Founding fathers and what they may have intended by their word choices. Good afternoon, everybody. So, for the last six weeks in this class, we have been examining the political thought of the imperrial crisis. That is, we have been looking at the debates between British Imperial officials and american waeched patriots. And that debate has in many ways come down to one issue,y is, broadly speaking, what is the british constitution and how does it define relations between the mother country and her colonies . And more specifically, even, the real question is, what is the political constitutional relationship between the power and the authority of the British Parliament and americas Colonial Legislatures . And over the course of about 12 years, between 1764 and 1776, the British Parliament passed a series of laws. In 1764, it began with the sugar act and then a year later, the stamp act and then in 1767 68 the townsend act and the tea act and the coercive acts and in 1775, the prohibitory act. But standing behind all of these acts, a british legislation was one overarching piece of legislation, which i think was the driving force behind all of these particular acts. And that was the declaratory act of 1766, which claimed that parliaments authority extended to the american colonies in all cases whatsoever. And that meant that parliament was not only supreme over the colonies, but, in fact, its power and its authority was absolutely supreme. Right . So, it could pass, it could pass taxes, which it had never done before. It could pass taxes in the american colonies for revenue. And the most famous, of course, of all of these pieces of british legislation was the stamp act of 1765, which put a tax on stamps paper which the colonists needed for almost all legal and commercial transactions. So what was the what was the specific constitutional issue . It was where to draw the jurisdictional boundary between the authority of parliament and the authority of the Colonial Legislatures. Now, with regard to the stamp act, the british argued that the stamp act was legal and, therefore, constitutional. The americans, by contrast, argued that the stamp act was unjust and, therefore, unconstitutional. And so over the course of the next 10 orb 11 years, British Imperial officials and american patriots began a kind of search for principles. All right. The principles first of the british constitution. Because they had competing understandings of the british constitution. But for the americans, the debate was not simply over the british constitution. The americans began starting in 1765, they began a search, a search for deeper moral principles. So when they argued that the stamp act was unjust and, therefore, constitutional, the real question is, how or in what way was the stamp act unjust . So over the course of the next 10 11 years, americans began the search for new standards, new principles of justice, of liberty, of a quality, of rights, of sovereignty, and over the course of these 10 or 11 years, they began to see that the pinsprinciples that had onc tied the mother country to the colonies no longer worked. And the americans with their newlydeveloping understanding of what the british constitution was, they began to see that it had to be grounded in absolute permanent universal principles. And that was what they searched for over the course of the years of the imperial crisis. Now, in many ways, as john adams argued, in a letter that he wrote to Thomas Jefferson in 1815, the real American Revolution was not about the war. In 1815, adams wrote, quote, what do we mean by the revolution . The war . That was no part of the revolution. It was only an effect and consequence of it. The revolution was in the minds of the people, and this was effected, from 1760 to 1775, in the course of 15 years before a drop of blood was shed at lexington. All right. Now, think about that. Adams is arguing that the real American Revolution was not military, it was not constitutional. It was not political. It was not economic. The real, the deepest cause, where well find the true meaning of the revolution was in this transformation that took place in the minds of the American People r. And then in 1782, thomas payne in a letter that he wrote to the abay reynold in france, he said this about the period leading up to the American Revolution. Quote our style and manner of thinking have undergone a revolution, more extraordinary than the Political Revolution of the country. We see with other eyes. We hear with other ears. And think other thoughts than those we formerly used. All right, again, think about the meaning of what payne is arguing here. Some kind of radical transformation took place in the way that the americans saw the world. The way that they thought about the most important and most fundamental concepts of justice. And that takes us now to the topic of todays lecture, which is the philosophy of the declaration of independence. Right. And so, thus far in this course, over the course of these last six weeks, we have been mostly looking at the political and constitutional principles and institutions that were developed by American Revolutionaries. But all of this comes to a head in 1776. As we talked about last class, right, the last link between the colonists and the mother country was through their relationship, the colonists relationship with the person of the king. But if january, 1776, with the publication of tom paynes common sense, that relationship is forever severed. So there is now intellectually, there is no lingering remnant allegiance or loyalty between the colonists and the mother country. Once they have severed their connection with the person of the king, psychologically, they are no longer members of the british empire. And so that then takes us straight to july 4th, 1776. Into the passage, which we talked about last week, or last class of the declaration of independence. So what was this declaration of independence . That was ratified on july 4th, 1776. Well, the first thing to know about it is that it is, indeed, a political and in some ways a diplomatic document. It was written, in part, for george, iii, it was written for european diplomats and financiers, and it was written, of course, for the American People. To organize, to help organize the American People politically. But the declaration of independence, of course, was a lot more than just a political document declaring the independence of these 13 colonies and the calling forth of new states. Because thats what they are now. They will no longer be colonies. They are states, independence, political units that now have the authority to create their own constitutions, their own governments and to forge alliances with foreign powers. But the declaration was more than that. In 1825, Thomas Jefferson