So for the last six weeks in this class, we have been examining the critical fire of the imperial crisis we have been looking at the debates between British Imperial officials an american wig patriots. And that debates has really in many ways come down to one issue which is broadly speaking, what is the british constitution and how does it define relations between the mother country and her colonies. And more specifically, the real question is, what is the political constitutional relationship between the power on authority of the British Parliament and americas colonial legislators . And over the course of about 12 years, between 1764 and 1776, the British Parliament passed a series of laws. It 1764, it began with the sugar act and then a year later the stamp act and at 1767, the townsend act and then tea act and the prohibit tory act in 1775. But standing behind all of these acts of british legislation is one overarching piece of legislation, which i think is the driving force behind all of these particular acts. 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 taxes which had never done before, it could pass taxes in the american colonies for revenue. And the most famous of all of these pieces of legislation was the stamp act of 1765 which put attacks on stamp paper which the calmness needed for almost all legal and commercial transactions. So what was the specific constitutional issue . It was where to draw the jurisdictional boundary between the authority of parliament and the authority of the clone eel legislatures. Now with regard to the stamp act, the british act argued that it was legal and therefore constitutional. The americans by contrast argued that the stamp act was unjust and therefore unconstitutional. Over the course of the next ten or 11 years, British Imperial officials and american patriots began a kind of search for principles. 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 for deeper moral principles. When they argued that the stamp act was unjust and therefore unconstitutional, the real question is, how and in what way was unjust . Over the course of the next ten or 11 years, the americans began this search for new standards, new principles of justice, of liberty, of equality, of rights, of sovereignty. And over the course of these ten or 11 years, they began to see that the principles that had once tied the mother country to the colonies no longer worked. And the americans with their newly developing 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 chairman person in 1815, the real American Revolution was not about the war, in 1815 adams wrote, 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 affected from 1760 to 1775 in the course of 15 years before a drop of blood was shed at lexington. 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 caucus where will find the true meaning of the revolution was in this transformation that took place in the minds of the American People. And then in 1782, thomas payne, in a letter that he wrote to the abaranault of france this about the period leading up to the American Revolution, our style a 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 we think other thoughts that knows we formally used. Think about the meaning of what pain is arguing here, some kind of radical transformation took place in the way that the americans saw the world. The way that they sought about the most important, the 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. And so, thus far in this course, over the course of these last six weeks we have mostly been looking at the political and constitutional principles and institutions that were developed by American Revolutionaries. But all of this comes two ahead in 1776. As we talked about last class, the last link between the columnist and the mother country was through their relationship, the colonists relationship with the person of the king. But in january, 1776, with the publication of tom panes common sense. That relationship is forever severed. So there is no intellectually lingering remnant allegiance or loyalty between the call and miss and them other country. Once they have severed their connection with the person of the king, psychologically they are no longer members of the british empire. So that then takes us straight to july 4th, 1776. And to the passage which we talked about last week, last class, of the declaration of independence. What was this declaration of independence . That was ratified on july 4th, 1776. Well, the first thing to note about it is it is a very political and in some ways even, a diplomatic document. It was written in part for george the third. It was written free european diplomats and financiers. And it was written of course, for the American People. It was made to help organize the American People politically. But the declaration of independence was a lot more than just a political document declaring the independence of these 13 colonies. And the calling fourth of new states because thats what they are now. They will no longer be colonies, they are states. Independent, political units that now have the authority to create their own constitutions and their own governments, and of 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 in writing the declaration of independence. 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. Of the american mind. On the one hand, what it clearly an 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 self evident, and then it lays out its self evident truths. 