rights Council: Protection Against Violence and
Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (2016)
16.61 United Nations: Global Compact for Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration (2018)
16.62 United Nations: Glasgow Climate Pact (2021)

Permission Acknowledgements 672

Index 677
PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION

“Human Rights law has failed to accomplish its utopian aspirations, and it ought to be abandoned,” wrote
Eric Posner in an article of Harper’s Magazine.1 In this spirit, Stephen Hopgood maintained in The Endtimes
of Human Rights:

We are living through the end times of the civilizing mission. The ineffectual International
Criminal Court … along with the failure in Syria of the Responsibility to Protect are the latest pieces of
evidence … of fatal structural defects in international humanism.2

Some go even further, arguing that the human rights movement not only failed to do enough, but that its
inaction after the Cold War made it complicit with a neoliberal order that created growing inequality.3
Times are grim for the advance of human rights, and the challenges of unregulated globalization, populism,
conflict, and a pandemic have led to bleak predictions of further setbacks. These dark times call instead
for a renewed and forceful reclamation of human rights. Rather than blaming or weakening the champions
of human rights movements, prioritizing one cluster of rights against another, elevating one region over
another, or one group against another, a collective and reflective understanding of the long historical trad-
ition of human rights and its manifold expressions is now urgent. In the face of real challenges and for-
midable enemies, this third edition of The Human Rights Reader, like the previous editions, is animated by
the need to provide defenders of human rights with an up-​to-​date understanding of this struggle’s evolving
tradition.
Until the publication of The Human Rights Reader: Major Speeches, Essays, and Documents from the
Bible to the Present (1997), there was no comprehensive canon on the history of human rights. That book
represented my first effort to convey that history by focusing on primary sources. I spent much of the
next seven years researching and writing The History of Human Rights: From Ancient Times to the Era of
Globalization (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004; 2nd edition 2008). As I worked on that book,
it became clear that the original Reader needed to be revised and expanded. A much more developed and
reorganized second edition of The Human Rights Reader appeared in 2007 (New York: Routledge).
The second edition drew its conceptual organization from my History of Human Rights. The first five parts
corresponded to five historical phases in the history of human rights, addressing critical questions: What

1 Eric Posner, “Against Human Rights,” Harper’s Magazine (October 31, 2014), 13–​16.
2 Stephen Hopgood, The Endtimes of Human Rights (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2013), 1.
3 See Samuel Moyn, Not Enough: Human Rights in an Unequal World (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2019).
xxii Preface to the Third Edition

are the ethical origins of modern human rights discourse (Part I)? Why did Europeans so strongly influence
the modern notion of human rights (Part II)? How has socialism made a lasting contribution to the legacy
of human rights (Part III)? Is self-​determination promoting or undermining the notion of universal human
rights (Part IV)? And how can human rights be promoted in the era of globalization (Part V)? Each part was
subdivided into three subsections. The first presented the arguments on behalf of human rights associated
with the historical phase under consideration; the second conveyed the corresponding debate over accept-
able ways to promote those human rights; and the third showed the views of contributors from that period
regarding the inclusiveness of human rights. Finally, the second edition gathered major historical legal
documents, organized to represent major themes in the modern legal history of human rights.
This third edition of The Human Rights Reader largely follows that same structure, but it has been sig-
nificantly revised and updated.

• Part I has been reorganized into three chapters: the Secular Tradition, Asian and African Religions
and Traditions, and the Monotheistic Religions. Each of these chapters is subdivided into sections
focusing on liberty, tolerance and codes of justice, social and economic justice, justice in war and
peace, and a recurring question: “justice for whom?” Modernized translations have replaced some
archaic texts, and new selections have been added.
• Part II, addressing human rights in the Enlightenment, has been expanded with additional con-
text, guiding questions, modern versions of some archaic texts, and new selections from Kant,
Voltaire, Paine, and Burke. Counterpoints were added where relevant to engage varying notions
of rights.
• Part III, on socialist human rights perspectives, has also been expanded with the addition of guiding
questions, revised selections, and counterpoints such as Charles Darwin versus John Stuart Mill.
New texts include selections from Sojourner Truth and August Bebel.
• Part IV provides broader context on the right to self-​determination, with the addition of guiding
questions and new texts from Giuseppe Mazzini and Ernest Renan.
• Part V of this edition has been significantly updated with the addition of contemporary readings and
guiding questions to address current and future human rights challenges.
• Chapter 11 highlights the redefinition of rights in the age of globalization and populism with
added readings on labor, development, and environmental rights.
• Chapter 12 focuses on ways to protect human rights including security rights, humanitarian
interventions, and global governance.
• Chapter 13 adds new selections with debates of the rights of citizens versus those of refugees and
immigrants, while providing documents on human trafficking.
• Chapter 14 addresses recent debates about the future of human rights as they relate to digital
surveillance, the pandemic, and bioengineering.
• Part VI contains an expanded selection of human rights declarations and conventions, tracing their
historical development and illustrating their continuing relevance.
• To provide historical and theoretical context to the selections in this edition, each of the six
parts is preceded by an editorial introduction and, in four of the parts, a separate selection
provides the reader with a general background on the history and themes represented in the
readings that follow.
• Discussion questions were added at the beginning of each part and for ­chapters 11–​14.
• In addition, notes have been added to direct readers to original sources. Titles without quotation
marks and usually preceded by the word “on” are mine. Throughout, British spelling and punctuation
has been changed to American style for the sake of consistency. Finally, I have removed archaic or
cumbersome references, occasionally adding my own editorial notes where needed for clarification.
Preface to the Third Edition xxiii

One can of course always challenge the choice of one selection over another, and some readers will inev-
itably conclude that particular sets of ideas, or regions of the world, should be favored over others. The
principal criteria guiding the selections of this new Human Rights Reader, beyond the manifest historical
importance of some of the readings, was their value in illustrating the main clusters of rights that comprise
the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), and the contribution the selections would provide
to critical human rights debates. My History of Human Rights remains the scholarly companion to this book,
and readers who wish to deepen their knowledge through thorough analyses of debates and historical
phases would do well to consult that volume.
newgenprepdf

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

My own historical journey through the creation of a new edition of The Human Rights Reader benefited from
many helpers. I want to thank Robert Pyne, in particular, for his careful and detailed help in editing mono-
theistic and ancient texts and for chasing down more legible texts; and overall for his invaluable research
and editing assistance throughout this project. This book greatly benefits from his insightful scholarship.
I would also like to thank Andrew O’Connor for his suggestions regarding Qur’anic texts and my research
assistants: Brianna Klipp, Shane Frazier, Aimee Vandervelde, and Kathryn Waidler for their conscientious
research and assistance with this project. I am grateful to Steve Bronner, Claus Offe, Manisha Desai, Ilene
Grable, and George De Martino for their conversations and suggestions, and for remaining great supporters
over the years. For their help with previous editions, I remain indebted to Steve Roach, Matt Dickhoff, Sasha
Breger, Rebecca Otis, and Joel Pruce for their industrious research help. David Michael Gillespie showed
exemplary diligence as a research assistant.
At Taylor & Francis, I would like first to express my gratitude to my editor Jennifer Knerr. Without
her encouragement at the beginning of this project, I would not have produced this new edition. I would
also like to thank Jacqueline Dorsey and Kelly Winter for guiding the project through its final stages, and
copyeditor Emily Boyd for her careful work. I don’t want to forget my previous editor Gerry Jaffe, copyeditor
Sheyanne Armstrong, and my very capable acquisition editors Robert Tempio and Michael Kerns.
Finally, my deepest thanks go to my shining stars, Adam and Elise, who never cease to amaze me,
and who carry the torch to the next generation; and to David Goldfischer, who lent great assistance to
this and early editions. I remain grateful to my loving mother, Rachele Bazini, and for the human rights
courage of my father, Edmond Ishay. Through the determination and decency they carried with them as
refugees and immigrants across three continents, they showed me the path that made all the difference.
This book is dedicated to my late father and to the generations of fighters for human rights that preceded
and followed him.
INTRODUCTION
Human Rights: Historical and Contemporary Controversies1
Micheline R. Ishay

We stand today at the threshold of a great event both in the life of the United Nations and in the life
of mankind, that is, the approval by the General Assembly of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights. This declaration may well become the international Magna Carta of all men everywhere.
We hope its proclamation by the General Assembly will be an event comparable to the proclam-
ation of the Declaration of the Rights of Man by the French people in 1789, the adoption of the
Bill of Rights by the people of the United States, and the adoption of comparable declarations at
different times in other countries.
—​Eleanor Roosevelt, 1948

The spirit of human rights has been transmitted consciously and unconsciously from one generation to
another, carrying the scars of its tumultuous past. Today, invoking the United Nations (U.N.) Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, one may
think of human rights as universal, inalienable, and indivisible, as rights shared equally by everyone
regardless of sex, race, nationality, or economic background. Yet conflicting political traditions across
centuries have elaborated different visions of human rights rooted in past social struggles.
Eleanor Roosevelt, however, was resolute in her efforts to overcome ideological and philosoph-
ical tensions among the eighteen delegates who composed the first U.N. Human Rights Commission,
over which she presided. Indefatigable, she mediated many disputes that ultimately led to the drafters’
agreement on the central tenets of human rights. Comparing those rights to the portico of a temple,
René Cassin, one of the most influential drafters, divided the twenty-​seven articles of the Declaration
among four pillars. The four pillars supported the roof of the portico (articles 28 to 30), which stipulated
the conditions under which the rights of individuals could be realized within society and the state. The
first two articles of the declaration are represented by the courtyard steps of the portico and stand
for human dignity, shared by all individuals regardless of their religion, creed, ethnicity, or sex. The first
pillar represents articles 3 to 11 and covers the rights of individuals, notably the right to life, liberty,
and security. The second pillar, encompassing articles 12 to 17 of the Declaration, invokes civil and

1 This introduction is a broader and altered version of my previous article, “What Are Human Rights? Six
Historical Controversies,” Journal of Human Rights, Vol. 3, No. 3 (September 2004), 359–​371 and from the
version in the second edition of this Human Rights Reader.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003121404-1
2 Introduction

property rights; the third, delineated in articles 18 to 21, stands for political and social rights; and the
fourth (articles 22 to 27) focuses on economic, social, and cultural rights.2
Drawing from the rallying cry of the French Revolution, Cassin identified these four pillars as “dig-
nity, liberty, equality, and fraternity,” corresponding to the successive generations of rights. It is worth
noting that while these four clusters of rights do not correspond precisely to the historical chronology
of emergent visions (or generations) of human rights, they serve as a useful historical reference for this
reader. For instance, with some thematic adjustment consistent with history, one can associate the
concept of dignity with monotheistic and nonmonotheistic religions; the preponderance of (civil) liberty
arguments with the Enlightenment legacy; the fight for greater economic and political equality with the
socialist and labor movements of the industrial revolution; and fraternity with the notions of group and
cultural rights identified with anti-​imperialist movements in nineteenth-​century Europe and within the
twentieth-​century colonized world.
Inspired by Cassin, what follows is a brief consideration of these five periods, each of which
can be associated with critical controversies regarding human rights. These controversies are
of more than merely historical interest; they underlie and animate contemporary political battles
over human rights and help structure this reader. The first controversy concerns the debate over
the origins of human rights (Part I). Did they emerge out of humanity’s great religions and ancient
secular traditions? Or did human rights arise from a fundamental challenge to the narrow worldviews
embraced by those traditions? The second controversy is over the validity of the claim that our
modern conception of rights, wherever in the world it may be voiced, is predominantly European in
origin (Part II). The third controversy concerns the often overlooked socialist contribution to human
rights –​a contribution obscured by Stalinism and Maoism (Part III). The fourth controversy, over
the right to self-​determination, originally invoked against imperialism, continues to provoke conflicts
between opposed groups fighting for sovereignty over the same territories (Part IV). Finally, the fifth
controversy considers whether globalization in its multifaceted economic and cultural forms is a
boon or a threat from a human rights perspective (Part V). This part also considers whether the new
security regime consolidated after September 11 is serving to promote or undermine human rights
in our age of globalization.

