About the preamble of the declaration of independence. He views each line and explores what the Founding Fathers may have intended by their word choices. Good afternoon, everybody. So for the last six weeks in this class weve been examining the political thought of the imperial crisis. That is weve been looking at the debates between British Imperial officials and american wig patriots and that debate has 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 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 Britain 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 176768, the townsend act and then the tea act and then the coercive act and then in 1775 the prohibtory act. But standing behind all of these acts of 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 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 the pieces of british legislation was the stamp act of 1765 which put a tax on stamp 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 colonial legislatures. Now with regard to the stamp act, the british artued that the stamp act was legal and therefore constitutional. The americans by contrast argued that the stamp act was unjust and therefore unconstitutional. So over the course of the next 10 or 11 years, British Imperial hoof officials an american patriots began a kind of search for principals. The principals, 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 constitution, the real question is how or in what way was the stamp act unjust. So over the course of the next 10 and 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 this 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 she 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 cause where well 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 abe renault 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 formally used. Again, think about the meaning of what payne is arguing here. Right. 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, 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. All right. And so thus far in this course, over the course of these last six weeks, weve 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 colony and the mother country was through their relationship, the colonists relationship with the person of the king. But in january of 1776, 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 colony and the mother country. Once theyve severed their connection with the person of the king, psychologically they are no longer members of british empire. And so that then takes us straight to july 4th, 1776. And to 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 note 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 for the American People 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 that is 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, their own governments and 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. 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 principals that the americans had been searching for during the years of imperial crisis. It is a summing up. So when it says we hold these truths to be selfevident, right, and then it lays out its selfevident truths, right, this is the principles of the american mind. But as an expression of the american mind, the declaration was also laying the foundation for the new constitution 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. Is that it provides the moral foundation for this new nation going forward. Before we jump into the declaration and what were going to do in todays class is were 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 fill sofic background of the declaration of independence. In my view the declaration is the embodiment, it is a pray of the philosophic principles of the enlightenment. They are all in effect embodied in the declaration of independence. And the three great philosophiers of the enlightenment were isaac newton and john locks essay concerning understanding and locks second treatise of government. And what im going to argue is that the ideas, the fundamental core ideas of newton pret ippica is summed up embodied if the first paragraph of the declaration and the second paragraph of the declaration is it is an abstract, an abstract of the core basic principles that you will find in locks second treat is of government. So let me sum up for you very quickly the core ideas, the core principals of the enlightenment, which i think could be seen as having been transposed on to the declaration of independence. So there is, i think an enlightenment project. We could 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 was four basic branches. It includes four basic branches of philosophy. First is meta physics. What is meta physics. It is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of reality. And i could sum up for you in one word the enlightenments view of meta physics. Nature. The Second Branch of philosophy is eppistoology concerned with the nature of knowledge. And i could sum up the enlightenment view of it 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 could sum up in one word the enlightenments view of ethics 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. And if i had to sum up the enlightenment view of politics in one word it would be constitutionalism. 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 ab versely, how could we see those ideas within the declaration of independence . 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 them the first paragraph and the second paragraph. But if you think about it, it is really just two sentences. Two very long sentences. And were going to pars these sentences and were going to try to pull out of them sort of the deepest philosophic meaning. 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 descent respect to the opinions of mankind, requires that they should declare the causes which impale them to the separation, closed quote. Now what im going to argue is that this first sentence or paragraph has built into it a meta physics and a epistomology that is draws on from the enlightenment. Now what do i mean by that . Well, lets just first identify sort of the core ideas of that first sentence. And that first sentence has a kind of over arching trstructur to it. It has a purpose. And what is the purpose of the first sentence . It is to declare to the world the, quote, causes which impel 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 is 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 Affairs there is nothing that must be. Right. The fact of the matter is, in 1776, at least a third of all american colonies at this time were loyalists, selfidentified loyalists. And the third hadnt 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 now say when in the course of human events its optional to dissolve our political bands. Why necessary . Well im going to come back to that question at end of the talk. Because i think the word necessary tells us actually something deeply important about the moral logic and the moral characters of those who signed the declaration of independence. All right. Now let me break down what i think are the philosophic ideas, the enlightenment, contained in that first paragraph. So the declaration, as ive suggested, it has a meta physics. That it draws on from the enlightenment. Summed up in one word which is nature. And 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, what were called natural fill sof gers had scientific and 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 three laws of planetary motion. But these laws of physical nature, they were 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 scientific laws of 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, right. So so when the declaration refers to the laws of nature, it is referring to moral laws of nature. 