was asked by henry lee what his object, what the purpose was if writing the declaration of information. And he wrote, quote this was the object of the declaration of independence. It was intended to be an expression of the american mind. Now, think about what that means, an expression of the american mind. So, on the one hand, what it clearly and obviously means is that the declaration is a summing up of all of the principles that the americans had been searching for during the years of the imperial crisis. Its a summing up. So when it says, we hold these truths to be selfevident, right, and then it lays out its selfevident truths. All right. This is these are the principles of the american mind. But as an expression of the american mind, the declaration was also laying the foundation for the new constitutions and for the new governments that were going to be created by the new states. And, in fact, what the declaration, of course, does, is it establishes the moral foundations not just of these new states, but of the United States of america. Right. And that is the great meaning of the declaration is that it provides the moral foundation for this new nation going forward. All right. Before we jump into the declaration and what were going to do if todays class, is we are going to systematically linebyline go through the declaration to elicit the deepest meaning of the declaration. Before we do that, though, let me mention something that we have talked about a little bit before the in this class which is the philosophical background of the declaration of independence. So in my view, the declaration is the embodiment, a fill sock cal principles of the enlightenment. All of the great enlightenment and principles are, in effect, embodied in the declaration of independence and the three great philosophers of the ep lightenment enlightenment were sir isaac newton in his great work, john locks essay concerning human understanding. And locks second treatis of government. What i will argue sui that the ideas, the fundamental core ideas of newton and locks essay are, in a sense, summed up embodied in the first paragraph of the declaration and the second paragraph of the declaration is it is, it is a it is an abstract, it is an abstract of the core basic principles that you will find in locks second treatise of government. All right. Now, so let me just sum up for you very quickly the core ideas, the Core Principles, of the enline lightenment enlightenment, which i think can be seen as having been transposed onto the declaration of independence. So there is, i think, an enlightenment project. There is we can say, we can identify a kind of comprehensive philosophy of this period known as the enlightenment. The 17th and 18th century enlightenment. Like all comprehensive systematic philosophies, it has four basic branches, it includes four basic branches of philosophies. First is met a physics. What is meta physics . Its the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of reality. Can i sum up for you in one word the enlightenments view of metaphysics. Nature. The Second Branch of philosophy is epistemology is the branch concerned with the nature of knowledge. And i can sum up the enlightenments view of epistemologys view, which is reason. The enlightenment also has an ethical theory. Ethics is that branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of human reaction and human relationships. And i think i can sum up in one word the enlighten. s view of ethicles. And that is rights. And then finally, the enlightenment has a view of politics and politics is that branch of philosophy concerned with social and political organization. If i had to sum up the enlightenments view of politics in one word, it would be constitutionalism. All right. Now the question is, how did jefferson and the committee of five who helped him draft the declaration of independence, how did they take those ideas and put them into the declaration or to put into question adversely, how can we see those ideas within the declaration of information . All right. So, what id like to do, now, is just start to systematically go through what, in effect, ladies and gentlemen, is just the first two sentences of the declaration . Sometimes people call the first paragraph and the second paragraph, but if you think about it, its really just two sentences. Two very long sentences. And were going to pars these sentences and try i to pull out of them sort of the deepest philosophic meaning. All right. So lets take the first sentence, the first paragraph of the declaration, which says, when in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of natures god entitle them a decent respect to the opinions of mankind, requires that they should decla irthe causes which impel them to the separation. Now, what im going to argue is that this first sentence or paragraph has built into it a met a physics metaphysics and an epistom ol thology that it dn from the enlightenment. Now, what do i mean by that . Well, lets just first identify for the core ideas of that first sentence. And that first sentence has a kind of overarching themematic structure to it. It has a purpose. Right . And whats the purpose of the first sentence . It is to declare to the world the quote causes which impel us to the separation. The causes which impel us to break from the mother country. And that first paragraph also has a principle or a standard and in this case, a moral standard. And that moral standard would be the laws of nature and of natures god. And that first paragraph or sentence, also, implies an action. And the action is the necessity to dissolve the connection between these two countries. Now, let me just say that in my view, in many ways, and ill talk about this at the end of class, the most interesting word for me of this first paragraph is the word necessary. When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands, et cetera, et cetera. The question is necessary . Why necessary . How is it necessary that the American People dissolve their connection to the mother country . To say that its necessary suggests that it must be, but in human i affairs, there is nothing that must be. Right. The fact of the matter is, in 1776 at least a third of all american colonials at that time were loyalists. Self identified loyalists. And a third hasnt made up their mind about whether they supported independence or not. So how is it on july 4th, 1776, the americans argue that it is now necessary, so the question is, why necessary . Like why not say when in the course of human events, its optional to dissolve our political bands . Why necessary . Im going to come back to that question at the end of the talk. Because i think the word necessary tells us actually something deeply poernt about the moral logic