Part I: The Controversy Over the Origins of Human Rights

When embarking on a historical investigation of the origins of human rights, the first question one
confronts is: Where does that history begin? It is a politically charged question, as difficult to answer
as the one addressing the end of history. The question of the end of history has always implied the
triumph of one particular worldview over another. Thus, Friedrich Hegel’s vision of history ending with
the birth of the Prussian state celebrated the superiority of German liberal and cultural views of his time
over other beliefs; Karl Marx’s prediction that history would end with the withering away of the state
and the birth of a classless society emerged from a deepening struggle against the abuses of early
industrialization; and Francis Fukuyama’s declaration of the end of history exemplified liberal euphoria
in the immediate aftermath of the Soviet collapse.
Similarly, where one locates the beginning of a history tends to privilege a particular worldview; a
history of human rights can be perceived as a way either to defend a specific status quo or value system
against possible challengers, or to legitimize the claims of neglected agents of history. It is in this con-
text that one can understand the fight between religious creationists and evolutionary Darwinists in

2 For further elaboration, see Mary Ann Glendon, A World Made New (New York: Random House, 2001),
173–​192.
Introduction 3

American schools, and the clash between some defenders of the Western canon, on the one hand,
and some advocates of African and Third World studies, on the other. Identifying the origins of human
rights will inescapably invite a similar debate. For example, skeptics over the achievements of Western
civilization are correct to point out that current notions of morality cannot be associated solely with
European history.
Modern ethics is in fact indebted to a worldwide spectrum of both secular and religious traditions.
Thus, the concept of proportionate punishment and justice was first professed by the Hammurabi Code
of ancient Babylon. The Hebrew Bible celebrates the sanctity of life and reciprocal entitlements. The
Hindu and Buddhist religions offered the earliest defense of the ecosystem. Confucianism promoted
widespread education. The ancient Greeks and Romans endorsed natural laws and the capacity of
every individual to reason. Christianity and Islam encouraged human solidarity, just as both considered
the problem of moral conduct in wartime.
Yet the idea that religion is a source of our current human rights tradition remains contested by
some scholars, who regard religious edicts and commandments as the very antithesis of rights. Often
presented as injunctions against prescribed behaviors, many religious invocations of moral duties would
correspond closely to later secular conceptions of rights. For example, the Biblical injunction “thou shall
not kill” implies the right to secure one’s life, just as “thou shall not steal” implies a right to property.
At the same time, while all religions and secular traditions prior to the Enlightenment may have
shared basic views of a common good, no ancient religious or secular belief system regarded all individ-
uals as equal. From Hammurabi’s Code to the New Testament to the Koran, one can identify a common
disdain toward indentured servants (or slaves), women, and homosexuals –​as all were excluded from
equal social benefits. While emphasizing a universal moral embrace, all great civilizations have thus
tended to rationalize unequal entitlements for the weak or the “inferior.” Yet, while such commonalities
are noteworthy, they should not overshadow one of history’s most consequential realities: it has been
the influence of the West that has prevailed, including Western conceptions of universal rights.

Part II: The Controversy over the Liberal Legacy and the Enlightenment

If the civilizations and ethical contributions of China, India, and the Muslim world towered over those
of medieval Europe, is it equally true that the legacy of the European Enlightenment supersedes
other influences on our current understanding of human rights? The necessary conditions for the
Enlightenment, which combined to bring an end to the Middle Age in Europe, included the scientific
revolution, the rise of mercantilism, the launching of maritime explorations of the globe, the consoli-
dation of the nation-​state, and the emergence of a middle class. These developments stimulated the
expansion of Western power, even as they created propitious circumstances for the development of
modern conceptions of human rights. They ultimately shattered feudalism and delegitimized appeals
by kings to divine rights.
As Europe was plagued by religious wars pitting Catholics and Protestants in a struggle to
redefine religious and political structures, human rights visionaries like Hugo Grotius, Samuel
Pufendorf, Emmerich de Vattel, and René Descartes constructed a new secular language, affirming
a common humanity that transcended religious sectarianism. Over the next two centuries, revo-
lutionaries in England, America, and France would use a similar discourse to fight aristocratic
privileges or colonial authority, and to reorganize their societies based on human rights principles.
Armed with the scientific confidence of their era, they struggled for the right to life, for freedom of
religion and opinion, and for property rights, and ultimately broke the grip of monarchical regimes.
Notwithstanding the incontestable debt of modern conceptions of human rights to the European
Enlightenment, the positive legacy of that era remains widely contested. Many rightly argue that
4 Introduction

the Enlightenment did not fulfill its universal human rights promises. In the early nineteenth century,
slavery and the repression of indigenous peoples continued in the European colonies and in America.
Throughout the European-​dominated world (with the brief exception of revolutionary France), women
failed to achieve equal rights with men, propertyless men were denied the right to vote and other pol-
itical rights, children’s rights continued to be usurped, and the right to sexual preference was not even
considered. Given those shortcomings, critics have argued that the Enlightenment legacy of human
rights represented little more than an imperialist masquerade, designed to bend the rest of the world
to its will under the pretense of universality.
While the development of capitalism in Europe contributed to the circumstances necessary for the
development of a secular and universal language of human rights, the early European liberal agenda
inadvertently taught that very language to its challengers. Thus, the international languages of power
and resistance were simultaneously born in the cradle of the European Enlightenment. Not only did the
Enlightenment thinkers invent the language of human rights discourse, but they launched arguments
over the nature of human rights that continue to preoccupy us today.
Now as then, we find ourselves pondering the role of the state –​as both the guardian of basic
rights and the behemoth against which one’s rights need to be defended. During the Enlightenment
and still today, this dual allegiance to one’s state and to universal human rights has contributed to
the perpetuation of a double standard of moral behavior, in which various appeals to human rights
obligations remain subordinated to the “the national interest.” Just as the celebrated Declaration of
the Rights of Man and the Citizen (1789) was followed by Napoleon’s realpolitik during his reign over
the European continental system, Fukuyama’s end-​of-​history vision predicated on liberal rights has
confronted post–​September 11 claims that civil liberties must yield to the need for national security
and nationalist solidarity.
In addition, we are still embroiled in Enlightenment debates over whether a laissez-​faire approach
to economic activity is the best way to promote democratic institutions and global peace, as such early
advocates as Immanuel Kant and Thomas Paine were echoed more than two centuries later by thinkers
such as the political theorist Michael Doyle and the economist Milton Friedman. Further, we remain
engaged in the Enlightenment argument over when and how one may justly wage war (see Hugo Grotius,
Part II, Chapter 6). The current forms of these debates, one should add, are not merely a contemporary
variant of the early liberal tradition, but have been modified and enriched by the socialist contribution.

PART III: The Controversy Over the Socialist Contribution and the Industrial Age

The nineteenth-​century industrial revolution and the growth of the labor movement opened the gates of
freedom to previously marginalized individuals, who challenged the classical liberal economic concep-
tion of social justice. Yet, despite the important socialist contribution to the human rights discourse, the
human rights legacy of the socialist –​and especially the Marxist –​tradition is today widely dismissed.
Bearing in mind the atrocities that have been committed by communist regimes in the name of human
rights, the historical record still needs to show that the struggle for universal suffrage, social justice,
and worker’s rights –​principles endorsed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (articles 18 to
21) and by the two main 1966 international covenants on human rights (see Part VI, Chapter 15) –​was
strongly influenced by socialist thought.
Indeed, the Chartists in England –​early socialist precursors –​and later the European labor parties,
played a large role in the campaign for voting and social rights. Disenfranchised from the political pro-
cess, propertyless workers realized that without a political voice they would not be able to address the
widening economic gap between themselves and the rising industrial capitalists. In other words, the
historical struggle for universal suffrage was launched and largely waged by the socialist movement. As
Marx put it in the New York Daily Tribune of 1850: “The carrying of universal suffrage in England … [is]
Introduction 5

a far more socialistic measure than anything which has been honored with that name on the Continent”
(Karl Marx, on universal suffrage, Part III, Chapter 8).
While liberals retained their preoccupation with liberty, Chartists and socialists focused on
the troubling possibility that economic inequity could make liberty a hollow concept –​a belief that
resonated powerfully with the burgeoning class of urban workingmen and women. Highlighting this
inconsistency, the French socialist Louis Blanc declared (on the material basis for health and other
rights, Part III, Chapter 7):

But the poor man, you say, has the right to better his position? So! And what difference does it
make, if he has not the power to do so? What does the right to be cured matter to a sick man
whom no one is curing? Right considered abstractly is the mirage that has kept the people in
abused condition since 1789.… Let us say it then for once and for all: freedom consists, not only
in the RIGHTS that have been accorded, but also in the power given men to develop and exercise
their faculties, under the reign of justice and the safeguard of law.

In this sense, socialists became legitimate heirs of the Enlightenment, applying the universal
promises of “liberté, égalité, fraternité” to the political realities of the nineteenth century.
From the nineteenth century onward, radical and reformist socialists alike called for redefining the
liberal agenda to include increased economic equity, the right to trade unions, child welfare, universal
suffrage, the restriction of the workday, the right to education, and other social welfare rights. Most of
these principles were encapsulated in the U.N. Covenant on Social, Cultural, and Economic Rights. By
then, these key elements of the original socialist platform had long since been embraced as mainstream
tenets of liberalism. So long as arguments are framed in terms of universal rights, liberals and socialists
have thus shared a key premise, i.e., universalism, that could provide a basis for reasoned debate. In
that sense, both visions of rights have often been allied in opposition to the recurrent challenge posed
by adherents of cultural and national relativism.

Part IV: The Controversy over the Right to Self-​Determination and the Imperial Age

The liberal nationalist writings of Jonathan Gottlieb Fichte, Giuseppe Mazzini, John Stuart Mill, and
Theodore Herzl, among other social thinkers of the nineteenth century, foreshadowed the twentieth
century’s quest to codify the right to self-​determination. If generally invoked throughout nineteenth-​
century Europe against imperial domination or ethnic oppression, the right to a homeland would
become a central issue of twentieth-​century international affairs. Yet the intensifying assertion of
self-​determination as an inalienable human right, throughout the twentieth century, was imbued with
contradictions from the outset.
At the time of the ratification of the Covenant of the League of Nations (1919), advocates, such
as President Woodrow Wilson, failed to foresee that imperialist and fascist leaders would invoke the
notion of national rights to justify their expansionist policies, contributing to the horrors of World War II.
Few recognized, despite the warnings of Rosa Luxemburg, that such rights would be left far too vague
in international legal documents. Indeed, Article 1 of the two main human rights covenants, adopted by
the U.N. in 1966, stipulated that “all peoples have the right of self-​determination. By virtue of that right
they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic and cultural development.”
Written in such sweeping terms, that legal codification of self-​determination never specified
which type of political regime a newly independent state would establish. It never addressed the
possibility that legitimizing one group’s national aspirations would be invoked at the expense of
others and possibly create conflicts; it never resolved to what extent a prospective independent
state was economically viable, and thereby at least potentially a truly sovereign state; and it never
6 Introduction

considered how an economically nonviable new state might be doomed to permanent economic
dependency and neocolonial political subordination.
The search for appropriate standards for implementing self-​determination rights started before
World War I, as a nationalist tide swept Central and Eastern Europe, fragmenting the Ottoman and
Austro-​Hungarian Empires. With the ever more defiant ascendance of nationalism and the threat of
war on the eve of World War I, puncturing the universalist hopes of the second Socialist International,
socialists such as Rosa Luxemburg and Vladimir Lenin reflected on how to resolve the question of
self-​determination, addressing the need to establish standards for legitimizing this otherwise vacuous
claim. With the anticolonial struggle spreading through Asia and Africa to overthrow European imperial
domination in the mid-​twentieth century, a new set of leaders and thinkers including Mahatma Gandhi,
Sati’ al-​Husri, and Frantz Fanon emerged from the colonized world, building their claims on previous
rationales and quests for self-​determination. Because the right to self-​determination can result in
contending claims to the same territory, the meaning of this right remains far from obvious and needs
to be elaborated in light of historical and political precedents.

