Examining the political thought of the imperial crisis. That is, weve been looking at the debates between British Imperial officials and american wig patriots. That debate 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 . 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 legislators . Over the course of about 12 years, between 1764 and 1776, the British Parliament passed a series of laws. In 1764, it began with the sugar act. A year later, the stamp act. Then in 1767, the towns and acts. Then the tea act and then the coercive act. In 1775, the prohibit tory 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. That was the declaratory act of 1766, which claimed that parliaments authority extended to the american colonies in all cases whatsoever. That meant that parliament was not only supreme over the colonies, but in fact its power and its authority was absolutely supreme. So it could pass taxes, which it had never done before. It could pass taxes in the american colonies for revenue. The most famous of all these pieces of legislation was the stamp act of 1765. It put a tax on stamped paper, which the colonists 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 colonial legislatures . Now with regard to the stamp act, the british argued that the stamp act was legal and therefore constitutional. The americans by contrast argued that the stamp act was on just and therefore unconstitutional. So 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, he debate was not simply over the british constitution. The americans began, starting in 1765, they began a search for deeper moral principles. So when they argued that the stamp act was unjust and therefore constitutional, the real question is, how or in what way was the stamp act unjust . So over the course of the next 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 connie is no longer worked. The americans with their newly developing understanding of what the british constitution was, they began to see that it it had to be grounded in absolute permanent universal principles. That was what they searched for over the course of the years of the imperial crisis. Now in many ways, as john adams argued in a letter that he wrote to Thomas Jefferson in 1815, the real American Revolution was not about the war. In 1815, adams wrote quote, what do we mean by the revolution . The war . That was no part of the revolution, it was only an effect and consequence of it. The revolution was in the minds of the people. 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 deepest cause where we will find the true meaning of the revolution was in this transformation that took place in the minds of the American People. Then in 1782, thomas payne and a letter that he wrote to the abbott retinol 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 we think other thoughts than those weve formally used. Again, 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 thought about the most important and most fundamental concepts of justice. That takes us now to the topic of todays lecture. That is the philosophy of the declaration of independence. 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, the last link between the colonists and the mother country was through their relationship with the person of the king. But in january of 1776, with the publication of tom panes common sense, that relationship is forever severed. So there is now intellectually, there is no lingering remnant allegiance or loyalty between the colonists and the mother country. Once they have suffered their connection with the person of the king, they are psychologically no longer members of the british empire. So that then takes us straight to july 4th 1776. And to the passage that we talked about last week, or last class, of the declaration of independence. So what was the declaration of independence that was ratified on july 4th, 1776 . The first thing to note about it is that it is indeed a political, and in some ways, even a diplomatic document. It was written in part for george the third. It was written for european diplomats and financiers. It was written of course 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 calling fourth of new states. Because that is what they are 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 Alliance 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 4, 1776. This was the object of the declaration of the independence, it was intended to be an expression of the american mind. Think about what that means, an expression of the american mind. So on the one hand, what it clearly and obviously means is that the declaration is a summing up of all of the principles that the americans had been searching for during the years of the imperial crisis. Its a summing up. So when it says, we hold these truths to be selfevident, and then it lays out its selfevident 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, is that it provides the moral foundation for this new nation going forward. All right. Before we jump into the declaration, and what were going to do 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 philosophic background of the declaration of independence. So in my view, the declaration is the embodiment, it is a prasie 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 were sir isaac newton in his great work the princitia mathimatica, john lookes essay concerning human understanding, and lockes second treaties of government. And what im going to argue is that the ideas, the fundamental core ideas of newtons principia and lockes essay are in a sense summed up, embodied in the first paragraph of the declaration. And the second paragraph of the declaration is it it is an abstract, it is an abstract of the core basic principles that you will find in lockes second treaties of government. All right. Now, so let me just sum up for you very quickly the core ideas, the Core Principles of the enlightenment which i think can be seen as having been transposed onto the declaration of independence. So there is i think an enlightenment project, right . 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 . Metaphysics 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 is epistemology. And epistemology is that branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of knowledge. And i can sum up the enlightenments view of epistemology in one word which is reason. The enlightenment also has an ethical theory. And an 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 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. If i had to sum up the enlightenments view of politics in one word, it would be constitutionalism. All right. Now the question is, how did jefferson and the committee of five who helped him draft the declaration of independence, how did they take those ideas and put them into the declaration . Or to put 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 and the second paragraph. But if you think about it, its really just two sentences. Two very long sentences. Were going to parse these sentences and were going to try to pull out of them the deepest philosophic meaning. All right. So lets take the first sentence, the first paragraph of the declaration which says, when in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of natures god entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation, close quote. Now, what im going to argue is that this first sentence or paragraph has built into it a metaphysics and an epistemology. That it draws on from the enlightenment. Now, what do i mean by that . Lets first identify sort of the core ideas of that first sentence. And that first sentence has a kind of overarching thematic structure to it. It has a purpose, right . And whats the purpose of the first sentence . It is to declare to the world the, quote, causes which impel us to the separation. The causes which impel us to break from the mother country. And that first paragraph also has a principle or a standard and in this case a moral standard. And that moral standard would be the laws of nature and of natures god. And that first paragraph or sentence also implies an action. And the action is the necessity to dissolve the connection between these two countries. Now, let me just say that in my view, in many ways, and ill talk about this at the end of class, the most interesting word for me of this first paragraph is the word necessary. When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands, 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 its necessary suggests that it must be. But in human affairs, theres 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. Selfidentified loyalists. And a third hadnt made up their mind about whether they supported independence or not. So how is it on july 4, 1776, the americans argue that it is now necessary . So the question is why necessary . Like why not say when in the course of human events its optional to dissolve our political bands . Why necessary . Well, im going to come back to that, that question, at the 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 philosophic ideas that are contained in that first paragraph. So the declaration, as ive suggested, it has a metaphysics that it draws on from the enlightenment. Summed up in one word which is nature. 