important about the moral logic and characters of those who signed the declaration of independence. All right. Now, let me break down what i think are the fill offic ideas, the enlightenment, philosophic ideas that are contained in that first paragraph. So the declaration as ive suggested, it has a metaphysics that it draws on from the enlightenment, summed up in one word, which is nature. We see that in the declaration when it talks about the laws of nature and of natures god. So, in the 17th and 18th centuries, natural, well, they were called at the time natural philosophers, what we today call scientists, natural scientists, they began to discover certain laws of nature. Scientific or physical laws of nature. And these laws of nature, in effect, organized the universe, kept it in harmony. Kept it as a system governed by certain core laws, like, for instance, the law of gravtation or newtons three laws of planetary motion. Right. But these laws of physical nature, they were absolute they were, they are absolute. They are universal. They apply throughout the whole universe. And they are permanent. And as a result of these discoveries, the discovery of these 69 liviscientific laws of nature, moral Police Officers late in the 17th and 18th centuries, began to look or tried to discover certain moral laws of nature. Right . And so when the declaration refers to the laws of nature and of natures gods, it is referring to moral laws of nature. Right. And if you remember, go back to one of the very first classes, when we read john adams diary, the young 21yearold john adams writing in his diary about the things he was learning as an under graduate at harvard college. Right. What he learned is that in the universe, right, according to newtons laws, that entities, things, physical things out there in nature, have an identity. And that identity is absolute. Right. And in addition to having identity, because it has identity, it is governed by certain laws of cause and effect. Right. And then the same adams argued is true for humaning a as well. Now, its a much more difficult leap to go from discovering scientific laws of nature to discovering human, moral laws of nature. But that was at the deepest philosophic levelful that was the quest. That was the search of 18th century moral philosophers, including the Founding Fathers. And we see in that first paragraph well, let me just im sorry, let me back up and also say the phrase in the declaration is the laws of god and of natures god. Now, its interesting it doesnt say the laws of nature and of god. It says natures god. So for most American Revolutionaries who were the grandchildren, the philosophic grandchildren of the enlightenment, they viewed natures god not as the same god of the old testament. Not a kind of omnipresent god who can change the laws of nature at will. But rather a god who was like a watch maker or a clock maker who set the universe in motion and then stepped back. And thats what i think is being referred to this with regard to natures god. Right. Then in the declaration. In that first, it talks about the causes which impel them to the separation. Right. So this is a kind of a view of causation. Right. So, in other words, to understand how and why there is this declaration of independence and separation, you have to understand the causes. There is a cause which leads to an effect. The effect is the declaration of independence and the little separation of the colonies from the mother country. But it has causes. Right . And in order to understand the action of the independence and separation, you have to understand the causes, which, of course, is a principle part of what the declaration does. In the second and the very long body of the second paragraph of the declaration, right . It lays out its charges against king george iii. Now, the first paragraph also has an epistomology and in the context of the enlightenment and americas founding father us, that means that its going to in some way praise and promote mans faculty of reason. And how does it do that in the first paragraph . Well, at the very end of that first paragraph, it refers to a decent respect to the opinions of mankind. In other words, in this declaration to the world, the americans, in other words, are speaking from one mind to another. Theyre speaking to the reason or the powers of reason of all people everywhere. They respect the opinions of mankind. They respect the idea that they can layout a case, an argument, appeal to the reason of people around the world and that those reasons can be understood. Right . And that why in the second paragraph, just before the charges are laid out against the king, the declaration says, quote, to prove this, this meaning the absolute des potism of george iii, the tyranny of george iii as stated in the declaration, to prove this tyranny let facts be submitted to a candid world. Right . The americans are making, they have essentially written an indictment against george iii and indirectly to the British Parliament as well. And it lays out the declaration lays out all the crime committed by george iii and the British Parliament. Right . And so, by laying out those facts, they are laying them out to people everywhere to determine whether the charges are, in fact, true or not true. This is why it says we are submitting it to a candid world. We are appealing to the minds, to the reasons, of people everywhere. All right. Lets now turn to the second paragraph, which is one at least whats often considered to be the second paragraph is really just one long sentence. And it says, we hold these truths to be selfevident. That all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their creator, with certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights governments are instituted among men deriveing their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it and to Institute New government laying its fundations on such powers in such form as to then shall seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness. Well, that is in my view without question the most famous and the singl singlemost important sentence ever written in American History and maybe even the single most important sentence in world history. That one sentence, that one very long sentence establishes the philosophic moral standard by which the colonists are going to judge the actions of king george iii and parliament and, in fact, what theyre really doing at a deeper level is laying out the principles, the moral standards by which all government everywhere should be judged. Now this very long complex sentence contains a whole universe of ideas and moral principles. And let me just say or repeat that this one sentence of the declaration, it is a summing up, it is a pray see i would argue of john laws second treatise