Part V: The Controversy Over Globalization’s and Populism’s Impact on Human Rights

There is clear evidence that globalization coincides with a widening gap between the rich and poor
within and between states, an association that has propelled anti-​Western sentiments, nationalist
backlashes, and war. At the same time, one can make the case that the plight of the poorest countries
can be attributed not to globalization but to their exclusion from the global marketplace. More inclusive
globalization –​from this point of view –​would not only reduce ethnic sectarianism, but also generate
new opportunities for human rights movements.
However one judges its overall benefits and adverse effects, globalization has affected
people in different ways, creating a plethora of ever more specific and conflicting human rights
demands. For instance, if the fight for labor rights has been reenergized in recent years, organized
labor continues to be divided internationally between workers from rich and poor countries, and
domestically between the interests of those who are unionized and those who are not. Similarly,
while the unprecedented ravaging of the global environment has prompted the emergence of a
global ecological movement, that movement is animated by different social and economic prior-
ities in the developed and the developing world. The abuses of a growing illegal immigrant labor
force and the hardships suffered by refugees fleeing from poverty, repression, or war have led to
calls for fairer immigration and refugee laws. At the same time, low-​skilled immigrants to richer
countries conflict with the interests of unemployed and low-​wage workers in the developed world,
pitting two needy communities against each other.
Undoubtedly, these conflicts over rights have intensified cultural and regional differences.
Indeed, if globalization erodes national distinctions, creating a more integrated world, as
internationalists from liberal or socialist persuasions have hoped (in different ways), efforts to pro-
tect national patrimonies against waves of immigrants, foreign imports, or the overall homogeniza-
tion of the world into universal consumerism have revived the appeal of cultural rights. Whereas
staunch internationalists fear a world of competing cultures, which would favor the triumph of the
most belligerent fundamentalists at the expense of women and other disenfranchised groups, cul-
tural rights proponents worry that tendentious “universal” moral perspectives of the most powerful
players will prevail over the cultural values of subordinated nations or groups.
That fight between internationalists and cultural relativists has intensified and has taken a tragic
turn since September 11, 2001. In many economically or culturally aggrieved areas of the world, the
Western maestros of globalization are seen as responsible for overlooking oppression and creeping
Introduction 7

poverty and must now face the inevitable “blowback.” These sentiments in turn have intensified Western
fear of the Muslim world, strengthened demagogic assertions of Western superiority, and made it pol-
itically viable to insist on adopting whatever means are necessary for security. Torn between their
internationalist aspirations and the immediate dangers of the post-​September 11 world, human rights
advocates have been debating the extent to which security rights can override civil and other human
rights, the legitimacy of humanitarian intervention to overthrow tyrants by force, and whether globaliza-
tion represents desirable interdependence or a mask for empire.
This fight further intensified with the spread of populism and the decline of democracy and the
international liberal order. This climate was fortuitous for further polarization between the rights of
migrant and refugee workers and those of citizens, as identity politics took an even more belligerent
turn with the advance of the pandemic. How can the international liberal order be reformed and a new
global compact be restored that strengthens the capacity of states to protect human rights? What do
new and unfolding developments –​from the ongoing Covid-​19 pandemic to the acceleration of dis-
ruptive technologies –​hold for the future of human rights? Those technological advances, including
the spread of digital platforms, artificial intelligence, and bioengineering, have moved to the center
stage of human rights debates and now demand our urgent attention. Some have argued that these
technologies have empowered human rights activism, while others see in these developments new
means to censor and curtail human rights violations.
The various schisms within the human rights community remind us why the main drafters of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights argued with such fervor for the indivisibility of human rights.
By doing so, they were challenging assertions that security rights prevail over civil rights, as has been
claimed in the “age of terror,” or that development rights justify civil and political repression, as argued
by some Asian political elites. In short, the drafters were trying to reduce the prospect that specific
rights could be opportunistically elaborated to advance the political agenda of this or that leader or
this or that movement, thereby undermining an all-​encompassing and universal perspective on human
rights.

Part VI: Human Rights and Legal Documents: A Brief Historical Narrative

Finally, Part VI of the Reader gathers major historical legal documents, organized to represent the
major themes of the modern legal history of human rights. This new edition of The Human Rights
Reader: Major Political Essays, Speeches, and Documents from Ancient Times to the Present is also
designed as a companion to my book, The History of Human Rights: From Ancient Times to the Era of
Globalization (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008). There, one can encounter the historical
context in which the contending visions of human rights –​portrayed in this Reader –​have emerged.
In sum, to help regain clarity of purpose amidst these theoretical, historical, and legal divisions,
this book invites its readers to acquaint themselves with the original sources of human rights discourse
and the historical debates that have shaped our current understandings of human rights. The central
themes developed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provide a useful path for navigating the
major historical speeches, polemical writings, and legal documents. Each of the first five parts of this
Reader corresponds to critical historical junctures in the development of human rights: The Origins:
Secular, Asian, and Monotheistic Traditions; The Legacy of Early Liberalism and the Enlightenment; The
Socialist Contribution and the Industrial Age; The Right to Self-​Determination and the Imperial Age;
and Human Rights in the Era of Globalization and Populism. Each of these parts is in turn divided into
three sections. The first presents the new human rights claims of the period under consideration, the
second reviews debates over acceptable ways to promote human rights, and the third addresses views
on the inclusiveness of human rights.
 PART I

THE ORIGINS
Secular, Asian, and Monotheistic Traditions

Introduction

Part I introduces readers to the preliminary work on human rights undertaken by the United Nations
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 1947. To assist the Human Rights
Commission drafting committee, UNESCO commissioned a questionnaire, designed by the French
Christian philosopher Jacques Maritain (1882–​1973), to study the Chinese, Islamic, Hindu, American,
and European peoples on human rights traditions and legal perspectives. Seventy responses came
back from notable leaders and social thinkers, including the pacifist leader of the Indian independ-
ence movement, Mahatma Gandhi, Italian philosopher and historian Benedetto Croce, Indian Muslim
poet and philosopher Hamayun Kabir, Indian social scientist S. V. Puntambekar, Chinese philosopher
Chung-​Shul Lo, and British historian and journalist E. H. Carr.
Maritain was a well-​noted political thinker and well suited to manage this ambitious project. He
had written extensively on religion and culture, the philosophy of science, epistemology, and political
theory. His moral philosophy, inspired by Aristotelian and Thomist principles of justice, maintained that
everyone could recognize that certain basic universal rights were, like natural rights, fundamental and
inalienable. The challenge he posed to various political leaders and social thinkers around the world
was “to imagine an agreement of minds between men who come from the four corners of the globe and
belong to different cultures and civilizations.” The responses to the UNESCO questionnaires revealed
a conception of universal ethics beyond the “narrow limits of the Western tradition and [that] its begin-
ning in the West as well as in the East coincides with the beginning of Philosophy” (see Section I.1).
Ancient traditions and religions and current international texts affirmed the importance of human dig-
nity (see I.3., Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights). However, it would take modern
human rights discourse to clarify the somewhat vague meanings of that concept. It would be erroneous
to suggest that the modern discourse of human rights can be reduced to the ethical legacy of the
ancients, but it is equally nonsensical to suggest that the modern concept of human rights was born
ex-​nihilo and only in the Western world, disregarding the long historical evolution of human rights both
in the West and in non-​Western countries. Further, canceling out this early tradition provides ammuni-
tion to viewpoints rooted in selective snippets of history. This section illuminates the ancient influence
on what would later become the modern understanding of human rights. Part I begins with some of

DOI: 10.4324/9781003121404-2
10 Part I: The Origins: Secular, Asian, and Monotheistic Traditions

the findings of the UNESCO survey, then builds on those important observations by documenting the
nature and scope of traditional sources of ethical thought that would lend their influence to our modern
understanding of human rights. Drawn from critical themes developed in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, these traditional contributions are divided into three chapters: The Secular Tradition
(Chapter 1), Asian and African Religions and Traditions (Chapter 2), and the Monotheistic Traditions
(Chapter 3). Each chapter will include four sections: “Liberty, Tolerance, and Codes of Justice,” “Social
and Economic Justice,” “Justice, War, and Peace,” and “Justice for Whom?” To assist the reader, titles
have been provided for most of the selections.
For additional historical and theoretical context, see Micheline Ishay, The History of Human
Rights: From Ancient Times to the Era of Globalization (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008),
Chapter 1.

Questions For Part I

1. To what extent is UNESCO’s 1947 “Grounds for an International Declaration of Human

Rights” inclusive of all cultures?
2. What values reflected in ancient laws ultimately contributed to later understandings of human
rights? What ethical arguments from ancient philosophers are most compelling? Why?
3. What differences do you observe between the Asian, African, and Western sources cited
here? How do they contribute to modern understandings of human rights?
4. What ethical similarities between monotheistic religions contribute to later notions of human
rights? Why would some interpreters regard religion as antithetical to universal human rights?
5. To what extent were the moral injunctions of these ancient standards understood to be uni-
versal? To what extent were they cultural or particular?
6. Which of the arguments expressed here for just war might still be used in our day?
7. What support do you find in these texts for civil and economic rights?
8. Why are some groups consistently marginalized in religious and secular tradition?

I.1 UNESCO: The Grounds for an that all peoples and all governments shall be made
International Declaration of Human aware that the authority and goodwill of the United
Rights (1947)1 Nations will be exercised with ever increasing
power to apply these means for the advancement
An international declaration of human rights must
of human happiness in the great society, it is fitting
be the expression of a faith to be maintained no
that its members solemnly proclaim a declaration
less than a program of actions to be carried out.
of rights to the civilized world. Such a declaration
It is a foundation for convictions universally shared
depends, however, not only on the authority by
by men however great the differences of their
which rights are safeguarded and advanced, but
circumstances and their manner of formulating
also on the common understanding which makes
human rights: it is an essential element in the con-
the proclamation feasible and the faith practicable.
stitutional structure of the United Nations. In order

1 Final result of the UNESCO inquiry on the theoretical bases of human rights, drafted by committee (Edward H. Carr,
Richard P. McKeon, Pierre Auger, Georges Friedmann, Harold J. Laski, Chung-​Shu Lo, and Luc Somerhausen) and
signed in Paris, July 1947, in “Human Rights: Comments and Interpretations: A Symposium edited by UNESCO,”
with an Introduction by Jacques Maritain (Paris, 1948), Appendix 2. [Link]
use​rupl​oad/​aporti​nou-​[Link]/​Human%20rig​hts%20c​omme​nts%20and%20inte​rpre​tati​[Link]​pres​[Link]
Part I: The Origins: Secular, Asian, and Monotheistic Traditions 11

The preparation of a Declaration of Human great principles in common. They believe that men
Rights faces fundamental problems concerning and women, all over the world, have the right to live
principles and interpretations as well as political and a life that is free from the haunting fear of poverty
diplomatic problems concerning agreement and and insecurity. They believe that they should have
drafting. For this reason the UNESCO Committee a more complete access to the heritage, in all its
on the Philosophic Principles of the Rights of aspects and dimensions, of the civilization so pain-
Man has undertaken, on the basis of a survey of fully built by human effort. They believe that science
the opinion of scholars in the various parts of the and the arts should combine to serve alike peace
world, an examination of the intellectual bases of a and the well-​being, spiritual as well as material, of
modern bill of rights, in the hope that such a study all men and women without discrimination of any
may prove useful to the Commission on Human kind. They believe that, given goodwill between
Rights of the Economic and Social Council both nations, the power is in their hands to advance the
in suggesting common grounds for agreement achievement of this well-​being more swiftly than in
and in explaining possible sources of differences. any previous age.
The UNESCO Committee is convinced that the It is this faith, in the opinion of the UNESCO
members of the United Nations share common Committee, which underlies the solemn obligation
convictions on which human rights depend, but it is of the United Nations to declare, not only to all
further convinced that those common convictions governments, but also to their peoples, the rights
are stated in terms of different philosophic which have now become the vital ends of human
principles and on the background of divergent pol- effort everywhere. These rights must no longer be
itical and economic systems. An examination of the confined to a few. They are claims which all men
grounds of a bill of rights should therefore serve to and women may legitimately make, in their search,
reveal, on the one hand, the common principles on not only to fulfill themselves at their best, but to be
which the declaration rests and to anticipate, on the so placed in life that they are capable, at their best,
other hand, some of the difficulties and differences of becoming in the highest sense citizens of the
of interpretation which might otherwise delay or various communities to which they belong and of
impede agreement concerning the fundamental the world community, and in those communities of
rights which enter into the declaration. seeking to respect the rights of others, just as they
The United Nations stands as the symbol to are resolute to protect their own.
all of victory over those who sought to achieve tyr- Despite the antiquity and the broad acceptance
anny through aggressive war. Since it was created to of the conception of the rights of man, and des-
maintain the peace of mankind and, as it maintains pite the long evolution of devices to protect some
peace, to make ever more full the lives of men and human rights by legal systems, the systematic proc-
women everywhere, it is fitting that it should record lamation of declarations of human rights is recent.
its faith in freedom and democracy and its deter- The history of the philosophic discussion of human
mination to safeguard their power to expand. That rights, of the dignity and brotherhood of man, and
faith in freedom and democracy is founded on the of his common citizenship in the great society is
faith in the inherent dignity of men and women. long: it extends beyond the narrow limits of the
The United Nations cannot succeed in the great Western tradition and its beginnings in the West as
purposes to which it is committed unless it so acts well as in the East coincide with the beginnings of
that this dignity is given increasing recognition, philosophy. The history of declarations of human
and unless steps are taken to create the conditions rights, on the other hand, is short and its beginnings
under which this dignity may be achieved more fully are to be found in the West in the British Bill of
and at constantly higher levels. Varied in cultures Rights and the American and French Declarations
and built upon different institutions, the members of Rights formulated in the seventeenth and eight-
of the United Nations have, nevertheless, certain eenth centuries, although the right of the people to
12 Part I: The Origins: Secular, Asian, and Monotheistic Traditions