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. And that is the great meaning of the declaration. The 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 in todays class is we are going to systematically, line by line go through the declaration to elicit the deepest meaning of the declaration. Before we do that though, let me mention something that weve talked about a little bit before in this class which is the philosophical background of the declaration of independence. In my view, the declaration is the embodiment, it is a precis of the philosophical principles of the enlightenment. All of the great enlightenment ideas and principles are in effect embodied in the declaration of independence. And the three great philosophers of the enlightenment worse or isaac newton, john locks essay concerning Human Understanding and locks second treaty of government. What im going to argue is that the ideas, the fundamental core ideas and locks essay or innocence summed up and embodied in the first paragraph of the declaration. The second paragraph of the declaration is a abstracts, an abstract of the core basic principles that you will find in the second treaties of government. So let me just sum up for you quickly the core ideas, the Core Principles of the indictment which i think can be seen as having been transposed onto the declaration of independence. There is an enlightenment project, we can identify a kind of comprehensive philosophy of this period known as the enlightenment, the 17th and 18th century enlightenment. And like all comprehensive systematic philosophies it has four basic branches. It includes four basic branches of philosophy. First is metaphysics. What is metaphysics . It is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of reality. And i can sum up for you in one word the enlightenments view of metaphysics. Nature. The Second Branch of philosophy is epistemological. That is that branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of knowledge. And i can sum up the indictments view of epistemological in one word. Which is reason. The enlightenment also has an ethical theory. And ethics is that branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of human action and human relationships. And i think i can sum up in one word the enlightenments view of fa ethics and that is rights. And finally, the indictment has a view of politics, politics is that branch of philosophy that is concerned with social and political organization. If i to sum up the enlightenments view of politics and 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 the question adversely, how can we see those ideas within the declaration of independence . So, what i would 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 them the first paragraph in second paragraph. But if you think about it, its really just two sentences. Two very long sentences. We are going to parse these sentences and were going to try to pull out of them sort of, their deepest philosophical meaning. So lets take the first sentence, the first paragraph of the declaration which says, within 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 declare the causes which compel them to the separation, close coat. What im going to argue is that this first sentence or paragraphs has built into it a metaphysics and and epistemological. And that it draws on from the enlightenment. What do i mean by that . We lets first identify the core ideas of that first sentence. That first sentence has a kind of overarching the magic structure to it. It has a purpose, right . And what is 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 money mother country. And that first paragraph also has a principle or a standard. In this case, a moral standards. And that moral standard would be the laws of nature and of natures god. And that first paragraph four sentence also implies and action. And the action is the necessity to dissolve a connection between these two countries. Let me just say, in my view, in many ways and i will 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 bans, etc, etc. The question is necessary . Why necessary . How is it necessary that the American People dissolve their connection to the mother country . To say that it is necessary suggests that it must be. But in human 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 hadnt made up their mind about whether they supported independence or not. So how is it on july 4th, 1776, the americans argued that it is now necessary . So the question is why necessary . 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 top. Because i think the word necessary tell us actually something deeply important about the moral logic and the moral characters of those who signed the declaration of independence. Let me break down what i think are the philosophical ideas, the enlightened philosophical ideas that are contained in that first paragraph. 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 say that in the declaration when it talks about the laws of nature in natures god. In the 17th and 18th centuries, natural what were called at the time natural philosophers that we would 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 gravitation or newtons three laws of planetary motion. But these laws a physical nature, they were absolute. They are absolute they are universal. They apply throughout the whole universe. And they are permanent. As a result of these discoveries, these discoveries of a scientific nature, moral philosophers in the late 17th and then into the 18th centuries, began to look or try to discover certain moral laws of nature. When the declaration refers to the laws of nature and natures god, it is referring to moral laws of nature. Right . If you remember, if you go back to one of the first classes when we read john adams diary, the young 21yearold john adams writing in his diary about the things that he was learning isnt undergraduate at harvard college. And what he learned was that in the universe, according to newtons laws, that entities that, physical things out there nature have an identity. And that identity was absolute. In addition to having identity, because it has identity, it is governed by certain laws of cause and effect. And the same adams argued for human action as well. It is a much more difficult leap to go from discovering scientific laws to discovering human, moral laws of nature. But that was at the deepest philosophical level. 