of government. So all of the ideas contained in this one sentence sum up the core of the fundamental principles of locks treatise of government. So lets now begin to unpack the meaning of this complex sentence. It begins, we hold these truths to be selfevident. Now in many ways, i think this is the most important clause of the most important sentence of the most important document in American History. But its one thats often passed over, in part, its passed over i think just because its so simple and so elegant in its formulation that we just are kind of eyes reads over it and we want to get to the truths, themselves. But i think i think this first clause is critically importa important. We hold these truths to be selfevident. Now, most scholars of the declaration of independents, tend to focus on this notion of selfevident we hold these truths to be self ev department. What can that possibly mean to say the truths that follow are selfevident . This idea of selfevidency is a technical philosophical term the technical definition of self evidency is that in a proposition the subject and predicate have to be in agreement with each other. Which simply means that a self ev Department Truth is one or a self ev department proposition is one that is perception wally selfevident for anybody with eyes to see. Up is not down. Black is not white. These are perceptually selfevident truths. Surely, that cant be whateverson is referring to relative to the declaration . Because as well see the fur truths of the declaration are much, much more complex. Than being per september schuce to the viewer. I think actually the most important word in we hold these truths to be selfevident is truths. The word truths or truth. And why is it important . I think its certainly important for us now in the 21st century to try to understand what americas Founding Fathers meant by the concept truth. And i would argue that in many ways, its hard for us to understand what they meant by the concept truth, because in our world today, in our postmodern 21st century academic world, we have discarded the concept of truth. The oxford dictionary recently said that the word posttruth as in we live in a posttruth society was i believe its 2016 word of the year. So for us, we live in a posttruth world, apparently. But that was not true for americas Founding Fathers. They believe that the concept truth meant that there are, in fact, capital t truths which means truths that first and most importantly in terms of a definition connect to reality. A truth is a concept that has to connect in some fundamental objective way to reality. And these truths, the characteristics of the concept truth would be that they are absolute, certain, universal, and timeless. Right. So, in other words, to sum up, americas Founding Fathers did believe that there are moral truths that are not subjective, they dont change with the times or place, but they are objectively absolutely true in all places and all times. Right. Now, how do we get selfevident truths . How did the American People get self ev Department Truths . Because if its the case and i think it is partly, that the four truths as well see them are not self ev department, what did jefferson, what could he have possibly meant when he said we hold these truths to be selfevident. Well, so lets analyze this. First, who is the we in we hold these truths . We means first jefferson and the committee of five who were tasked with drafting the declaration, which included ben franklin, john adam, Roger Sherman and roger livington. So, the we means the committee of five. But it also means the 56 members of the continental congress. And then on top of the 56 members of the continental congress, it also means the American People. The declaration of information is speaking on behalf of we the people. We the people of the occupation of america. We hold these truths. But there is a problem. What does it moo tone say we hold these truths to be selfevident . All right. Some of these truths are pretty complex philosophic concepts, as we will see in a minute. And it did all americans come to see these truths all at the same time . Surely there is a difference in intellectual capacity, for instance, between say Thomas Jefferson or john adams, on the one hand, and an uneducated Hard Scrabble farmer living on the western frontier of massachusetts. Well, i think then the key word to unlock the meaning of selfevident truth is the word hold. We, we hold these truths. Well, what i think that means to hold is, in effect, to grassp. But to grasp is something that can take place overtime and by different people at different points if too many. So, we hold these truths, that is to say, we have identified or at least some great thinkers, philosophers have identified these truths and now we, the people, as a whole, we hold them as well. So i think this first claudette of the declaration means Something Like that. All right. Lets turn now to the truths, the declaration says we hold these truths to be selfevident. Well, what are these truths . Well, it turns out the declaration claims that there are four selfevident truths. Now, i can sum up the four selfevident truths each in a word. First, equality. Second, rates. Third, consent. And fourth, revolution. And we can also superimpose the last two component pieces of a systematic philosophy on the second sentence. That is to say, the second sentence of the declaration or what were calling the second paragraph has an ethics and a politics. Right, in the same way that the first paragraph had a met a physics and an epistomology. The ethics, the moral part of the four self ev Department Truths are, would be equality and rights. And the political principles of the four selfev Department Truths would be the principles of consent and revolution. All right. Lets drill down now and take a look at each one of the four selfevident truths. What do they actually mean . And, more particularly, how do they actually cash out . Right. These are not simply abstract floating ideas somewhere up in the stratosphere. These are actually truths identified by American Revolutionaries, not only as the standard by which they are judging the dep redays ago of gorge iii and the British Parliament, but these four truths are also going to serve as the foundation, the moral foundation, the moral Political Foundation of the constitutions and governments they are about to draft and they are going to provide a kind of ideal for the American People. An ideal that Many Americans still live by. All right. Lets will take the first selfevident truth. , which says, all men are created equal. Well, what could this possibly mean . Well, the first thing to note is that it says all men are created equal. It doesnt say some men, it doesnt say white, colonial americans. It