revolt against political oppression was very early and technology presents problems as well as oppor-
recognized and established in China. The relation tunities. Perhaps the greatest problem involved in
of philosophic considerations to the declarations the basic ideas which underlie a declaration of
of human rights is suggested by the differences of human rights is found in the conflict of ideas which
these two histories. The philosophic temper of the have been used to relate the social responsibilities
times was an indispensable background and prep- entailed in the material and social developments
aration for each statement of human rights, but of the nineteenth century to the civil and political
despite the broad agreements among the resulting rights earlier enunciated. This conflict has even
statements there was no more agreement among shaken the simple form of the faith in the dignity
philosophers in the eighteenth than in the twen- of man which was based on the confidence in pro-
tieth century. Moreover, despite the faith in human gress and the advance of knowledge, for it is the
dignity and the formula for human happiness source of complexities in the interpretation of lib-
prepared by philosophers, an implementation was erty and equality and of their interrelations, as well
needed in social and political institutions to secure as of apparent contradictions among the funda-
human rights for men. An international declaration mental human rights. In like fashion, the problem
of human rights is involved in precisely the same of the implementation of human rights, new and
problems. The philosophies of our times, notwith- old, depends on the tacit or explicit resolution of
standing their divergencies, have deepened the faith basic philosophic problems, for the rights involve
in the dignity of man and have vastly expanded the assumptions concerning the relations not only of
formula for his happiness; but the differences of men to governments, but also of the relations of
philosophies have led to varied and even opposed groups of men to the state and of states to one
interpretations of fundamental rights and the prac- another, and in the complex of these interrelations
tical import of philosophies has become more the interdependence of rights and duties has been
marked. redefined.
The civil and political rights which were Notwithstanding these difficulties, the
formulated in the eighteenth century2 have since UNESCO Committee on the Philosophic
that time been incorporated into the constitution or Principles of the Rights of Man is convinced
the laws of almost every nation in the world. During that the perspectives open to men, both on the
the same period, the developments of technology planes of history and of philosophy, are wider and
and industrial advances have led to the formation richer than before. The deeper the re-​examination
of a conception of economic and social rights. of the bases of human rights that is made, the
The older civil and political rights have sometimes greater are the hopes that emerge as possible. The
been extended to embrace these new rights. In such Committee has therefore circulated to a select list
applications and other contexts of the newer rights, of the scholars of the world a series of questions
the meanings have frequently undergone modifi- concerning the changes of intellectual and his-
cation, and indeed the two have sometimes been torical circumstances between the classical dec-
thought to be in conflict. Finally, as science and larations of human rights which stem from the
technology have given men greater control over eighteenth century and the bill of rights made
nature, rights which were in the past reserved for possible by the state of ideas and the economic
the few have gradually been extended to the many potentials of the present. On the basis of that
and are now potentially open to all. This addition inquiry, it has set down briefly, first, what seem to it
of new rights and the changes in the significance of some of the significant consequences of the evo-
old rights in the context of developing knowledge lution of human rights and, second, a schematic

2 Editor: It is often forgotten that universal suffrage without property franchise was advocated in the nineteenth
century.
Part I: The Origins: Secular, Asian, and Monotheistic Traditions 13

formulation of basic rights which in its opinion can the defense of their rights only by participation
and should be vindicated for all men. The history direct or indirect in the governments by which they
and the schematism grew out of the discussions of are ruled. Political rights were therefore written
the Committee during its meetings in Paris from into instruments and institutions of government,
June 26th to July 2nd, but although they are based whereas civil rights, protected from interference by
on a study of the replies received to the question- governments by recourse to courts, were written
naire, they do not represent the options of all the into bills of rights. The right to political action
scholars who contributed to the symposium.… within a state discussed during this period, more-
The fundamental human rights which were over, in close conjunction with the right to rebellion
specified first and proclaimed widely at the or revolution by which men might set up a gov-
beginnings of the modern period were rights ernment in conformity with justice if the funda-
which regulated man’s relations to political mental principles of justice and the basic human
and social groups and which are therefore usu- rights are violated in such fashion as to permit no
ally referred to as Civil and Political Rights. They redress by recourse to peaceful means, and also in
had as purpose to protect man in actions which conjunction with the right to citizenship by which
do not derogate from the freedom or well-​being men may abandon their existing citizenships and
of others and to assign to him the exercise of assume the citizenship of any country which is
functions by which he might exert a proper influ- prepared to accept them as citizens. Finally, during
ence on the institutions and laws of the state. As the nineteenth century, the discussion of the right
a result of religious movements and the develop- to political action made increasingly clear that it is
ment of national states, a series of freedoms were a right which can be exercised wisely only in con-
formulated more and more precisely and insist- junction with the right to information by which the
ently from the Renaissance to the eighteenth cen- citizen may equip himself for the proper exercise
tury: to free man from unwarranted interference in of his political functions.
his thought and expression, the freedom of con- During the nineteenth century there were
science, worship, speech, assembly, association added to these rights another set of fundamental
and the press. During the seventeenth century, human rights which grew out of the recognition
each of these freedoms received eloquent defense that to live well and freely man must have at least
on the grounds, not only that they may be granted the means requisite for living and which was made
without danger to the peace of the state, but also increasingly practicable by the advances in tech-
that they may not be withheld without danger. nology and industrialization in making the means
Legal implementation for their protection was step of livelihood potentially accessible to all men.
by step provided by the institution of courts or the These have come to be called Economic and Social
extension of the jurisdiction of existing courts, Rights. They were first treated as subdivisions or
and these rights may, therefore, be associated with extensions of civil and political rights, but in the
respect to the means of securing them, with other course of the last hundred years it has become
personal rights and with the right to justice, by apparent that they are different in kind from the
which it was recognized that all men have an equal older rights and that they therefore require diffe-
right to seek justice by appeal to law and in that rence [in] implementation. In their earliest form
appeal to be protected from summary arrest, cruel they are associated with the right to property,
treatment and unjust punishment. As civil rights, which in the eighteenth century was conceived
moreover, they are closely related to the right to by many philosophers to be the basic human
political action by which the function of citizens right from which the others are derived, in such
in states is defined, and the growth of democratic a fashion that even liberty and the pursuit of
institutions during this period is largely an expres- happiness are often treated as property rights of
sion of the conviction men can achieve justice and man. The evolution of social and economic rights
14 Part I: The Origins: Secular, Asian, and Monotheistic Traditions

depended on the discussion of the relation of the I.2 Jacques Maritain: On Opposing
ownership and the use of property, of private and Ideologies and a Common List of Rights
common ownership, and of private rights and (UNESCO Symposium, 1948)3
public responsibility. Similarly, the right to edu-
Of the tasks assigned to the United Nations
cation was early conceived to belong to all men,
Organization, one of those which could and should
and the institution of public systems of education
most nearly affect the conscience of the peoples,
was designed to effect the realization of that right.
is the drawing up of an International Declaration
Likewise, the right to work was treated first as a
of Human Rights. The task was committed to the
freedom consequent on the right to property and
Economic and Social Council of the United Nations.
was only later implemented with legal provisions
UNESCO’s part was to consult philosophers and
for bargaining and arbitration concerning the
assemble their replies. This volume is a collection
conditions and the rewards of work. The right to
of the most significant texts thus gathered in the
protection of health usually started in the various
course of UNESCO’s inquiry into the philosophic
states from modest beginnings in pure food and
bases of human rights.…
drugs legislation under the provisions of police
It is related that at one of the meetings of a
power, and slowly extended to the provision of
UNESCO National Commission where Human
minimum medical and dietetic services, while
Rights were being discussed, someone expressed
the end of the nineteenth century and the begin-
astonishment that certain champions of violently
ning of the twentieth century saw the growth
opposed ideologies had agreed on a list of those
of various forms of social security designed to
rights. “Yes,” they said, “we agree about the rights
embody the right to maintenance during infancy,
but on condition that no one asks us why.” That
old age, sickness and other forms of incapacity,
“why” is where the argument begins.…
and involuntary unemployment. Finally, there are
Because … the goal of UNESCO is a practical
few to deny, in the retrospect of technological
goal, agreement between minds can be reached
advances, today, the right of all to share in the
spontaneously, not on the basis of common specu-
advancing gains of civilization and to have full
lative ideas, but on common practical ideas, not on
access to the enjoyment of cultural opportunities
the affirmation of one and the same conception of
and material improvements.
the world, of man and of knowledge, but upon the
Since the increased accessibility of economic
affirmation of a single body of beliefs for guidance
and social rights was achieved as a consequence of
in action. No doubt, this is little enough, but it is
the advances of science and since the ideals and
the last resort to intellectual agreement. It is, never-
accomplishments of an age find their expression in
theless, enough to enable a great task to be under-
art and literature, a new emphasis has been placed
taken, and it would do much to crystallize this body
on Rights of the Mind: on the right to inquiry,
of common practical convictions.…
expression and communication. Whether the pur-
We do know that, though the crisis of civiliza-
pose of communication be the expression of an
tion which rose with this century has offered to our
idea or an emotion, the furthering of an individual
gaze the gravest violations of Human Rights, yet
or social purpose, or the formulation of an objective
simultaneously it has led the public mind to a keener
and scientific truth, the right is grounded both in the
awareness of those rights, and Government propa-
purpose of developing to the full the potentialities
ganda to pay to them –​in words –​the most ringing
of men and in the social consequences of such
tributes. Pending something better, a Declaration
communications.
of Human Rights agreed by the nations would be

3 “Human Rights: Comments and Interpretations: A Symposium edited by UNESCO,” with an Introduction by
Jacques Maritain (Paris, 1948), I–​IX, [Link]
Human%20rig​hts%20c​omme​nts%20and%20inte​rpre​tati​[Link]​pres​[Link]
Part I: The Origins: Secular, Asian, and Monotheistic Traditions 15

a great thing in itself, a word of promise for the Article 5

downcast and oppressed throughout all lands, the No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel,
beginning of changes which the world requires, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
the first condition precedent for the later drafting of
a universal Charter of civilized life. Article 6
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere
I.3 United Nations: Universal Declaration as a person before the law.
of Human Rights (1948), Preamble, Articles
1, 3, 5–​12, 18–​19, 274 Article 7
All are equal before the law and are entitled without
Preamble
any discrimination to equal protection of the law.
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and All are entitled to equal protection against any dis-
of the equal and inalienable rights of all members crimination in violation of this Declaration and
of the human family is the foundation of freedom, against any incitement to such discrimination.
justice and peace in the world, whereas disregard
and contempt for human rights have resulted in bar- Article 8
barous acts which have outraged the conscience of Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the
mankind, and the advent of a world in which human competent national tribunals for acts violating the
beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and fundamental rights granted him by the constitution
freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed or by law.
as the highest aspiration of the common people,
whereas it is essential, if man is not to be com- Article 9
pelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, deten-
against tyranny and oppression, that human rights tion or exile.
should be protected by the rule of law, whereas it
is essential to promote the development of friendly Article 10
relations between nations, whereas the peoples of Everyone is entitled to full equality to a fair and
the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed public hearing by an independent and impartial
their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dig- tribunal, in the determination of his rights and
nity and worth of the human person and in the equal obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
rights of men and women and have determined to
promote social progress and better standards of life Article 11
in larger freedom…. 1. Everyone charged with a penal offense has
the right to be presumed innocent until
Article 1 proved guilty according to law in a public
All human beings are born free and equal in dig- trial at which he has had all the guarantees
nity and rights. They are endowed with reason and necessary for his defense.
conscience and should act toward one another in a 2. No one shall be held guilty of any penal
spirit of brotherhood. offense on account of any act or omission
which did not constitute a penal offense,
Article 3 under national or international law, at the
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the time when it was committed. Nor shall a
security of person. heavier penalty be imposed than the one

4 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (resolution 217 A (III), A/​RES/​3/​217 A), proclaimed by the United
Nations General Assembly in Paris on December 10, 1948.
16 Part I: The Origins: Secular, Asian, and Monotheistic Traditions

that was applicable at the time the penal private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching,
offense was committed. practice, worship and observance.