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 undergraduate at harvard college. And what he learned was 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 identities because it has identity, it is governed by certain laws of cause and effect. Right. And then the same, adams argued, is true for human action as well. Its a much more difficult leap to go from discovering scientific laws to human, moral laws of nature. That was at the deepest philosophic level, that was the quest, that was the search, of 18th century moral philosophers, include iing the founding fathe. And we see in that first paragraph, well, let me back up and also say that the phrase in the declaration is the laws of god and of natures god. It doesnt say the laws of nature and of god, it says natures god. So for most American Revolutionaries, who were the grandchildren of the enlightenment, they viewed natures god, not as the same god of the old testament. Not a kind of om any present god who can change the laws of nature at will, but rather a god who was like a watchmaker or clockmaker, who set the universe in motion then stepped back. And thats what i think is being referred to there with regard to natures god. Right . Then in that first sentence, it talks about the causes which impelled him to the separation. This is a kind of view of causation. So, in other words, to understand how and why there is this declaration of independence of separation, you have to understand the causes. There is a cause and 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, right, and in order to understand the action of independence and separation, you have to understand the causes, which of course is a principle part of what the deck laration does. In the second and very long body of the second paragraph of the declaration, right, it lays out, it lays out its charges against king george iii. Now the first paragraph also has an an epistomology. That means in some way, its going to praise and promote mans faculty of reason. And how does it do that in the first paragraph . Well, at the end of that first paragraph, it said, it refers to a decent respect to the opinions of mankind. In other words, in this declaration to the world, the americans in in other words, are speaking from one line to another. Theyre speaking to the reason or the powers of reason of all people everywhere. Thigh 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 kk unz stood. Thats why in the second paragraph, just before the charges are laid out against the king, the declaration says quote, to prove this, this mean ing the observe lute despisicm of george iii as stated in the declaration, to prove this tyranny, let facts be submitted to a candid world. The americans, 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 crimes 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 true or not true. This is why it says we are submitting it to a candid world. Were appealing to the minds. To the reasons. People everywhere. Now to the second paragraph. Which is one, at least, whats often considered to be the second paragraph is really just one long sentence. 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 deriving their just powers from the consent of the government. That when ever 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 its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to then shall seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness. 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 kole lonists 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 by which all governments everywhere should be judged. This very long, complex sentence contained a whole universe of moral ideas and principles and let me repeat, this one sentence of the declaration, it is a summing up. It is a precis, i would argue, of john lockes second treatise of government. So all contain in this one sentence, sum up the core fundamental principles of lockes second treatise of government. All right. So lets now begin to unpack the mean i meani meaning of this complex sentence. It begins we hold these truths to be selfevident. 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, are kind of eye reads over it and we want to get to the truths themselves. But i think, i think this first clause is critically important. We hold these truths to be selfevident. Most scholars of the declaration of independence tend to focus on this notion of selfevident. We hold these truths to be selfevidence. Well, what could that possibly mean . To say the truths that are to follow are selfevident . Well, this idea of selfevident densy is a technical, philosophical term. And the technical definition of sel selfevidentsy is in a propositi proposition, the subject and predicate have to be in agreement with each other. Which suppimply means that a selfevident truth is one, or a selfevident proposition, is one that is perceptually selfevident to anybody with eyes to see. Up is not down. Black is not white. In is not out. Right. These are perceptually selfevident. Truths. But surely, that cant be what jefferson is referring to relative to the declaration. Because as well see, the four truths of the declaration are much, much more come plplex. Than being perceptionally evident to the viewer. So what can it possibly mean . Ill explain this in just a minute. 