says, all men are created equal. And virtually all of the bills of rights that followed the declaration of independence, the state bills of rights, likewise, said, all men are created equal. So what does that mean . But how does it cash out . All right. Well, if there is a problem. One might even say that there is a selfevident problem. L will wi with this idea of equality. In the 19th century, as this country was moving towards civil war, a congressman from indiana described the truths of the declaration of independence as selfevident lies and he was referring particularly to the equality truth. A selfevident lie. So who exactly does it mean . I mean, one could say, for instance, one could say, that equality is a chimeron. It doesnt really exist. Right . Just look out into the world. Look into the world in which we live here now today. Do we see do you see equality . Do i see equality right now as im sitting here standing here in this room looking at all of you . I dont see equality. I see differences. Oonld differences dont necessarily mean equality. I know for a fact in this room right now there is say tall and short, more particularly, there is strong and weak and there is fast and slow and surely there are difference, there are intellectual differences. Amongst the people sitting here in this room. I am confident there are differences and maybe inequalities in terms of basic talents and even virtue. So who does it mean to say all men are not created equal . How is that not a selfevident lie . Jefferson, himself, and john adams recognized arising tocracy among men, now a natural arising tocracy by definition is going to mean inequality. So why doesnt the declaration say all men are created unequal . Because that would be just as true as saying all men are equal. So we have the ask the question, what did jefferson mean by the idea, the principles of equality . Well, foreverson equality does not mean quantitative saneness. We are not all the same in terms of characteristics and qualities. Wear just not. I just watched this weekend Christian Coleman win the 100 meter yard dash championships. As much as i think i was as fast at his age Christian Coleman, the fact is i am not and i am not as strong, right, as the greatest weight listeria in the world. I am not as handsome as brad pitt. I am not as intelligent as einstein. So in terms of measure abable qualities we are not the same. I think foreverson quality means what i call qualitative saneness versus quantitative saneness. What i mean is that we all share certain qualities as human beings. There is what i call we have species equality. We are all members of the same species as defined by having two fundamental characteristics. Namely reason and free will. By virtue of us having reason and free will, we are all the same relative to dogs and horses, for instance. So who is equality foreverson and the Founding Fathers . Quality means it means we have an equal right to government because we have self owning individuals. Just as there are no natural rulers in the world there are no natural slaves. There is not a natural right to rule and there are no natural slaves. As jefferson once put it from a letter, quote, because sir isaac new tan was superior to others in understanding. He was not there for lord of the person and property of others. Closed quote. So equality then means means we have an equal right equality it should be an ad jective to rights equality means equal rights. Right. Now, onto the second selfev Department Truth, which i think is the core truth. It says they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty and and pursuit of heapness. Now, this truth i think too many of us take to be so obvious that we dont think of what it means. So, for instance, when i often ask students what rights are the typical answer is, well, rights are hmm, life, liberty, property, the pursuit of happiness. No, thats not what rights are. Those are particular instances of what rights are. That is not a definition rights are. So thats the question we have to ask. What is a right . What are the characteristics of rights . Where do they come from . Im going to try to answer the first question and part of the second, but i the third question i think is much more complex and above my pay grade. But im going to try to answer what a right is and what the characteristics of rights are. Now, it is clear, of course, that the declaration says that we are endowed by our creator with rights. So for the declaration, the source of rights is mans creator. That is undisputably true. But i also think its true that most American Revolutionaries spoke of unalienable natural rights. So the one thing whether you believe god or dont believe in god, one thing they all believed in was the idea that there are rights of nature. Everybody believes that. We can at the very least we can say that is the source of rights namely nature. And we can, as some revolutionaries did, dispute whether theres a deeper source. Below or beyond nature. All right. So, what are rights . To answer that question, i think you have to begin with two basic assumptions about human nature. And these clearly are the assumptions that were held by American Revolutionaries. And the first is that the individual is the primary unit of moral and political value. And the second assumption was their rejection of the initiation of physical force. The idea of rights should be seen in opposition to the principle of force. And more particularly, the initiation of force. If i walk up to you and punch you in the nose, right, i have initiated physical force against you. If i tie you up to a tree, i have initiated physical force. The concept of rights, the rights of nature, the rights of man, was the concept itself was developed largely in the 17th century, mostly at the beginning and developed in the 18th century and particularly really fleshed out by American Revolutionaries. It begins with the individual as the primary unit of value and it rejects the initiation of physical force as a value. Right . Now we can turn to a definition. How did American Revolutionaries understand how did they define the concept of rights . Well, ive read scores of pamphlets and essays and newspaper articles, probably hundreds of newspaper articles on from the 1760s and 1770s and 80s, and what im going to present now to you is a definition that essentially emerged with American Revolutionaries in the period leading up to 1776. What is a right . A right is a moral principle defining the sphere or spheres of freedom that are necessary for humans flourishing within the context of civil society. Thats what a right is. It defines spheres of freedom and you can look at rights and in defining these spheres of freedom, you can look at the concept of rights as having two primary