Article 12 Article 19
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interfer- Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and
ence with his privacy, family, home or correspond- expression; this right includes freedom to hold
ence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. opinions without interference and to seek, receive
Everyone has the right to the protection of the law and impart information and ideas through any
against such interference or attacks. media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 18 Article 27
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, con- 2. Everyone has the right freely to partici-
science and religion; this right includes freedom to pate in the cultural life of the community,
change his religion or belief, and freedom, either to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific
alone or in community with others and in public or advancement and its benefits.
1.
THE SECULAR TRADITION

From Babylon to the Greeks to the Roman Empire, one cannot overlook the influential contributions
of Hammurabi, Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero when considering the early origins of human rights. The
282 laws drafted by Hammurabi, king of Babylonia (1728–​1686 B.C.E.), marked the inception of the
conviction that some laws are so basic as to be beyond the reach of even the king to alter them. This
concept of the law as a check against the abuse of power is a feature of most modern legal systems.
The Code of Hammurabi (1700 B.C.E.) focused on various liberties and the overall integrity and trans-
parency of the judiciary system, assuming that guilt must be proven before an accused person could
be punished. Yet the most important contribution was illustrated by the Talion principle: an “eye for an
eye, tooth for a tooth,” or the idea that the nature of the punishment would be determined by the severity
of the offense (see Section 1.1).
The Persian king Cyrus’ generous treatment of nations previously conquered by the Babylonians
was noted both in the Hebrew Bible (2 Chr. 36; Ezra 1) and in Xenophon’s Cyropaedia, a fictionalized
account of the king’s benevolent education that was highly regarded by later thinkers from Machiavelli
to Jefferson. A more direct source regarding Cyrus was unearthed in 1879. Created after the capture
of Babylon in 539 B.C.E., the Cyrus Cylinder is the king’s own account of his achievements, including
his apparent tolerance for different religions (see Section 1.2).
In ancient Greece, the search for justice would be associated with the philosopher Plato (427/​
428–​348/​347 B.C.E.). Plato’s Republic (c. 360 B.C.E.) rests on the foundation of eternal ideas of
Truth or Forms that represent universals or absolutes. For Socrates, as reported by Plato, absolute
justice can be achieved only when individuals fulfill the tasks to which each is suited, in harmony
with the common good. Going about one’s own business cannot create harmonious cooperation and
mutual care, which are fundamental to the sound functioning of a just polity. Rousseau’s notion of the
“General Will,” and contemporary defenders of group rights, would later echo Socrates’ teaching (see
Section 1.3).
Like Plato, Aristotle (384–​322 B.C.E.) had a profound impact on the development of the notion of
justice and human rights. Aristotle’s Politics (c. 350 B.C.E.) shows how the concepts of justice, virtue,
and rights change in accordance with different kinds of constitutions and circumstances. Evaluating
the strengths and weaknesses of various democracies, oligarchies, and tyrannies, Aristotle concluded
that mixed constitutions —​backed by a strong middle class —​represent the fairest and most stable
form of governance. In other words, he maintained that virtue and justice best blossomed between
extremes. Aristotle sought to discuss the condition of a perfect state within the bounds of possibility,
so long as “virtue has external goods enough for the performance of good actions” (see Section 1.4).

DOI: 10.4324/9781003121404-3
18 Part I: The Origins: Secular, Asian, and Monotheistic Traditions

In a similar tradition, Roman statesman, lawyer, and scholar Marcus Tullius Cicero (106–​43 B.C.E.)
was also a believer in the common good and republican principles. Indeed, his De Legibus (The Laws,
52 B.C.E.) laid out the foundations of natural law, a concept closely related to modern conceptions of
human rights. The gods, he argued, entrusted individuals with the capacity to reason, to derive sub-
sistence from nature, and to unite peacefully with other fellow citizens. Despite distinctions of race,
religion, and opinion, individuals are bound together in unity through an understanding that “the prin-
ciple of right living is what makes men better.” The notion that everything is just by virtue of customs or
the laws of a nation is a foolish idea. “Would that be true,” asked Cicero, “even if these laws had been
enacted by tyrants?” Cicero appealed to universal laws that transcended unfair customs, and to the
idea that one should be “a citizen of the whole universe, as it were of a single city” (see Section 1.5).
For additional historical and theoretical context, see Micheline Ishay, The History of Human
Rights: From Ancient Times to the Era of Globalization (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008),
Chapter 1.

Liberty, Tolerance, and Codes of Justice shall remove him from his place on the bench of
judges in the assembly, and he shall not [again] sit in
judgment with the judges.
1.1 The Code of Hammurabi: On
Freedom of Speech and Civil Rights
§ 127
(c. 1700 b.c.e.)1
If a man has caused a finger to be pointed at a
§1 high-​priestess or a married lady and does not
If a man has accused a man and has charged him substantiate his slanderous comments, they shall
with man-​slaughter and has not substantiated his flog that man before the judges and shave half
charge, his accuser shall be put to death. his head.
If a man has come forward in a case to bear
§2 witness to a felony and then has not proved the
If a man has charged a man with sorcery and then statement that he has made; if that case is a capital
has not proved [it against] him, he who is charged one, that man shall be put to death.
with the sorcery shall go to the holy river; he If he has come forward to bear witness to [a
shall leap into the holy river and, if the holy river claim for] corn or money, he shall remain liable for
overwhelms him, his accuser shall take and keep his the penalty for that suit.
house; if the holy river and he come back safe, he
who has charged him with sorcery shall be put to Talion Law: “An Eye for an Eye” (Limitations
death; he who leapt into the holy river shall take and on Punishment)
keep the house of his accuser.2
§ 195
§5 If a son strikes his father, they shall cut off his
If a judge has tried a suit, caused a sealed tablet fore-​hand.
to be executed, [and having made a judgment]
thereafter varies his judgment, they shall convict §§ 196–​205
that judge of varying [his] judgment and he shall If a man has put out the eye of a free man, they
pay twelve-​fold the claim in that suit; then they shall put out his eye.