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, im sorry let me back up and also say that the phrase in the declaration is the laws of god and of natures god. It is interesting that it doesnt say the laws of nature and of god. Its his natures god. So for most American Revolutionaries who were the grandchildren, the philosophical grandchildren of the enlightenment, they viewed natures gods not as the same guard of the old testament. Not a kind of omnipresent god who can change the laws of nature at will. But rather, a god who is like a watchmaker clock maker who set the universe in motion and then stepped back. And that is what i think is being referred to their with regard to natures god. And then in the declaration, that first sentence, it talks about the causes which impelled him for separation. This is a kind of youve causation. 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 literal separation of the colonies from the mother country. But it has causes. In order to understand the action of separation, you have tinge down the causes which of course is a principled part of what the declaration does, in a second and very long paragraph of the declaration. It lays out its charges against king george the third. Now, the first paragraph also has an epistemological. And in the context of the enlightenment and americas Founding Fathers, that means that its going to in some way praise and promote mans faculty of reason the. 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 worlds, 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 lay out a case, an argument, appeal to the reason of people around the world and that those reasons can be understood. And that is why in this second paragraph, just before the charges are laid out against the king, the declaration says, quote, to prove this, this meaning the absolute despotism of george the third, the tyranny of george the third, as stated in the declaration to prove this tyranny, let that fact be submitted to a candid world. The americans are making they have essentially written an indictment against george the third and indirectly to the British Parliament as well. And it lays out all of the crimes committed by george the third and the British Parliament. The 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. And this is why it says, we are submitting it to a candid world. We are appealing to the mines, to the reasons of people everywhere. All right. Lets now turn to the second paragraph. 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 self evident. 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 is securities rights, governments are instituted among men driving their just powers from the consent of the government. We never 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 foundation on such principles and organizing its power in such form as to them shall seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness. Well, that is in my view without question the most famous and the single most important sentence ever written in American History and maybe even the single most important sentence written 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 standard by which all governments everywhere should be judged. All right. Now, that this very long complex sentence contains a whole universe of ideas and moral principles. And let me just say or repeat that this this one sentence of the declaration, it is a summing up. It is a precis of gulag second treaties of government. So all of the ideas contained in this one sentence sum up the core fundamental principles of locks second treaties of government. All right. 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, because its so simple and so elegant in its formulation that we just are kind of our i read over it and we want to get to the truths and selves. But i think i think this first clause is critically important. We hold these truths to be selfevident. Now, most scholars of the declaration of independence tend to focus on this notion of selfevident. We hold these truths to be selfevident. Well, what could that possibly mean to say that the truths that are to follow are selfevident . Well, this idea of selfevidencey is a technical philosophical term. And the technical definition of selfevidencey is that in a proposition, the subject and the predicate have to be in agreement with each other. Which simply means that a selfevident truth is one or a selfevident proposition is one that is perception really self evident for anybody with eyes to see. Up is not down iraq is not white. In is not out. These are perception really self evident truths. But surely that cant be what jefferson is referring to relative to the declaration because as we will see the for true this of the declaration are much, much more complex than being perception really evident to the viewer. So what cannot possibly mean . Well i will explain this in a minute. I think actually the most important word, and we hold these truths to be self evident. Is truths. , the word truth or the word truth. And why is it important i think its certainly important for us 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 post modern 21st century academic world, we have discarded the concept of truth. The oxford dictionary recently said that that the word posttruth as 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 believed 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. 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 in all times. All right. Now, how do we get selfevident truths . How did the American People get selfevident truths . Because if its the case, and i think it is partly, that the four truths as well see them are not selfevident, 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 adams, Roger Sherman and robert livingston. 