characteristics. In one sense, rights are like a license. They are they are a license to act. Its concerned with the freedom of action. We can also look at rights in a sense as a fence. A fence around each and every individual. Rights are in part protective. They protect us from those who initiate force against us. So that, i think, is a pretty decent definition from the perspective of American Revolutionaries of what rights are. All right. Lets now drill down even more deeply into this second selfevident truth and look at the various rights of nature. And the first right, of course, which is the most fundamental of all rights is the right to life. What is the right to life . What does that actually mean . What does it actually imply . It says that individuals are sovereign over their own lives. What does it mean to say that youre sovereign over your own life . It means that each and every individual is selfowning and selfgoverning. And that life is sacrosanct and the right to life also embedded in it is the moral right for each and every individual to pursue those values which promote their lives. All right. What about the right to liberty . What is the right to liberty . The right to liberty means a kind of unobstructed freedom to think, choose, act, produce and acquire both material and spiritual value. Its unobstructed freedom although constrained by the right to liberty of other individuals. All right, now the declaration of independence does not include a right a natural right for liberty. But im going to include it basically because Thomas Jefferson, the author of the declaration believes that property was just as much a fundamental right as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and because all of americas Founding Fathers did. But for complicated reasons which we dont fully understand, he did not include the right to property in the declaration of independence. But every jefferson himself and every other founding father included property as the linchpin right, the linchpin between life and liberty on the one hand and the pursuit of happiness on the other. What is the right to property . It means its a freedom to keep, use and dispose of the product of ones physical and mental labor. All right. For those of you who have read the famous chapter five on property, the idea is that when you mix your labor, both intellectual and mental, with nature, which has no value, once you mix your labor with that which has no value, right, you can claim it as your property because it is now an extension of you. All right. Finally, the last right of nature listed in the declaration is the pursuit of happiness. What is it . This right to the pursuit of happiness is a curious one because it really doesnt appear in virtually any of the other bills of rights with the exception of virginias bill of rights. The formulation seems to be in part at least unique to jefferson and himself. But i think he actually gets this idea of the pursuit of happiness from john locks essay concerning human understanding. What does the right to the pure suit of happiness means . The right to property, it means freedom. Its the freedom to choose and pursue those values that lead to ones happiness. Now, there are different kinds of happiness of course. As john lock and Thomas Jefferson both said, theres what both lock and jefferson called real or true happiness which tends to be a kind of spiritual consequence of achieving certain longterm goals and values. Of course theres shortterm happiness which is the kind of physical pleasure. The pleasure, the happiness that you get from eating a good steak or having ice cream. But thats thats not really whats being meant here. The pursuit of happiness means the pursuit and the achievement of ones highest values. Let me just add one important point here. In a sense, the most interesting word is pursuit. You have a right to the pursuit of happiness. You do not have a right to happiness, per se. You have only the right to pursue. And jefferson and all of the other Founding Fathers understood this right to the pursuit of happiness to have a profound moral component to it. The pursuit of happiness for certainly jefferson and adams meant to have to employ certain virtues. In other words, there was a profound connection for jefferson and the American Revolutionaries between virtue and happiness. You cannot achieve happiness without having employed in your life, without having employed in the pursuit of certain values, certain virtues. So this is not some kind of pursuit of happiness. Quite the opposite, the pursuit of happiness implies, indeed it implores that individuals be virtuous. All right. Now, onto the third selfevident truth. And in many ways this third selfevident truth is the most complex i would say of the four. It actually embodies several principles. Ive identified the one word that ive identified with the third selfevident truth is consent, but it could equally be government or limited government or constitutionalism. Its a this third truth is a complex concept. It says, quote, to secure these rights governments are instituted among men driving their just powers from the consent of the governed. If you just stop and think about what that means, you can actually take this one truth, the one clause of the larger sentence and break it down into its component parts. What is this third truth mean . Well, the first thing it means the first thing it says quite clearly is that the purpose of government is to protect rights. It does not say that the purpose of government is to make men good or virtuous. It does not say that the purpose of government is to make all men equal or the same. It says that the purpose is to protect rights. And what rights does it mean . It means the rights contained in the second selfevident truth, the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness which includes the right to property. So thats it. And that creates its a purpose if the sole purpose of government is to protect rights, that means by definition a very limited kind of government and that takes us then to the second part of the third truth which is that governments are necessary to secure rights. The first thing to note here is that americas Founding Fathers were not anarchists. They believed they believed that there is a legitimate role for government to play in a free society, and that legitimate role of course is to protect rights. The natural rights of all human beings. But then the question is, what kind of government best does that . And built into their idea or built into this third truth is that familiar certain kinds of governments which protect rights better than others. And what kinds of governments are those . Well, i think im this is somewhat reading between the lines, but its only reading between the lines because