1 The Babylonian Laws, edited by G. R. Driver and John C. Miles (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955).
2 Here the question of guilt is determined through trial by ordeal, which was used for centuries, especially for
accusations of crimes allegedly committed in private, lacking witnesses. See Numbers 5:11–​31 for a biblical example.
Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:
reinforcements could get out of Greene's reach. He was, therefore,
no further advanced than Turkey Creek, twenty-five miles away,
when the news of the disaster at the Cowpens reached him. On the
18th, Leslie, with two battalions of the Guards under O'Hara and the
Hessian regiment of Bose, arrived. On the 19th the pursuit was
begun, and on the 24th Cornwallis reached the crossing of the Little
Catawba at Ramsour's Mill, only to learn that Morgan had crossed at
the same place two days before. In fact, that enterprising leader,
instead of being dazzled by the victory at the Cowpens, passed the
Broad River on the evening of the day of action, and, pursuing his
route toward the mountains, passed Ramsour's Mill on the 21st. With
the bulk of his detachment he then sought a junction with the main
body under Greene. Turning to the east, he crossed the Catawba at
Sherrald's Ford on the 23d, and took post on the eastern bank. At
this place he finally rid himself of his prisoners, sending them to
Virginia under an escort of militia.
There can be little doubt of the chagrin Cornwallis experienced at
the escape of Morgan. It prompted him to destroy what he thought
was useless baggage, and to make another attempt to overtake the
Americans. This burning of his train occupied two days, and,
necessary as it may have seemed, the consequent lack of supplies
led to the fearful suffering of his army after Guilford, and made his
retreat to Wilmington a necessity. It was his first grave error in his
struggle with Greene. On the 27th he put his troops in motion for the
Catawba, but before he reached the fords a sudden rise of the river
made the crossing an impossibility, and gave Morgan two days'
respite. The delay was still more important in giving Greene time to
reach the post of danger and take command of the detachment. The
news of the victory at Cowpens had not reached the camp at the
Cheraws until the 25th. Instantly divining the course that Cornwallis
would pursue, Greene sent an express to Lee, who, as soon as he
had joined, had been dispatched to coöperate with Marion in an
attack on Georgetown, next to Charleston then the most important
seaport in South Carolina. The attack failed for some reason that is
not quite apparent; but Lee brought off his troops in safety, and
rejoined Greene in time to render most important service. On the
29th, the main army, under command of General Huger, left the
camp for Salisbury, where Greene hoped to be able to concentrate
his entire force. On the 31st the Catawba began to subside. Putting
their troops in motion, Greene and Morgan directed their steps
toward Salisbury, where they arrived on February 2d. The Yadkin was
crossed in safety the next day, though rising rapidly all the time;
then sending orders to Huger to join him at Guilford Court-House,
and not at Salisbury as formerly ordered, Greene once more
breathed freely.
On the afternoon of the 1st, Cornwallis had also put his troops in
motion. His design was to make a feint of crossing at Beattie's Ford
while with the Guards he should pass the river at the less known
Cowan's Ford. By some means, Davidson, who commanded the
militia in that region, became cognizant of the design, and stationed
himself at Cowan's with about four hundred men, where he expected
to hold Cornwallis in check long enough to be of real service to the
retiring Americans.
Shortly before daybreak Cornwallis reached the river, and saw the
watch-fires on the opposite bank. Without a moment's hesitation the
Guards rushed into the rapid stream. When about halfway across
they were discovered, and a fire was opened upon them by the
militia. But now occurred one of those accidents that so often in war
defeat the best-laid plans. The ford, turning in mid-stream at an
angle with the direct line, ran under a bank where the militia were
waiting for the British; but when they arrived at the turning-point,
instead of inclining to the right, the Guards—their guide having
deserted through fear—kept straight on, and gained the bank with a
loss of only sixty in killed, wounded, and missing. The militia retired,
and although Tarleton was sent after them, they made good their
retreat with a loss which would have been trifling but for a mortal
wound under which the gallant Davidson fell. There were many hair-
breadth escapes during this splendid charge. Cornwallis's horse was
shot under him, but reached the bank before he fell. Leslie was
carried down stream, and O'Hara's horse rolled over with his rider
while in the water.
Pushing on with all speed possible in the wretched condition of
the roads, Cornwallis's van, under O'Hara, reached the Yadkin at the
Trading Ford a few hours after the Americans had crossed; but
O'Hara, though he missed the soldiers, captured a train of wagons
belonging to the country people who were flying with the army. Here
again the forces of nature came to the assistance of the Americans,
for the Yadkin rose so rapidly that it could not be forded, and Greene
had carefully secured all the boats on the eastern bank.
Cornwallis now gave up all idea of preventing the union of the
two wings of the opposing army, which, indeed, was effected soon
after at Martinsville, near Guilford. The British commander decided to
place himself between his opponents and the fords of the Dan,
hoping thereby to prevent the Americans taking refuge in Virginia.
Accordingly, on the 7th he crossed the Yadkin at the Shallow Ford. It
was now a serious question with Greene to escape the new danger.
The militia failing to come to his aid, he was obliged to protect his
Continentals by a flight into Virginia. He determined to cross the Dan
at Irwin's Ferry, and sent orders to have boats ready at that point.
On the 10th the march was renewed. The light troops, united in one
division, were placed under the command of O. H. Williams, with
orders to delay the enemy as much as possible. By rapid marching
the main army reached Irwin's Ferry and crossed on the 13th and
14th, before Williams and the rear-guard came in sight. The
experience of this light division has been well told by Lee, whose
Legion first measured sabres with Tarleton's men on the 12th. From
that time the rear of the Americans and the advance of O'Hara were
almost constantly in sight of each other. At every crossing or other
suitable place Williams would draw his men out and thus compel the
British to deploy; then, his object being accomplished, and the
British delayed for a few minutes, the march would be resumed, and
the two armies would soon be marching as one again. Cornwallis,
conscious finally that his prey had escaped, turned back to
Hillsborough, and, erecting the Royal Standard, called upon all loyal
North Carolinians to rally to the aid of their royal master.
On the 18th, only four days after his escape, recruits had come in
so rapidly that Greene detached Lee across the Dan to seek
information, and to show the Tories that the Americans were by no
means beaten. Lee had, in addition to his legion, two companies of
the Maryland line. He was joined on the southern side of the river by
Pickens with a considerable body of Carolina militia.
On the 23d Greene himself crossed the Dan with the main army,
and sought the difficult country on the head-waters of the Haw, as
the Cape Fear River is called in its upper course. Here again, as
during the retreat, the light troops were put into the hands of
Williams. The two divisions manœuvred with such precision that
Cornwallis was held at arm's length, while militia and Continentals
came into the American camp from all directions. The American
commander saw that the time had now come to give way no more.
He stationed himself on a hillside near Guilford, and awaited the
approach of the British. The position which had attracted his
attention during the retreat possessed a combination of rising
ground, cleared spaces, and woods which could hardly be surpassed
for the irregular formation that Greene, following the example set by
Morgan at the Cowpens, deemed best suited to his troops.
To Cornwallis, the presence of Greene had been most disastrous.
Strategy had failed to annihilate his opponent, and the offered battle,
even on ground of the American general's own selection, was
welcome to the British commander; and on the morning of the 15th
of March, 1781, the trial came.
In his front line Greene put the North Carolina militia, their flanks
resting in the woods, the centre being protected in some measure by
a rail fence. Three hundred yards behind were posted the Virginia
militia under Stevens and Lawson. Though militia in name, some of
those under Stevens were veterans in reality. But, taught by his
bitter experience at Camden, Stevens posted riflemen behind his
line, with orders to shoot any who should run. The Virginians were
entirely in the woods. Three to four hundred yards behind them, on
the brow of a declivity, with open fields in their front, were the
regulars. On the right was the Virginia brigade under Huger. Then,
after an interval for the artillery under Singleton, came the Maryland
brigade, commanded by Williams. The first regiment was led by
Gunby, with Howard as lieutenant-colonel. This was the regiment
which had aroused universal admiration by its splendid conduct at
Camden and its wonderful subordination at the Cowpens, when a
gallant charge converted a bloody check into a crushing disaster. The
second Maryland regiment, commanded by Ford, was new to the
service. It held the extreme left of the line. The regulars presented a
convex front. Lee with the "Legion" and Campbell's riflemen from the
backwoods acted as a corps of observation on the left, while
Washington, with the regular cavalry and the remnant of the
Delaware regiment under the heroic Kirkwood and Lynch's riflemen,
protected the right flank.
As soon as Cornwallis found himself in the presence of his enemy,
he deployed without reserves, except the British dragoons under
Tarleton. The "Hessian" regiment of Bose and the 71st under Leslie,
with the 1st battalion of the Guards in support, held the right; next
came the 23d and 33d regiments under Webster, with the Grenadiers
and the 2d battalion of the Guards under O'Hara in support; while
the extreme left was occupied by the light infantry of the Guards and
the Jägers. The artillery was on the road with Tarleton. As the line
moved forward it first encountered the North Carolinians, who fired a
volley, and perhaps more, before they broke. On the extreme right,
however, Lee with his light troops held the regiment of Bose and the
1st battalion of the Guards in check. But the defection of the North
Carolinians separated him from the rest of the army. The first line
being broken, Webster rushed upon the Virginians. But the woods
were so thick, and the defence of the Virginians so stout, that his
loss at this point was very considerable. At length, Stevens having
been wounded in the thigh, the Virginians retired and Webster
advanced upon the Continentals. On his right was Leslie with the
71st. When the advancing line reached the front of the 1st Maryland,
it was received with such a murderous fire that it stopped. The
Marylanders then advanced with the bayonet, and the British gave
way and retreated. It has been said by writers on both sides, that
had Greene thrown forward another regiment at this moment the
day would have been won. But this is by no means certain, as the
events of the next few minutes were to show. For Leslie with the
71st and O'Hara with the Guards now came up and assailed the 2d
Maryland with such fierceness that it broke and fled. But the 1st
Maryland was not far off. Wheeling into line, it opposed the Guards
until Washington charged and broke the British line. J. E. Howard—
now in command, Gunby having been dismounted—then followed
with the bayonet, and pressed the enemy so hard that re-formation
was for the moment impossible. Cornwallis, seeing that the flight
must be stopped at all hazards, ordered his artillery—posted on an
eminence in the centre of the field—to open on the Marylanders
through the ranks of his own men. In this way the pursuit was
checked, though at terrible loss to the British.
Greene's hopes were soon dashed. The shattered lines of the
enemy re-formed and returned to the conflict. Pressing heavily on
the Virginia regulars, and reinforced by the 1st battalion of the
Guards, which had disengaged itself from Lee, the whole American
line was endangered. Greene, who wished to run no chances, and
who probably did not know that Lee had once more connected
himself with the main line, ordered a retreat. The artillery, the horses
having been killed, was left on the ground, but otherwise the
withdrawal was easily and skilfully effected.
Such was the battle of Guilford. Numerically, Greene was
superior; but of good troops he had only a handful. When the two
leaders summed up their losses, it became evident that a decisive
blow had been struck at Cornwallis. The Americans lost seventy-nine
killed and one hundred and eighty-four wounded, together with one
thousand and forty-six missing. Of these last some may have been
wounded, but by far the greater part were militiamen, who had
returned to their homes. Cornwallis reported his own loss at ninety-
three killed, and four hundred and thirteen wounded, and twenty-six
missing—a most serious diminution of his force.
 Cornwallis in his proclamation and letters maintained, however,
that he had achieved a great triumph. It was his despatch to
Germain which occasioned the well-known assertion of Charles
James Fox that "another such victory would destroy the British
army." Even before the fight it had been almost a necessity to open
communications with the sea, as the army was suffering for want of
the stores that had been destroyed at Ramsour's Mill. Believing the
Cape Fear River navigable as far as Cross Creek, Cornwallis had sent
Major Craig to seize Wilmington and to open navigation as far as
possible, which he succeeded in doing to a point at a short distance
above Wilmington. Leaving his wounded at the New Garden Quaker
Meeting-house, near the battlefield, Cornwallis set out on the
morning of the 18th for Wilmington, arriving there on April 7, 1781.
Greene had pursued as soon as possible. But his ammunition, never
very abundant, was now almost exhausted. Besides, food was very
scarce in the district to be traversed, and Greene arrived at Ramsey's
Mill only to find that Cornwallis had built a bridge over Deep River at
that point and escaped, although Lee had pressed so hard on his
rear that the bridge could not be destroyed. Here the pursuit ended;
for the Virginia militia, now that their time was up, refused to serve
longer. Though Cornwallis escaped, and though Greene had lost one
of the best contested battles of the war, he had won the campaign.
He was free once more to turn his attention toward relieving South
Carolina of her military rulers. On April 6th, one day before
Cornwallis arrived at Wilmington, the southward march began, Lee
being detached to operate on the line of Rawdon's communications
with Charleston.
Lee soon joined Marion, who was skulking in swamps between
the Pedee and Santee, and, uniting forces, the two captured a
fortified depot of Watson, the British officer scouring this region, and
then endeavored to prevent his rejoining Rawdon.
On the 7th of April Greene had broken up from Ramsey's, and,
taking the direct road, had encamped on Hobkirk's Hill, to the north
of Camden, and about a mile and a half from the British works at
that place. As Rawdon did not come out from his intrenchments,
Greene on the 23d moved nearer. Anxious for Marion and Lee, and
desirous of supporting some artillery which he detached to them,
Greene moved to a position south of Camden. It appears, however,
that on the 23d or 24th he decided to fall back. Accordingly, on the
afternoon of the 24th he reëncamped on Hobkirk's Hill. During that
night a renegade drummer-boy informed Rawdon of the position and
number of the American force. He also said that Greene had neither
artillery nor trains near at hand, although both were on the march to
join him. It was a most propitious time to strike, and Rawdon
determined to attempt a surprise the next morning.
Making a considerable detour to the right, he struck the American
left almost unperceived. Greene had thrown out a strong picket in
that direction, but the superiority of the British was so great that
they drove in the guards and were upon the Americans before the
formation was complete. That the attack was not a disaster was due
to the prudence of Greene, who had encamped in order of battle.
Perceiving that Rawdon's line was very short, Greene ordered Ford
with the 2d Maryland to flank it on the right, and Campbell was told