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 independence is speaking on behalf of we the people. We the people of the United States of america. We hold these truths. But theres a problem. What does it mean to say we hold these truths to be selfevident . Some of these truths are pretty complex philosophic concepts as well see in a minute. And did did all americans come to see these truths all at the same time . Surely theres a difference in intellectual capacity, for instance, between say Thomas Jefferson or john adams on the one hand and an uneducated Hard Scrabble former living on the western frontier of massachusetts. Well, i think then the key word to unlock the meaning of selfevident truths is the word hold. We hold these truths. Well, what i think that means to hold is in effect to grasp. But to grasp is something that can take place over time. And by different people at different points in time. 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 clause 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 truths each in a word. First, equality. Second, rights. 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 metaphysics and an epistemology. The ethics, the moral part of the four selfevident truths are would be equality and rights and the political principles of the four selfevident truths would be the principle 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 . 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 depry deprivations of georgia 13 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 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 . How does it cash out . All right. Well, theres a problem. One might even say theres a selfevident problem with this idea of equality. In the 19th century as this country was moving toward civil war, a congressman from indiana, described the truths of the declaration of independence as selfevident lies. A self evident lie. So what exactly does it mean . One could say, for instance, one could say that a quality is a shimmer. It does not really exist. It just look out into the world. Look into the world in which we live, here and now in today. Do we see a quality . Do i see a quality right now as i am sitting here in this room looking at all of you . I dont see a quality. I see differences, and differences dont necessarily mean equality. I know for a fact in this room right now there is tall and short, more particularly theres strong and weak. There is fast and slow. And surely, there are intellectual differences amongst even the people sitting here in this room. And i am also pretty confident that there are differences, and maybe even inequalities in terms of basic talents and virtues. So what does it mean to say, all men are created equal . How is that not a self evident lie . Jefferson himself, and john adams recognized that there is a natural aristocracy among men who. The grounds of which he said are virtual talents. A natural aristocracy by definition is going to mean inequality. So i visited the declaration say, all men are created unequal. Because that would seem to be just as truth and say all men are creative equal. So we have to ask the question, what did jefferson mean by the idea, the principle of equality . For jefferson, a quality does not mean quantitative sameness. We are not all the same in terms of measurable characteristics and equality. We are just not. I just watched this past weekend someone win the hundred yard dash, and as much as i would like to see somebody that i am as fast, the fact is i am not. I am not as strong as the greatest weightlifter in the world. I am not as handsome as brad pitt. I am not as intelligent as einstein. This so in terms of measurable qualitys, we are not the same. We are different there. So what does equality mean . I think for jefferson, equality means what i call qualitative seen us versus quantitatives davis. What i mean is that we all share certain qualities as human beings. There is what i call species equality. We are all members of the same species as defined by having to fundamental characteristic, namely reason and free well. And by virtue of us having reason and freewill we are all the same relative to dogs and horses, for instance. So what is equality for jefferson and the Founding Fathers . Equality means that we have an equal right to self govern. We have an equal right to Self Government because we are self owning and self governing individuals. Just as there are no natural rulers in the world, there are no natural slaves. Theres not a natural right to rule. And there are no natural slaves. As jefferson once put it in a letter, because sir isaac newton was superior to others and understanding, he was not there for lord of the person or property of others. With so equality then means we have an equal rights. A quality is, it really should be an adjective. An adjective to rights. Equality means equal rights. Now on to the second self evident 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 the pursuit of happiness. Now, this truth i think to many of us to take to be so obvious that we dont actually think about what it really means. For instance, when i often ask students, what rights are, the typical answer is, rates are life. Liberty. Property. The pursuit of happiness. No, thats not what rates are. Those are particular instances of what rights are. That is not a definition of what 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 and answer the first question and part of the second, but the third question is much more complex and above my pay grade. Im going to try to answer what a right is at what the characteristics of rights are. It is clear that the declaration says, we are endowed by our creator with rights. So for the declaration, the source of rights is mans creator. That is undisputable true. But i also think it is true that most American Revolutionaries, most enlightened philosophers spoke of unalienable natural rights. So the one thing whether you believe in god or dont believe in god, the