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. I would argue in many ways, its hard for us to understand what they meant by the condition septemb concept, truth, because in our world today, our post modern, 21st century, academic world, we have discarded the concept of truth. The oxford dictionary recently said that the word post truth as in we live in a post Truth Society was i believe its 2016 word of the year so for us, we lif in a polive in a post truth 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. The characteristics are that they are absolute certain universal and timeless. They believed there were moral truths that arent subjective. They dont change with the times or place, but they are objectively, absolutely true in all places in all times. How did we get selfevident truths . How did the American People get selfevident truths . Because if it is the case, as it is partly, that the four truths are not selfevident. What did jefferson, what could he have meant . When he said we told these truths to be selfevident. Lets analyze this. First, who was the we in we hold these truths . We means first jefferson and the committee of five who were first tasked with draft iing the declaration, franklin, adams, scherr han and livingston. So the we means the committee of five, but it also means the 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 . All right, some of these truths are pretty complex philosophic complexes as well see in a minute. And did all americans come to see these truths 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 b scrabble farmer living on the western front of massachusetts. And the keyword to unlock the meaning of selfevident truth is hold. We hold these truths. 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 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 . Turns out the declaration claims there are four selfevident truths. I can sum them up each in a word. First, equality. Second, rights. Third, consent. Fourth, revolution. And we can also superimpose the last two component pieces of a systematic philosophy of a second sentence. That is to say the second sentence of the declaration or what were calling the second photograph, has an ethics and a politics. Right . In the same way that if first photograph had a metaphysics and episcomology. The ethics would be a quality and rights. And vertical would be principle of consent and revolution. Lets drill down 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 . All right, these are not simply abstra abstract, floating ideas somewhere up in stratosphere. These are actually truths identified by American Revolutionaries. Not only as the standard by which they are judging the degradations of george iii in 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, which says all men are created equal. Well, what could this possibly mean . Well, the first thing to note is that it says all people 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 bill of rights, likewise said all men are created equal. What does it mean . How does it cash out . All right, well, theres a problem. One might even say theres a selfevident problem. With this idea of eququality. 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 what exact ly does it mean . One could say, one could say that equality is a shimmer. 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 quality right now as im sitting here, standing here in the room looking at all after you . I dont see equality. I see differences and they dont necessarily mean equality. I know for a fact in this room right now, there is say tall, short. Or particularly, there is strong and weak. Theres fast and slow. And surely, there are differences, there are intellectual differences. Among people in this room and im also pretty confident that there are differences, and maybe even inequalities in terms of basic talents and even virtue. So what does it mean to say all men are created equal . How is it that not a selfevident lie . Jefferson himself and john adams recogni recognized that there is a natural ar is trest oksy among. Its going to mean inequality. So why does the declaration say all men are created unequal . Because that would seem to be just as true as saying all men are created equal. So we have to ask the question, what exactly did jefferson mean by the concept, the idea, the principle of equality . Well, for jefferson, equality does not mean quantitative sameness. We are not all the same in terms of measurable characteristics and qualities. Were just not. I just watched this past weekend, Christian Kohlmann win the 100 meter dash at the world track and field championships. As much as id like to think im as fast, or used to be when i was his age, the fact is, i am not and i am not as strong, right, as the greatest weight lifter in the world. I am not as handsome as brad pitt. I am not as intelligent at einstein. So in terms of measurable qualities, we are not the same. We are different. So what does equality mean . I think that jefferson equality means what i call qualitative, sameness. Versus quantitative sameness. Now what do i mean . 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 by two characteristics. Reason and free will. By virtue of having reason and free will, we are relatively the same 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 selfgovernment. We have an equal right to selfgovernment because we are selfown iing and selfgoverns 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, quote, because sir isaac newton was sue per yor to others in understanding, he was not therefore lord of the person r or property of others, closed quote. So equality then means we have an equal right. Equality, it really should be an adjective. An add a jjective to rights. Equality means equal rights. Now on to the second selfevident truth, which i think is the core truth. It says theyre endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Now, this truth, i think too many of us 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 well, rights are life, property, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. No, not what rights 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 . Now, im going to try to answer the first question and part of the second, but 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. Right . But i also think its true that most American Revolutionaries, most enlightenment philosophers spoke of unalienable, unnatural rights. Whether you believe in god or you dont, the one thing that American Revolutionaries believed in was the idea that there were rights of nature. Right. Everybody believed that. So we can, at the very very least, say that is the source of rights. Nam l namely nature. Then as some American Revolutionaries did, dispute whether there is actually a deeper source. Below or beyond nature. All right, so what are rights . Well, 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. The first is that the individual is the primary unit of moral and political value. The second was their 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, right, i have initiated physical force against you. If i tie you up to a tree, i have initiated physical force. And so the concept of rights, the rights of nature, the rights of man, was the concept was developed largely in the 17th century. Mostly say beginning with locke and then developed in the 18th senchly and in particularly, really flushed out by American Revolutionaries. It begins with the individual as a primary unit of value and rejects the initiation of physical force as a value, right . So 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 im going