to do the same on the left. Gunby with the 1st Maryland, and Hawes
with the Virginia regulars, were ordered to attack with the bayonet in
front, while Washington with the cavalry was to get into the rear and
take advantage of any opening that might offer. Unfortunately,
neither Ford nor Campbell were able to put in their men before
Rawdon, seeing his danger, brought up his reserves and extended
his flank. This was owing partly to Ford being struck down in the
beginning of the movement.
The defeat of Greene, however, was due to one of those
accidents against which no foresight can provide. It seems that as
the 1st Maryland was getting into position to charge, or perhaps as it
was moving forward, Beattie, the captain of one of the leading
companies, was shot. His men began firing, and fell into confusion.
Then Gunby, instead of pushing his rear companies forward, as
Greene always declared he should have done, ordered the regiment
to form on the rear companies. The men retiring were seized with a
panic, and the heroes of three battles broke. They were rallied soon
after, but it was then too late. The whole line was compromised, and
Greene ordered a retreat.
Though Greene was not surprised, the attack was most
unexpected. This was owing in a great measure to the woods in his
front, which permitted Rawdon to reach the picket line without
discovery. Even then Greene fully expected victory, and had his men
done their duty, as he had a perfect right to expect, this adventurous
attempt of the young British commander would have resulted in his
complete overthrow. Such was Greene's opinion, and such is the
opinion of most American writers.[1024] Retiring first to Sanders
Creek or Gum Swamp, the very spot Gates was trying to reach when
he met Cornwallis, and later to Rugeley's Mill, Greene brought up his
provisions and recruited the strength of his men. Though not beaten
at Hobkirk's Hill, Greene was greatly discouraged. Especially
distressing was the non-arrival of expected reinforcements. The
terms of service of his best men were expiring, and he could see no
source from which to draw recruits. His losses in the recent
engagement had not been so great as those of his opponent; but
Marion and Lee had been unable to prevent Watson from rejoining
his chief. Still Greene did not lose heart. As soon as his men had
recovered from fatigue he crossed the Wateree and posted himself at
Twenty-five-Mile Creek, on the road from Camden to Fishing Creek
and the Catawba settlements.
Watson reached Camden on May 7th. On the evening of the
same day Rawdon moved out from his fortifications, and, crossing
the Wateree, turned on Greene, intending to pass his flank and
attack him from the rear. But Greene was too vigilant, for, learning of
Rawdon's departure from Camden, he retired still higher up the river,
first to Sandy's Creek and later to Colonel's Creek, the latter being
nine miles from his former position. The position on the further bank
of Colonel's Creek was very favorable to the party attacked. The light
troops had been left in the front, as at Hobkirk's Hill. Coming upon
them at Sandy's Creek, Rawdon mistook them for the main body,
and their position seemed so strong that he did not feel willing to
risk an attack. It was impossible for him to remain longer in Camden
with Greene in such threatening attitude, especially as his line of
communication with Charleston was in the hands of Lee and Marion.
On the 10th, leaving his wounded who were unable to be moved at
Camden, Rawdon evacuated that place, and marching to the east of
the Santee, he crossed at Nelson's Ferry and took post at Monk's
Corner, not more than thirty miles from Charleston.
One of the motives which had
induced Rawdon to make this
precipitate retreat was the hope of
saving the garrison of Fort Motte, an
important post on the Congaree, near
its confluence with the Wateree. Lee
and Marion had appeared before the
place on the 8th. They had pushed the
siege with vigor, but were so destitute
of artillery and siege tools that it
seemed the siege might be prolonged
until the coming of Rawdon should RAWDON.
enforce its abandonment. Happily it
occurred to some one that the roof of From Doyle's Official Baronage,
ii. 151. The likeness by
Mrs. Motte's house, which stood in the Reynolds was painted in 1789,
middle of the inclosure, could be set on and is at Windsor Castle, and is
fire. It is related that Mrs. Motte herself engraved in the European
furnished the bow and arrows with Mag., June, 1791; it was also
engraved in mezzotint by John
which this was accomplished. At any
Jones. Cf. Hamilton's Engraved
rate, soon after Rawdon's watch-fires Works of Reynolds, pp. 56,
were seen in the distance the house 183, and J. C. Smith's Brit.
was on fire, the stockade untenable, Mezzotint Portraits, ii. 767. Cf.
and the garrison prisoners of war. Irving's Washington, 4o ed., iv.
Marion then separated from Lee, and, 331.—Ed.] There is an account
turning toward Charleston, compelled of Rawdon's career to date in
Pol. Mag., ii. 339, and Lossing
the enemy to look well to his has given a sketch of his life in
communications. Harper's Monthly, xlvii. 15. He
When Rawdon evacuated Camden is better known by his later title
he sent orders to the commander at of Marquis of Hastings, which
he bore as governor-general of
Fort Granby to retire to Charleston, and India. Cf. note to p. 49 of
directed Cruger, at Ninety-Six, to join Cornwallis Corresp. It is to be
noted that both he and his
Brown at Augusta. Neither of these chief, Cornwallis, showed a
orders reached its destination. As soon humanity in after life which did
as the post at Motte's had surrendered, not grace their careers in
Lee was ordered to Fort Granby. America.
Proceeding with his usual celerity, he
arrived before the place in the night of the 14th. His single piece of
artillery opened on the fort as soon as the morning fog had
dispersed. The garrison was completely taken by surprise. Time
being of the utmost importance to Lee, the besieged were promised
their baggage—in reality the property of plundered patriots—if they
would immediately surrender. The terms were accepted, and Lee
joined Pickens at Augusta.[1025]
Lee reached this place on the evening of the 21st of May. On his
way he had captured a small stockade, containing, under a strong
guard, valuable stores for the Indians. Augusta is, or rather was,
situated on the southern bank of the Savannah River. Its defences
consisted of a strong work, Fort Cornwallis, in the centre of the
town. It was garrisoned by a force of regulars under Lieutenant-
Colonel Brown, who had already once successfully defended the
place. Not far from Fort Cornwallis was a smaller work, named after
its defender Fort Grierson. While Lee watched the garrison of the
larger fort, Pickens and Clarke advanced to the attack of Fort
Grierson. Its defenders soon were compelled to leave their
stronghold for the main fort. Their attempt to reach it was a vain
one, as most of the garrison were captured or killed.[1026]
The attack on Fort Cornwallis was now pressed with vigor. As at
Fort Watson, use was here made of an expedient, already tried in
the campaign, of advancing a log pen or Mahem tower, on the top of
which was mounted the besiegers' only piece of artillery, whence it
was used with great effect. The defence was most gallant, the
garrison often sallying, and even attempting to blow up a house in
which a covering party of riflemen were to have been placed; but the
explosion was premature. Everything being ready for an assault, the
garrison capitulated after one of the most splendid defences of the
war. Lee then went to the assistance of Greene, who was now
conducting the siege of Ninety-Six.
The village of Ninety-Six was then situated near the Saluda River,
about twenty-five miles from Augusta. For many years a post had
been established there as a protection against the Indians. When the
British overran the State, it was selected as a proper position for one
of the exterior line of posts of which Camden was the most
important, though the possession of Augusta gave to the British the
command of upper Georgia. When Camden was evacuated, Ninety-
Six became useless and should have been abandoned; but the
messengers bearing Rawdon's orders to that effect were stopped by
the Americans. When, therefore, Greene arrived before the place, on
the 22d of May, he found it defended by Lieutenant-Colonel Cruger,
with about 500 men, mainly New York loyalists. A stockade protected
the rivulet which supplied the garrison with water, and their main
fort, the "Star", had sixteen salient and reëntering angles. Greene
was not strong enough completely to invest this fort, and he
contented himself with an attempt to carry it by regular approaches.
This was Greene's first siege, and, unfortunately, he had no
engineer of the requisite ability. Acting on the advice of Kosciusko,
ground was broken at a distance of seventy paces from the "Star."
The besieged soon sallied, destroyed the uncompleted works, and
retired with trifling loss, taking with them the intrenching tools. The
British were surprised at the temerity of the Americans in opening
their trenches so near. The sally taught Greene a lesson, for he next
opened a trench at a distance of four hundred paces, under the
protection of a ravine. The work was now pushed with vigor, and,
notwithstanding numerous sallies on the part of the garrison, by the
morning of June 18th the third parallel was completed. The
assailants were now within six feet of the ditch, while riflemen in a
Mahem tower kept the besieged from their guns during the day.
Note on Portrait of Kosciuszko.—After an engraving by Anton
Oleszeynski. Cf. Dr. Theodor Flathe's Geschichte der neuesten Zeit
(Berlin, 1887), i. p. 205. Cf. A. W. W. Evans's Memoir of Kosciusko,
privately printed for the Cincinnati Society, 1883. There was a
model made in wax from life by C. Andras, from which an
engraving was made by W. Sharp (W. S. Baker's William Sharp,
Engraver, Philad., 1875, p. 66).
There are some notes on Kosciusko by Gen. Armstrong in the
Sparks MSS. Cf. Greene's Hist. View, 297, and B. P. Poore's Index,
for his claims on the United States (p. 131).—Ed.
 Lee with the "Legion" had arrived from Augusta on the 3d, and
had conducted operations against the stockade covering the
watering-place with such vigor that it had been evacuated on the
17th. Four days more would have placed the garrison in the power of
the besiegers. But it was not so to be. Rawdon, in Charleston, had
received considerable reinforcements direct from Ireland, and early
in June he pushed forward through the heat, and eluded Sumter.
[1027] With Rawdon within a day's march, Greene must either take
the fort by storm or abandon the siege. He decided on an assault,—
probably more to satisfy the desires of his men than because he
thought it was the best thing to be done. On the 18th, at noon, the
attack was made in two columns, Greene not being willing to hazard
his whole force in a general storm. On the extreme right, Lee, with
"Legion" infantry and the remains of the gallant Delaware regiment,
directed his efforts against the stockaded fort, which had already
been abandoned, according to the British account of the siege. At all
events, Lee had no trouble in carrying out his part of the work. But
on the other flank the assault was not so successful. Lieutenant-
Colonel Campbell, with his Virginia regiment and with the 1st
Maryland, formed the storming column. They advanced with great
gallantry, but, though they gained the ditch, they could not effect a
lodgment on the parapet. They were driven back with considerable
loss by two parties of the besieged, which attacked them in the ditch
on both flanks in such a way that the artillery and riflemen in the
tower could not fire without injuring friend and foe alike. Greene
called off his men, and Rawdon being within a few miles, he retired
on the next morning to a safe place of retreat. In the end he
retreated as far as Timm's Ordinary, between the Broad and Catawba
rivers. Rawdon, his men worn down with their long march, could not
overtake him, and finally halting on the banks of the Enroree, he
turned back to Ninety-Six. That place being untenable with the
means at his disposal, he divided his men into two parties. With one
he regained the low country, resigning the command to Stuart on
account of ill-health.[1028] Gathering the Tories of the neighborhood,
Cruger escorted them to Charleston, while Greene led his army to
the High Hills of the Santee, where he passed the heats of the
summer.
At length, toward the end of August, Greene learned that Stuart
was proposing to establish a fortified post at a strong and healthful
position called Eutaw Springs. Greene determined to prevent this,
and descending from his camp he made a wide detour to get across
the river which separated the two armies; for although he was
distant from Stuart only sixteen miles as a bird flies, the most
practicable route was nearly seventy miles long. He crossed the
Wateree at Camden, and, marching parallel to the river, crossed its
affluent, the Congaree, at Howell's Ferry on the 28th and 29th.
Proceeding by slow and easy marches, he reached Burden's
plantation on the 7th of September. At that place Marion joined him,
and preparations were made for an advance on the enemy the next
day. Stuart at Eutaw seems to have been singularly negligent. He
sent out but one patrol, which was captured by Lee. He would have
been surprised had not two men deserted from the North Carolina
regiment and given him warning. As it was, he had barely time to
call in his foraging parties before Greene was upon him.
Stuart had with him about 2,300 men of all arms, Greene rather
less. The British commander ranged his men in one line, the right
being protected by Eutaw Creek, while the left was in the air, as the
military term is. Greene advanced in two lines, the militia, under
Marion, Pickens, and Malmady, being in the front. The right of the
second line was held by Sumner with the North Carolina regulars. In
the centre were the Virginia Continentals under Campbell, while on
the left J. E. Howard and Hardman led the two Maryland regiments.
To Lee, who had the advance during the march, was assigned the
protection of the right flank, Henderson with a South Carolina
brigade covering the left. The cavalry under Washington and the
brave remnant of the Delaware regiment brought up the rear, and
acted as a reserve.
Here at last there was no wavering among the militia, excepting
those from North Carolina, who nevertheless fired several rounds
before breaking. Under Marion and Pickens the rest fought
splendidly. It is said that some of them fired no less than seventeen
rounds before giving way; then Sumner advanced with the North
Carolina regulars. At length they, too, were forced back; but the
British following them with too great impetuosity, their own line
became deranged. This was the opportunity for the men of Maryland
and Virginia to retrieve the reputation lost at Guilford and Hobkirk's
Hill, and splendidly they responded to the call. Rushing forward,—the
Virginians alone disobeying orders so far as to fire,—the whole burst
upon the enemy in front and swept him from the field. Unfortunately,
their course led through the British camp, and they dispersed to
plunder the abandoned tents. Now it happened that when the British
fell back a party threw themselves into a strong brick house and an
adjoining picketed garden; thence they delivered a withering fire
upon the victors of a moment before. And more unfortunate still,
when the "Legion" was ordered to charge the retiring foe, Lee could
not be found, and the charge, being made without vigor, was a
failure. On the right, too, the British had not retreated: they still
occupied a flanking position, from which they could not be dislodged,
even though Washington and all but two of his officers were killed or
wounded in the attempt. All these things, coupled with the heat,
compelled Greene to sound the retreat. Leaving such of the
wounded as were within range of the brick house on the field, he
retired to his camp at Burdell's, seven miles distant, that being the
nearest point where a supply of good water could be obtained. Both
commanders claimed the victory. It would be not unfair, perhaps, to
call it a drawn battle. Neither party can be said to have retained
possession of the field, as Stuart retreated with great precipitation
from the vicinity on the night of the next day. Greene acknowledged
a loss in Continentals alone of 408 in killed and wounded. The loss in
militia has never been stated. It must have been considerable, as a
portion of the militia fought with great obstinacy. According to the
American accounts, the enemy lost in prisoners 500 men, including
70 wounded. But Stuart reported only 257 missing; his killed and
wounded he gives at 433.
 As soon as Greene ascertained the retreat of the enemy he
followed with all speed; but Marion and Lee were too weak to
prevent Stuart's receiving a reinforcement. Stuart finally halted at
Monk's Corner, while Greene passed the Santee at Nelson's Ferry and
retired to the High Hills.