one thing that all American Revolutionaries believed in was the idea that there are rates of nature. Everybody believes that, so at the very least we could say that is the source of rights. That is the source of nature. And then as some American Revolutionaries did, dispute whether theres actually dipper source below or beyond nature. What are writes . To answer that question you have to begin with two basic assumptions about human nature. And these clearly our 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 is that the rejection of the initiation of physical force. In certain ways, the idea of rights should be seen in opposition to the principle of force. And more particularly, the initiation of force. So if i walk up to you and punch you in the nose, i have initiated physical force against you. If i tell you up to a tree, i have initiated physical force. The concept of rights, the rates of nature, the rates of man, was the concept itself was developed largely in the 17th century. Mostly lets say beginning with locke and then developed an 18th century and particularly really fleshed out by American Revolutionaries. It begins with individuals the primary unit of value and it rejects the initiation of physical force is a value. Now we can turn to a definition. How did American Revolutionaries understand, how did they define the concept of rights . I have read scores of pamphlets and essays and newspaper articles, probably hundreds of newspaper articles from the 17 sixties and the 17 seventies and 17 eighties 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 spheres of freedom that are necessary for Human Flourishing within the context of civil society. Thats what a rate is. It defines spheres of freedom. And you can look at rights, and in defining these fears 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 a license to act. Its concerned with the freedom of action. But we can also look at rights in a sense as the fence. Offense around each and every individual. Writes in part protect us. They protect us from those who would initiate force against us. So that is a pretty decent definition from the perspective of the American Revolutionaries of what rights are. All right, lets now drill down deeper into the second self evident truth and look at the various rights of nature. And the first right is of course the most fundamental of all rights, the right to life. What is the right to life . What does actually mean . What does it actually imply . It says that individuals are sovereign over their own lives. What does it mean to say that your sovereign over your own life . It says that each individual is self owning and self governing. 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. What about the right to liberty . What is the right to liberty . The right to liberty means a kind of an obstructive freedom to think, choose, act, produce and acquire both material and spiritual values. Its an obstructive freedom, although they constraint thy the right to liberty of other individuals. All right. Now, the declaration of independence does not include a right, a natural right to liberty. But im going to include it basically because Thomas Jefferson an author of the declaration believes that property was just as much a fundamental right as where life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And because virtually all of americas Founding Fathers did. But for complicated reasons which we dont fully understand, he did not include the right to property in a declaration of independence. But jefferson himself, and every other founding father included property as, in a sense, the linchpin right between life and liberty on the one hand and the pursuit of happiness on the other. What is the right to property . It means the freedom to keep, use and dispose of the product of ones physical and mental labor. For those of you who have read locks second treaty, and the chapter five on property, the idea is when you mixture labor, both physical and mental, with nature, which has no value, once you mix your labor which has no value, i 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 . Now this right to the pursuit of happiness is a curious one, because it really doesnt appear and virtually any of the other bills of rights, with the exception of the virginia bills of rights. Formulation seems to be in part at least, unique to jefferson himself. I think he gets this idea of the pursuit of happiness from john lockes essay on Human Understanding. What does the right to the pursuit of happiness mean . Like the other right like to write a property, it means freedom. It is the freedom to choose and pursue those values that lead to ones happiness. Now, there are different kinds of happiness, of course. As john locke and Thomas Jefferson both said, what both called real or true happiness, which tends to be a kind of spiritual consequence of achieving certain longterm goals and values. Of course, there is shortterm happiness, which is a kind of physical pleasure. The pleasure, the happiness that you get from eating a good steak or having ice cream, but thats not what really is meant here. The pursuit of happiness means the pursuit and the achievement of ones highest value. Let me just at 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 happen is per se. You only have the right to pursue it. Jefferson and all the other Founding Fathers understood this right to the pursuit of happiness, to have a profound moral component to it. The pursuit of happiness, certainly for jefferson and adams meant 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 hedonistic pursuit of happiness. No that is not what is meant. Quite the opposite. The pursuit of happiness implies or it implores that individuals be virtuous. All right. Now on the third self evident truth. Now in many ways the serve third truth so most complex of the four. And actually embodies several principles. I the one word i identify