ive read just about every word Thomas Jefferson and john adams and James Madison ever wrote and i think i have a pretty good a pretty clear idea about what they meant by government. They meant a government that has the protection of rights, they meant constitutional government. And they meant a Constitutional Republic. And what is a Constitutional Republic . It is one that is based on we the people but it has a constitution that defines, establishes and limits the powers of government. It means by definition because it is constitutional, it means a limited government. A limited constitutional government. A government whose powers are defined by the constitution. And then finally this third truth says that the just powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed. Now, built into this part of the third truth, right, obviously is the idea of consent. And this comes out of the revolutionary crisis, right . No taxation without representation, which means no taxation without the consent of the people. So the principle, the moral principle of consent is at the heart of the American Revolution and more specifically the declaration of independence and consent is a principle. Its a principle that is kind of its the kind of principle that unites, connects. The deeper principles of equality and rights on the one hand, but government on the other. Consent is the link between rights and government. And the principle of consent as it is institutionalized is in the form of the principle of sovereignty. Sovereignty is the principle which defines where the power of government ultimately rests. Of course, as we have seen in this class all semester, right, the whole question between British Imperial officials and american patriots was in part over the question of where does sovereignty rest . Does sovereignty rest in parliament or does sovereignty rest in the colonial charters and in the Colonial Legislature . The principle of consent also implies one other political principle which is representation. And representation is the core principle defining republican government. So this third truth establishes or implies i think a Constitutional Republic as the ideal form of government. All right. Lets now go to the fourth selfevident truth which reads whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and to Institute New government and institution new government having its foundation in such form as to them shall seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness. Well, this fourth selfevident truth is also very complex like the third selfevident truth and its so complex, right, that its not obviously selfevident. But its selfevident only in the sense that it builds on the third several evident truth and the third selfevident builds on the second and the second builds on the first and theyre held together as an a unity. If you understand the first selfevident truth and the principle of equality can be understood as being selfevident in some way, and then by logical deduction you go from the first, second, third and the fourth selfevident truth, which is what i call the revolution truth. What is this right to revolution . I will say the declaration does not use this word revolution. It talks about altering or abolishing. But in effect it means revolution. And the right to revolution calls i think for two kinds of action. The first action is destructive and the second is constructive. So if you read the fourth selfevident truth, the first part of that sentence the first part of that sentence says that whenever any form of government becomes destructive, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. Thats the destructive part. What that means, its what i call negative consent or consent withdrawn. Its when the people with draw their consent to be ruled or governed by this particular government. And revolution in this context becomes justified when governments become tyrannical. And the largest part of the declaration of independence lays out the facts which are being submitted to a candid world demonstrating to a candid world how george iii and the British Parliament have established a despotism over them, established a tyranny. The second part of this fourth selfevident truth says, quote, to Institute New government to effect their safety and happiness. That is a construct its the power on the basis of consent, consent given to create government. So on the one hand, you abolish, you alter or abolish an old government, but on the other hand you create, establish a new government. And the declaration suggests that and it uses the word whenever any form of government, right. It turns out that literally any kind of government can become destructive of rights including democracy or republicanism and it also implies that you can have a government that protects the rights of individuals, thats not necessarily a republic. You could have a monarchical government like the government of england. All right. The right of revolution has to be tempered and the very next word after the right to revolution is the word prudent. It says prudence will dictate the governments longestablished, should not be changed for light and transient causes. What this means is, the right to revolution is not is not absolute or unlimited. It has to be used prudently. So the question that you have to ask yourself is, for instance, would it have been prudent to launch a revolution against the British Government in 1765 after the passage of the stamp act . And i can tell you not one American Revolutionary would have said yes to that question, nor would they have said yes to that question after the passage of the townsend and the tea acts. By the time we get to 1774, now some americans are starting to think, yes, samuel adams, john adams, george washington, Thomas Jefferson are beginning to think, yes, we have the grounds for establishing a revolution. But, still, its prudence dictates that even in 1774 that may be too early. There is a real question about when revolutions are launched. And you cant be some radical yahoo who decides he doesnt like the five cent tax on his soda and that hes going to launch a revolution. That would be profoundly imprude imprudent. All right. Im coming close now to the end. I want to end this discussion, this talk about the declaration of independence by talking about the moral logic of the American Revolution or more precisely, the moral logic contained in the declaration of independence. If you remember now earlier in this talk when we were examining the first paragraph, in fact, the very first words of the declaration of independence, when in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political band that have connected them with another. Right . What could that possibly mean to say that its necessary when the course of