Cornwallis at Wilmington had a difficult problem to solve. Should

he go south to the relief of Rawdon, or north to the conquest of
Virginia? Another campaign in North Carolina was plainly out of the
question. The distances were so great and the country was so
sparsely settled that it was a matter of great difficulty to move any
considerable force there, even when unopposed. The recent
campaign had fully demonstrated that a bold and enterprising leader
with a handful of trained troops could seriously impair the usefulness
of a royal army, even though he could not destroy it. The best base
of operations for another campaign in South Carolina was
Charleston, and the best way to get there was by water; but any
such movement looked too much like a retreat to be seriously
considered. Besides, Cornwallis did not believe that he could get to
Camden in time to relieve Rawdon, as the place was not provisioned
for a siege. On the other hand, a movement into Virginia offered
many advantages. There the army would always be within easy
march of the sea, and reinforcements could be brought from New
York or sent thither with great ease. Then, too, it seemed to
Cornwallis—and his supposition was probably correct—that with
Virginia, the great storehouse of the Southern armies, once in his
hands, the complete conquest of the Carolinas would be easy and
certain. So impressed was he with this idea that he endeavored to
induce Clinton to shift the headquarters of the army from the
Hudson to the Chesapeake; but Clinton had other views, and New
York remained the base of operations. Clinton even went further, and
avowed his dislike of the whole plan of operations; but Cornwallis
had the approval of Germain, and the northern movement was
undertaken.
 Clinton, however, had always looked with favor on desultory
expeditions to Virginia, as they drew the attention of that State to
her own defence, and therefore away from the defence of the
Carolinas. As early as the spring of 1779, he had sent Matthews and
Collier to the Chesapeake, with instructions to do as much damage
to the Americans as possible; but beyond plundering Portsmouth and
burning Suffolk they accomplished little, and returned to New York.
The next year Leslie was detached in the same direction to effect a
diversion in favor of Cornwallis's invasion of North Carolina. King's
Mountain not only put an end to that invasion, but compelled
Cornwallis to call Leslie to his aid. Leaving Portsmouth, which he had
fortified, Leslie sailed for Charleston, and reached the front in season
to take part in the campaign against Greene. On Leslie's withdrawal
Clinton sent another expedition to Virginia to destroy military stores
which had been collected for the supply of Greene. The command
this time was given to Arnold, though, to guard against a new
treason, dormant commissions were given to his chief officers,
Lieutenant-Colonels Dundas and Simcoe. Arnold penetrated to
Richmond without encountering much opposition. He destroyed
nearly everything of value at that place, and then endeavored to
seize some arms which had at one time been deposited at Westham.
Failing in this, he descended the river to Portsmouth. The militia had
now collected in considerable numbers. For this or for some other
reason, Arnold kept within the fortifications of that place.
About this time Rochambeau had sent a few vessels to annoy the
British in the Chesapeake; but, besides capturing the "Romulus",—a
44-gun ship,—they did little, and returned to Newport. Washington
now proposed that the two armies should unite in an attempt to
capture the traitor. To this end he detached Lafayette with the light
infantry,—a picked corps of about twelve hundred men from the New
England and New Jersey lines,—to act in unison with a force of the
same size which Rochambeau detached from his army. Lafayette, for
a time concealing his destination by a feigned attack on Staten
Island, reached Annapolis in safety. Leaving his troops there, to be
brought the rest of the way by the French fleet when it should
arrive, Lafayette proceeded to Suffolk. He found Muhlenberg, with
the militia, at that place, guarding the approaches to Portsmouth.
But the French were not fortunate, since their departure from
Newport was so long delayed that the fleet arrived off the Capes of
the Chesapeake only to find Arbuthnot guarding the entrance. In the
fight which followed, both sides claimed the victory. But all the
advantages of victory were on the side of the British, as Destouches'
ships were so badly cut up that he was obliged to return to Newport.
Success now being improbable, Lafayette returned to his troops, and
the march to the North was begun. At the Head of Elk new orders
were found, directing him to return to the South and place himself
under the orders of Greene. The cause of this radical change in plan
was the reinforcement of two thousand men under Phillips which
Clinton had sent to Virginia.
Phillips arrived on March 25, and took command. Towards the
end of April, the British to the number of twenty-five hundred landed
at City Point on the James River. Steuben, who was then at
Petersburg, took up a strong position at Blandford, where the enemy
found him on the morning of April 25. He was soon obliged to
retreat. The enemy then marched to Petersburg, and destroyed a
large amount of tobacco and other valuable property. The 27th saw
them at Osborn's, where they captured, after some show of
resistance, a fleet of merchant vessels.
When Phillips and Arnold arrived at Richmond they found that
Lafayette was before them. The young Frenchman had reached
Baltimore on the 17th of April. Purchasing on his own credit shoes
and clothes suited to a Virginia summer, he made a forced march,
and threw himself into Richmond twenty-four hours in advance of
the British. Not wishing to attack him in such a strong position,
Phillips retired down the river, followed by the Americans. On the 7th
of the next month (May, 1781), the British commander received
word from Cornwallis that he would join him at Petersburg. Suddenly
ascending the river, he reoccupied that town on the night of the 9th.
On the 13th Phillips died, and a week later Cornwallis arrived and
assumed command, Arnold returning to New York.
 Then followed a series of marches, the design of the British
commander being to cut Lafayette off from Wayne, who was
marching to his support. But Lafayette moved with too great celerity.
Early in June the desired junction of the Americans was made near
Raccoon Ford, on the Rapidan. Meantime, while Lafayette was out of
reach, Cornwallis sent out two expeditions. The first, under Simcoe,
operated against Steuben, at that time guarding the stores at the
Point of Fork. The Prussian veteran, mistaking Simcoe's detachment
for the main army, abandoned the stores and retired with great
precipitation. The second expedition, led by Tarleton, was designed
for the capture of the civil rulers of Virginia, but a Virginia Paul
Revere warned them of their danger in time, and they made good
their escape,—though it is said that Jefferson, then resting from the
fatigues of the session at Monticello, had but five minutes to spare.
But the raid, successful, or not, had no importance, although popular
writers are wont to dwell upon it.
With Wayne and his
Pennsylvanians, in addition to his
own Light Infantry, Lafayette felt
strong enough again to oppose
the enemy in the field. By a well-
executed movement through an
unknown and long-disused road,
the young marquis placed
himself between Cornwallis and
Albemarle Old Court House,
whither the stores had been
removed from Richmond.
Cornwallis, instead of attacking
him, retired down the James, STEUBEN.
Lafayette following at a distance From Du Simitière's Thirteen Portraits,
of about twenty miles. On the London, 1783. Cf. Harper's Mag., lxiii p.
25th of June the British were at 336, and the lives of Steuben.—Ed.
Williamsburg, the Americans
being not far off, at Bottom's Bridge. While at Williamsburg,
Cornwallis sent Simcoe to destroy some boats and stores which had
been collected on the Chickahominy. Lafayette, on his part, detached
Butler of the Pennsylvania line, with orders to attack Simcoe on his
return. A partial engagement ensued at Spencer's Ordinary, which
ended in Simcoe's being able to continue his retreat.
It can hardly be said that this retrograde movement on the part
of the British was due to the presence of Lafayette, although his
presence undoubtedly contributed toward making Cornwallis
desirous of getting into communication with Clinton. It is probable,
too, that Cornwallis hoped to be so strongly reinforced that the
conquest of the State during the coming autumn would be assured.
But Clinton, believing, from intercepted despatches, and from the
movements of the Americans, that Washington was meditating an
attack on New York, instead of complying with Cornwallis's desires,
ordered him to send a portion of his own troops to New York.
The latter, therefore, retired to
Portsmouth, where the embarkation could
be easily effected. To Lafayette, the
crossing of the James seemed to offer the
chance of at least picking off a rear guard;
but Cornwallis was attacked too soon,
owing in part to the impetuosity of Wayne,
and the onset came near being a disaster.
In the end, however, Wayne succeeded in
bringing off his men, though he lost two
pieces of artillery. Cornwallis, fearing an
ambuscade, did not push the pursuit. He
then made his way to Portsmouth
unmolested, while the Americans sought a
healthy summer camp on Malvern Hill. Just
at this moment, owing to the arrival of
reinforcements in New York, Clinton decided
to leave Cornwallis's
force intact.
Furthermore, he
 determined to establish a
After a sketch supposed to be by Fersen, aide of
Rochambeau, and following a reproduction givenpermanent base in the
in Balch's Les Français en Amérique, p. 174. Cf.
Irving's Washington, quarto ed., and E. M.
Chesapeake, and ordered
Cornwallis to fortify a
Stone's Our French Allies, p. 281; Harper's Mag.,
lxiii. 329.—Ed. place, mentioning Old
Point Comfort, where the
navy could be sheltered. He also authorized him to take possession
of some other post, as Yorktown, if he thought it necessary. Now
Cornwallis seems to have regarded the fortifying of Yorktown as the
only alternative, and the engineers and naval officers declaring Old
Point Comfort unsuitable for a naval station, he seized York and
Gloucester, and began the erection of the proper works. Clinton
always asserted that he had no intention of ordering anything of the
kind. But the weight of evidence seems to be in favor of Cornwallis.
At all events, he took possession of Yorktown. As soon as his
movements were discovered, Lafayette left his summer camp, and,
taking a strong position in the fork of the Pamunkey and Mattapony
rivers, sent out parties to watch the further movements of the
enemy, Wayne being ordered toward the south, as if to the
assistance of Greene. Such was the situation in Virginia when the
French came to the aid of the Americans, and began the operations
leading to the siege of Yorktown.
On the 1st and 2d of May, 1780, the Marquis of Rochambeau,
with about five thousand men, left the roadstead of Brest. The
transports were convoyed by a small fleet of seven ships of the line,
under the command of the Chevalier de Ternay. Their progress was
slow, and it was not until July 12th that the fleet anchored in
Newport harbor.[1029] Batteries were immediately erected on shore
to protect the shipping from the English fleet, which was under
Arbuthnot. This admiral, hastening from Charleston, in company with
Clinton, now bent his whole energy toward the destruction of the
French fleet. But the British commanders, always on bad terms,
quarrelled, and Washington threatening New York, while the New
England militia rallied to the defence of their newly arrived allies, the
attempt on Newport was abandoned. A naval blockade was kept up,
however, and the French army was neutralized by a few ships of war.
Thus they passed the remainder of 1780 and the first part of 1781.
On the 8th of May (1781) M. de Barras, successor to De Ternay,
who had died in the preceding year,[1030] arrived at Boston. He
brought news of the departure from Brest of a powerful fleet
commanded by M. de Grasse. This French admiral had with him a
small convoy with six hundred recruits for Rochambeau; but the bulk
of his fleet was destined primarily for the West Indies. De Grasse had
been directed, however, to come on the American coast in July or
August, relieve the fleet at Newport, and for a limited period act in
conjunction with the American and French armies. On May 21st a
conference between Washington and the French commanders was
held at Weathersfield, in Connecticut. It was there determined to
make a united attack upon New York, provided De Grasse could
coöperate. This was Washington's plan, though an expedition against
the British in Virginia seems even then to have been proposed. Later
a note from De Grasse arrived, asking where he should strike the
American coast. Rochambeau replied that it would be best for him to
look into the Chesapeake, and then, should no employment be found
there, to proceed to New York. Rochambeau also inclosed the
articles of the Weathersfield conference, hinting at the same time
that De Grasse must be his own judge as to the practicability of
crossing the New York bar with his ships. Finally he asked him to
borrow for three months the brigade under St. Simon, which was
destined to act in conjunction with the Spaniards.
On the 18th the advance of the French left Providence for the
Hudson. Washington at this time was encamped at Peekskill. Ten
days later, on June 28th, he determined to seize by surprise, if
possible, the forts on the northern end of New York Island. The night
of July 2d was selected for the enterprise, and the command of the
advance was given to Lincoln; Lauzun, with the French Legion,
making a forced march to his aid. But the scheme failed. The enemy
attacked Lincoln, and Lauzun reached the scene of conflict too late
to be of assistance. The troops were drawn off in safety, however,
and retired to Dobbs Ferry, where they were joined by the French
infantry on July 6th. While awaiting the arrival of the fleet, nothing
was attempted beyond a reconnoissance in force of the northern
defences of the island. It was this movement which induced Clinton
to send for the Virginia troops.
On August 14th a letter from De Grasse arrived which put a new
face on the whole war; for the French admiral announced that he
should sail for the Chesapeake, with a view to carry out the scheme
of Rochambeau for a united movement against Cornwallis. He added
that his stay on the American coast would be short, and that he
hoped the land forces would be ready to act with him.

FRENCH OFFICERS.

There was now nothing to be done but to abandon the cherished

project against New York, and to move all of the allied armies that
could be spared from the vicinity of New York to the Chesapeake.
Leaving Heath with four thousand men to garrison the forts on the
Hudson, and suitable parties to guard against an irruption from
Canada, Washington set out with the rest of the land forces for
Williamsburg, by the way of Philadelphia, Head of Elk, and the
Chesapeake. On the 19th the army crossed the Hudson at King's
Ferry, and moved as though to attack Staten Island. This feint was
so well managed that Clinton was completely deceived. On
September 2d the Americans marched through Philadelphia, the
French following on the 3d, 4th, and 5th. By the 8th the allied army
was again united at the Head of Elk. The news of the arrival of De
Grasse at the Capes of the Chesapeake had reached Washington on
the 5th, and had been communicated to the troops on the following
morning.[1031]
De Grasse, on his arrival at Lynnhaven Bay, just inside Cape
Henry, had found an aide of Lafayette's, and soon the marquis
arrived in person. As soon as possible the troops under St. Simon
were landed at Jamestown Island, and Wayne was recalled from his
southward march. These corps, with the light infantry and the
Virginia militia, took up a strong position at Williamsburg, not more
than twelve miles from Yorktown. Cornwallis reconnoitred the lines;
but they were too strong to be attacked except at great risk.
Confident in being relieved by Clinton and Graves, he retired to his
fortifications.
Had Rodney done his full duty he would have followed De Grasse
in his northward cruise. But pleading illness, he sent fourteen ships
of the line, under Hood, to the assistance of Graves, and sailed
himself for Europe.[1032] The event was most fortunate for the
American cause, as the control of the sea for a brief period passed
away from the British. It should be said that Rodney had written to
Graves, warning him of his danger; but through a fortunate accident
the letter never reached Graves, and the first he heard of the coming
of De Grasse was on the arrival of Hood. That admiral on August
25th had looked into the Chesapeake on his way north; but the
French had not yet arrived. Graves had already discovered that
Barras had sailed from Newport with a siege train and tools, and the
two admirals, conjecturing, therefore, that the destination of Barras
was the Chesapeake, determined to seek him there and destroy him
before the arrival of the main fleet. They reached Cape Henry on the
5th of September, and there they found, not Barras, as he had
purposely taken a long, roundabout route to avoid them, but De
Grasse. The English fleet numbered nineteen sail of the line, the
French twenty-four, but fifteen hundred men were absent, engaged
in landing the troops of St. Simon. Nevertheless, De Grasse slipped
his cables and stood out to sea. The ensuing action was indecisive,
but De Grasse accomplished his purpose, as the British were obliged
to seek New York to refit. On his arrival back at Lynnhaven Bay he
found Barras. There was now abundant transportation, and by the
26th of September the allied troops—Washington's, Rochambeau's,
Lafayette's, and St. Simon's—were concentrated at Williamsburg.
Two days later, on the 28th, the allied army marched to
Yorktown, and found Cornwallis occupying an intrenched camp
outside the immediate defences of the town. On the 29th the lines
were extended so as to envelop the place, the Americans taking the
right, with their right flank resting on Wormley Creek. Cornwallis,
seeing that he would be outflanked, withdrew to the inner defences,
and on the morning of the 30th the besiegers took possession of the
abandoned works.[1033]

COUNT DE GRASSE.
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

[Link]