with the first of evidence to the third self evident truth was consent. It could be constitutionalism. The third truth is a complex concept. It says quote to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the government unquote. Right. So if you just stop and think about what that means, you can actually take this one truth, the one clause the largest, and it sends a break it down into its component parts. So what is the 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 man 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 writes does it mean . It means the rights contained in the second self evident truth. The right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Which includes the right to property. So thats it. And that creates, it is the sole government of purpose to protect rights. That means by definition, a very limited kind of government. That takes us back to the second part of the third truth, that governments are necessary to secure rights. All the first thing to note here that americas Founding Fathers were not anarchists. 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 this their idea or built into this idea of the third truth is that there are certain kinds of governments which protect rights better than others. And what kinds of governments are those . Well this is somewhat reading between the lines, but its only reading between the lines because ive read just about every word Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and james adams ever wrote. I think i have a pretty clear, pretty good idea of what they meant by government. They met a government whose sole purpose is a production of rights. They meant constitutional government. And in particular they meant a republic. What is a Constitutional Republic . It is one that is based on we the people, but it has a constitution that the finance, establish us and limits the power of government. It means by definition because it is constitutional it means a limited government. A limited constitutional government. A government whose powers are designed by the constitution. And then finally this third truth says that the just powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed. Built into this part of the third truth obviously is the idea of consent. This comes out of the revolutionary crisis. No taxation without he representation, which means no taxation without the consent of the people. The moral principle of consent is at the heart of the American Revolution and declaration of independence. Consent is a principal. It is a principle that is it is a kind of principle that unites, connects. The depot principles of the qualities and writes on the one hand the government on the other. Consent is the link between rights and government the principle of consent as it is it is institutionalized is in the principle of sovereignty. Sovereignty is the principal which defines where the power of government ultimately rests. And of course as we have seen in this class all semester, the whole question, the whole debate between british and imperial officials and american patriots was in part over the question of where the sovereignty rest . To sovereignty rest in parliament . Order sovereignty rest in the colonial charters in the colonial legislatures . The principle of consent also implies one other political principle, which is representation. And representation is the core principle defining republican government. This third truths establishes or implies a Constitutional Republic as the ideal form of government. 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, laying on its foundation most likely to effect their safety and happiness. This fourth truth is very complex, like the third selfevident truth. It is so complex that is not obviously self evident. But it is self evident only in the sense that it builds on the third self evident truth and assert third selfof an untruth builds on the second and the second builds on the first. And they are held together as a unity. If you understand the first self evident truth and the principal the quality can be understand as being self evident in some way, and then by logical deduction, you go from the first, second, the third and final of the fourth self evident truth, with which was i call the revolution. Truth so what is this talks to revolution . We use this word revolution. It talks about altering or abolish, but ineffective means revolution. 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 self evident truth, the first part of that sentence, the first part of that sentence says that whenever any form of government becomes destructive to the sense 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 withdraw their consent to be ruled or governed by this particular government. And revolution in this context becomes justified when governments become tyrannical. The largest part of the declaration of independence lays out the facts submitted to a candid world, demonstrating to a candid world how george the third and the British Parliament have established an absolute despotism over them, how they have established a tyranny. Now the second part of this fourth self evident truth says quote and to institute a new government Government Foundation on such principles in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. That is a construct on the basis of consent, consent given, to create government. On the one hand, you alter or abolish one government, but on the other hand, you create, establish, a new government. The declaration suggests it uses the word whenever any form of government. It turns out that literally any kind of government can become destructive of rights, including democracy or republicanism. It also implies you can have a government that protects the rights of individuals that is not a republican. You can have a monarchical republic, like what the British Government had been up until the time of the imperial crisis. All right. But