to present is a definition that emerged with revolutionaries leading up to the period of 1776. So what is a right . A moral principle defining the sphere or spheres of freedom that are necessary for human flourish iing within the contex of civil society. Thats what a right is. It defines spears 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 a license to act. Its concern ed with the freedo of action. But we could also look at rights in a sense as a fence. A fence around each and every individual. Rights in part protect us. They protect us from force against us. So that i think is a pretty decent definition from the perspective of American Revolutionaries of what rights are. Lets drill down more deeply 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. And what the right the life . What does that actually mean . What does it actually imply . Well, it says that individuals are sovereign over their own lives. And 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 embedded in it is the right for each and every individual to pursue those values which promote their lives. What about the right to liberty . The right to liberty means a kind unobstructed freedom to think, choose, act, produce and acquire both material and spiritual values. Its unobstructed freedom, although constrained by the right to liberty of other individuals. 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, the author of the declaration, believed that property was just as much a fundamental right as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and virtually because all of americas Founding Fathers did, but for reasons which we dont understand, he did not include the right to property in the declaration of independence. But jefferson himself and every other founding father included property as in a sense, the lynch pin right. The lynch pin between life and liberty on the one hand and pursuit of happiness on the other. So, what is the right the property . Well, it means its the freedom to keep, use and dispose of the product of ones physical and mental labor. So for those of you who have read lockes second treatise, 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. 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 the virginia bill of rights. It seems to be in part at least unique to cerf son himself. But i think he actual gets this idea of the pursuit of happiness from john lockes essay concerning human understanding. So what is the right to the pursuit of happiness mean . It means freedom. Its the freedom to choose and pursue those values that lead to ones happiness. Now, there are different kind of happiness, of course. As john locke and Thomas Jefferson both said. Theres what they called real or true happiness. There tends to be consequence of achieving certain long the term goals and values. Which is a kind of physical pleasure. That you get from eating, having ice cream, but thats not whats being meant here. The pursuit of happiness means the pursuit and the achievement of ones highest self. Now let me adjust one important point here. In a sense, the most interesting word is pursuit. You have the pursuit of happiness. You dont have a right to happiness, per se, only a right to pursue it, and jefferson and the other Founding Fathers understood this 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. Right. So this is not some kind of hee d heidenistic pursuit. Quite the opposite. It implies, indeed, it implores, that individuals be virtuous. All right. Now, on to the third selfevident truth. And in many ways, this third truth is the most complex, i would say, of the four. It actually embodies several principles. Ive identified the one word ive identified is consent. But it could equally be government or limited government or 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. Okay. If you just stop and think about what that means. You can take this one truth and break it down into its component parts. So, what does the third truth mean . Well, the first thing means, the first thing it says quite clearly, is that the purpose of government is to protect rights. It does not say 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 pursuit of happiness, which includes the right to property. So thats it. And that creates, if the purpose of, 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 a second part of the third truth, which is that governments are necessary to secure rights. Well, the first thing to note here is that americas Founding Fathers were not anarchists. Right. They believed, they believe 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. The question is, what kind of government best does that and built into their idea or built into this third truth, is that there are certain kinds of governments which protect rights better than others. And what kinds of governments are those . Well, i think 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 of what they meant by government. In a government which has as its sole purpose, the protection of rights. They meant constitutional government. And more particularly, they meant a Constitutional Republic. And what is a Constitutional Republic . 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 government. Right, now built into this part of the third truth, this is from the idea of consent. Of a crisis. No taxation without representation. Which means no taxation without the consent of the people. So 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. Right. And sovereignty is the principle which defines where the power of government ultimately rests. And of course as weve seen in this class all semester, right, the whole question and whole debate 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 legislatures . And the principle of consent also has one other principle, which is representation and representation is the core principle defining republican government. So this third truth establishes or implies a Constitutional Republic as the ideal form of government. All right. Lets now go to the fourth selfevident truth. Which reads when ever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. The new government laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to then we shall seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness. Right. 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 selfevident truth. And the third selfevident truth builds on the second and the second builds on the first. And they are held together as a unity. And if you understand the first selfevident truth and the principle of equality, i think can be understood as being selfevident in some way and then by logical deduction, you go from the first, the second, the third then finally, the fourth selfevident truth, which is what i call the revolution truth. So, what is this right to revolution . Although 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 the, so if you read the fourth selfevident truth, the first part of that sentence, the first part of that sentence says that when ever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. Right. 