human events it becomes necessary. Necessary, as i said, implies that it must be. Nothing has to be. But yet in the minds of American Revolutionaries, it was absolutely necessary that they declare independence and by declaring independence that means they are declaring war. And in declaring war they are committing themselves to death and destruction. Why is it necessary . Well, its necessary now skipping to the first or into the second sentence of the declaration. The declaration says after the prudence sentence, when a long train of abuses pursuing the same object creates a design to reduce them under absolutely it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government. Yes, they have the right but more fundamentally jefferson and the authors are saying we have a duty. In the same way theyre saying it is necessary that we dissolve the political bands that have connected us to one another. Its a duty. How is it necessary . How is it a duty for them to declare independence . And then on top of that they pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to the cause of the revolution. What does this mean . What is the moral universe that they are living in . I think what it means is that they had a view of moral action that did not separate theory from practice. They believe that if you hold certain moral principles, then it is necessary that you act in a certain way. You can hear it in philosophic terms whats called a conditional imperative. If given then conditional imperative. If you believe in certain principles, that is to say, if you want to live in a free and just society, given the crimes that have been committed by george the third and the British Parliament, then it is necessary if you are to be a moral person, to live up to your moral principle. That is, i think, the moral logic which is impelling American Revolutionaries. All right, so, to sum up, what does all of this mean . What is the meaning . Whats the ultimate meaning of the declaration of independence . Well, i think it can be summed up in the words of Abraham Lincoln who in 1957 on his opinion on the dred scott position said speaking of the declaration of independence, he wrote, quote, i think the authors of that notable instrument meant to set up a standard maxim for a free society. And i think thats exactly what the declaration is. Its a standard maxim for a free society which should be familiar to all and revered by all. Constantly looked to, constantly labored for and even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated and deepening its influence and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of all colors everywhere. And i think thats what the declaration of independence does. It establishes a standard maxim for a free society by which we can judge tyranny and it turn turns out not just the tyranny of george the third but also the tyranny of 19th century southern slave holders. Because it is the declaration which is the standard maxim of a free society for the abolitionists. Let me close with these last with a few words from i think americas poet robert frost in his 1915 poem the black cottage. Thats a hard mystery of jeffersons. What did he mean . Of course the easy way is to decide it simply isnt true. It may not be. I heard a fellow say so. Never mind. They got it planted where it will trouble us 1,000 years. And i think thats exactly right. If you look at all subsequent American History from the time of the declaration of independence until today, what i think you will find is that all of the all of the intellectual and certainly all of the political debates in this country for 235 years have basically in one way or another been a debate over how to interpret the Core Principles of the declaration of independence. In particular the selfevident truths of equality and the selfevident truths of rights. And just here now today in the United States in 2019, the political controversies of this country today, at the deepest philosophic level, really come down to those two concepts, to those two selfevident truths of equality and rights. And like the revolutionary generation of 1776, i think its your responsibility to dedicate your lives, your fortune and your sacred honor to keeping alive the ideals of the declaration of independence. Thank you. Were done and i will see you all on monday. Youre watching a special edition of American History tv, airing during the week while members of congress are in their districts due to the coronavirus pandemic. Tonight at 8 00 p. M. Eastern, historian Gary Gallagher discusses the misconceptions that americans have about the civil war and talks about concepts crucial to understanding the conflict. A symposium hosted by and through the library of virginia in richmond. American history tv now and over the weekend on cspan3. Every saturday night, American History tv takes you to College Classrooms around the country for lectures in history. Why do you all know who lizzy borden in. Raise your hand if you heard of this murder trial before this class. The deepest cause is in the transformation that took place in the minds of the American People. So were going to talk about both of these sides of this story here, right . The tools, the techniques of slaveowner power and well also talk about the tools and techniques of power that were practiced by enslaved people. Watch history professors lead discussions with their students on topics ranging from the American Revolution to september 11th. Lectures in history on cspan3 every saturday at 8 00 p. M. Eastern on American History tv and lectures in history is available as a podcast. Find it where you listen to podcasts. Television has changed since cspan began 41 years ago, but our mission continues, to provide an unfiltered view of government. Already this year we brought you primary election coverage, the president ial impeachment process and now the federal response to the coronavirus. You can watch all of cspans Public Affairs programming on television, online, or listen on our free radio app. Be part of the national con saying through cspans daily Washington Journal Program or through our social media feeds. Cspan, created by private industry. Americas Cable Television companies, as a public service, and brought to you today by your television provider. Up next on the presidency, we hear from emily voss about James Madisons role in shaping the constitution and bill of rights and the influence of his study of history and previous political experiences. Ms. Voss is educational director at the robert h. Smith center for the constitution based at montpelier. This talk was part of montpelier president s day celebration. We have a tradition of hosting speakers for a special president s day weekend program. And this year, we thought it would be a nice change and