the right of revolution has to be tempered. And the very next word after the right revolution is the word prudence. It says prudence will dictate government long established shall not be changed for light intransigent causes. So what this means that the right revolution is not absolute or unlimited. It has to be used prudently. So the question you have to ask yourself for instance would have been prudent launch a revolution against the British Government and 1765 after the passage of the stamp act . I can tell you that not one American Revolutionary wouldve said yes to that question, nor would they have said yes that question after the passage of the townsend and the tee acts. All the time we get to the core seductive 1774, now some americans are starting to think, george adams george washington, john adams Thomas Jeffersons, yes now maybe we have some grounds to establishing revolution. But still prudence dictates that even a 70 70 for maybe too early. In 1774 that might be too early. There is a real question about when revolutions can be launched. He cannot be some radical yeah who decides he does not like a fivecent tax on his new can of soda that hes gonna launch a revolution. That would be profoundly imprudent. All right im coming close now to the end. I want to end this discussion, lets talk on the declaration of independence by talking about the moral logic of the American Revolution or precisely the moral logic contained in the declaration of independence. All right so if you remember now, earlier in this top 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 to dissolve the political bands that have connected them with one another. Right what could that possibly mean to say it is necessary . When in the course of human events does become necessary. Necessary as i said implies that it must be. But of course, 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 by declaring war they are committing themselves to death and destruction. So why is it necessary . Well, it is necessary now skipping into this the first, or into the second sentence of the declaration. The declaration says after the prudent sentence, went along train of abuses and user patients pursuing invariably the same object convinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, 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 of the declaration are saying we have a duty. In the same way theyre saying it is necessary that we dissolve the political bands that have connected as 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 is this mean . What is the moral universe that they are living in . I i think what it means is that they had a view of moral action that did not separate theory from practice. They believed that if you hold certain moral principles, then it is necessary that you act in a certain way. You can view it in philosophical terms in what is 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 principles. That is i think the moral logic that is compelling to the American Revolutionaries. All right so, to sum up what is all of this mean . What is the meaning what is 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, 1857 said honey trans doctor station, 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 of course i think that is exactly what the declaration is, its a standard maxim for a free society, which should be familiar to all and revere bile, constantly look to, constantly labored for, and although never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading 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. Edited establishes a standard maxim for a free society by which we can judge tyranny. And it turns out, not just the tyranny of george the third and the British Parliament, but also the tyranny 19th century southern slave holders. Because it is the declaration which is the standard maxim of a free society for the abolitionists. When we close with a few words from i think americans greatest 20 century poet, robert. Frost in his 1915 palm, the black cottage. Thats a hard mystery of jeffersons. What did he mean . Of course the easy way is to decide simply isnt true. And may not be. I heard a fellow say so. But never mind. The welshmen got a planted where it will trouble us 1000 years. And i think that is 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 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 self evident truth of the quality and the self evident truth of rights. And just here today in the United States in 2019, the political controversies of this country today, at the deepest philosophical level, really come down to those two concepts, to those two self evident truths, equality and rights. And like the revolutionary generation of 1776, its i think, your responsibility to dedicate your lives your, fortunes, and your sacred honor to keeping alive the ideals of the declaration of independence. Thank you. We are down. I will see you all on monday. Weeknights this month. Were featuring American History tv programs as a preview for whats available every weekend on cspan three. On tuesday, university of maryland professor christopher bonnaroo teaches a class about the concept of power and antelope balloon slave society. He explores the different ways owners and enslaved people exhorted or express their will. We look at all these dynamics played out on plantations. He also discusses how the invention of the cotton gin and the resulting expansion of slavery and the cotton industry affected the relationship between owners and. Slaves watched tuesday night beginning at eight eastern enjoy American History tv this week and every weekend on cspan three. Youre watching American History tv every weekend on cspan three explore our nations past. Cspan 3 created by americas Cable Television companies as a Public Service and brought to you today by your television provider. Up next on American History tv on cspan three, a College Class of military engageen