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. Right. And the largest part of the declaration of independence, right, 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 an absolute a tyranny. Now, the second part of this fourth selfevident truth says quote, and to Institute New government laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall see most likely to affect their safety and happiness. Right. 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 and old government. But on the other hand, you create, establish, a new government. All right. And the declaration suggests and it uses the word, when ever any form of government, right, so, it turns out that literally any kind of government can become destructive of rights, including democracy or republicanism. Right. And it also implies that you can have a government that protects the rights of individuals, that is not necessarily republic. You could have a Monarch Republic like the government of england. What the British Government had been up until the time of the imperial crisis. But the right of revolutionism has to be tempered and the very next word is the word, prudence. It says prudence will dictate the governments long established, should not dictate for light and transient causes. In other words, what this means, is right, the right to revolution is not absolute or unlimited. Right. It has to be used prudently. So the question 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 . 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 the course of 1774, now some americans are starting to think, yes, samuel adams, Thomas Jefferson, are going to think we have the grounds to establishing revolution, but still, prudence dick kate tats even in 1774, that may be too early. Theres a question about when radical revolutions are laun launched. You cant be just some radical yahoo that doesnt like a five cent tax on his can of soda that hes going to start revolution. That would be profoundly imprudent. Im coming to the end and i want to end this discussion, this 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. If you remember now, earlier in this taublg when we were examining the first paragraph, in fact, the very first words of the deck that ration of independence, when in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands that have connected them with another. Right. What, really what could that possibly mean, to say that its necessary . When in the course of human events it becomes 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 declaring war, they are committing themselves to death and destruction. So why is it necessary . Well, its necessary, now skipping to the first, into the second sentence of the declaration, the declaration says after the prudence sentence, it says when a long train of abuses pursue iing the same object is a design to reduce them under absolute despi tr despiticism. It is their right. It is their duty. To throw off such government. So yes, they have the right, but more fundamentally, jefferson and the authors of the declaration say they have a duty. Its necessary that we dissolve the political bands. So how is it necessary, how is it a duty for them to declare independence. Then on top of that, they pledge their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to the cause of the revolution. What does this mean . What does the moral universe that they are living in . I think what it means is they have a view of moral action that did not separate theory from practice. They believe if you hold certain moral principles then it is necessary that you act in a certain way. And if given that 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 iii and the British Parliament, then it is necessary if you are to be a moral person, to live up to your moral principles. 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 1975, and his opinion on the dread scodred sc skigs 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. Right. 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 therefore, constantly spreading and deepening its influence and augumenting the happiness and value of life to all people of all colors everywhere. And i think thats what the declaration of independence does. Right. It establishes a standard maxim for a free society by which we can judge tyranny and it turns out not just the tyranny of george iii and the british parliame parliament, but also the tyranny of 19th century southern slave owners because it is the declaration, which is the standard maxim, of a free society for the abolitionists. All right. Let me close with these last, with a few words from i think americas greatest 20th century poet, robert frost in his 1915 poem, the black cottage. Thats a hard mystery of jeffers 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. But never mind. The welsh man got it planted where it will trouble us a thousand years. And i think thats exactly right. If you look at all subsequent American History from the time 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 interrupt the Core Principles of the declaration of independence. In particular the selfevident truth of equality and the selfevident truth 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 come down to those who concepts, to those two selfevident truths, equality and rights. And like the revolutionary generation of 177 6, 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. Were done. And i will see you all on monday. Weeknights this month were featuring American History tv programs as a preview of whats available every weekend on cspan3. Tonight university of maryland preview teaches a class about the concept of power in antebellum slave societies. He explains the different ways that owners and enslaved people expressed their will and looked at how these dynamics played out on plantations. He discusses how the invention of the cotton gin and expansion of slavery and cotton industry affected the relationship between owners and the enslaved. Watch tonight beginning at 8 00 p. M. Eastern. Enjoy American History tv this week and every weekend on cspan3. Youre watching American History tv. Every weekend on cspan3, explore our nations past. Cspan3, 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 cspan3, a College Class about military engagements during the American Revolution. Well hear about the battle of bunker hill, the American Invasion of canada, and the eventual british evacuation of boston. Okay, everybody. So last class we were talking about the outbreak of the American Revolution. We say all this, tension is building in the spring of 1775, in april. General thomas gauge sends troops and fighting breaks out. As nightfalls, about 20,000 americans descend on boston, lay siege to the city and this war that nobody really wants b