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 called at the time natural philosophers what today 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 of physical nature, they were absolute 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. So when the declaration refers to the laws of nature and of natures god, 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 adamsdiary, the young 21yearold john adams writing in his diary about the things that he was learning as an undergraduate at harvard college, right . And what he learned is that in the universe, right . According to newtons laws that entities, things, physical things out there in nature, have an identity. And that identity is absolute. And in addition to having identity, because it has identity, it is governed by certain laws of cause and effect. And then the same adams argued is true for human action as well. Now, its a much more difficult leap to go from to discovering scientific laws of nature to discovering human, moral laws of nature. But that was at the deepest philosophic 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. Now, its interesting that it doesnt say the laws of nature and of god. It says natures god. So for most American Revolutionaries who were the grandchildren, the philosophic grandchildren of the enlightenment, they viewed natures god not as the same god of the old testament. Not a kind of omnipresent god who can change the laws of nature at will. But rather a god who was like a watch maker or a clock maker who set the universe in motion and then stepped back. And thats what i think is being referred to there with regard to natures god. And then in the declaration in that first sentence it talks about the causes which impel them to the separation. So this is a kind of view of causation. So in other words, to understand how and why there is this declaration of independence and separation, you have to understand the causes. There is a cause which leads to an effect. The effect is the declaration of independence and the 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 principal part of what the declaration does in the second and the very long body of the second paragraph of the declaration, it lays out it lays out its charges against king george iii. Now, the first paragraph also has an epistemology. 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. And how does it do that in the first paragraph . Well, at the very end of that first paragraph, it refers to a decent respect to the opinions of mankind. In other words, in this declaration to the world, the americans, in other words, are speaking from one mind to another. Theyre speaking to the reason or the powers of reason of all people everywhere. They respect the opinions of mankind. They respect the idea that they can lay out a case, an argument, appeal to the reason of people around the world and that those reasons can be understood. And thats why in the second paragraph, just before the charges are laid out against the king, the declaration says, quote, to prove this, this, meaning the absolute despotism of george iii, the tierney of george iii as stated in the declaration to prove this tyranny, let facts be submitted to a candid world. The americans are making they have essentially written an indictment against george iii and indirectly to the British Parliament as well. And it lays out the the declaration lays out all of the crimes committed by george iii and the British Parliament. 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. Were appealing to the minds, to the reasons of people everywhere. All right. Lets now turn to the second paragraph. Which is whats often considered to be the second paragraph is really just one long sentence. And it says, we hold these truths to be selfevident. That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it and to Institute New government laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect 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, this very long, complex sentence contains a whole universe of ideas and moral principles. And let me just say or repeat that this one sentence of the declaration, it is a summing up. It is a praisey of john lockes second treatise of government. So all of the ideas contained in this one sentence sum up the core fundamental principles of lockes 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 our eye reads over it and we want to get to the truths themselves. But 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 perceptualy selfevident for anybody with eyes to see. Up is not down. Black is not white. In is not out. These are 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 complex than being perceptually evident to the viewer. So what can it possibly mean . Well, 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 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 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 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 farmer 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 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 depridations of george iii and 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. And he was referring particularly to the equality truth, a selfevident lie. So what exactly does it mean . I mean, one could say, for instance, one could say that equality is a chimera and doesnt really exist. Just look out into the world. Look into the world in which we live here, now, today. Do you see equality . Do i see equality right now as im sitting here in standing here in this room looking at all of you . I dont see equality. I see differences. I know for a fact in this room right now there is tall and short, more particularly there is strong and weak. There is fast and slow. And surely there are intellectual differences amongst even the people sitting here 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 that not a selfevident lie . Jefferson himself and john adams recognized that there is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of which he said are virtue and talents. Now, a natural aristocracy by definition is going to mean inequality. So why doesnt the declaration say 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, by 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 Coleman win the 100 meter dash at the world track and field championships. As much as i would like to think that im as fast or used to be even when i was his age, Christian Coleman, 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 as einstein. So in terms of measurable qualities, we are not the same. We are different. So what does equality mean . I think for jefferson, equality means what i call qualitative sameness versus quantitative sameness. Now what do mine by qualitative sameness . What i mean is that we all share certain qualities as human beings. There is what i call we have species equality. We are all members of the same species as defined by having two fundamental characteristics. Namely, reason and free will. And by virtue of us having reason and free will, 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 selfgovernment. We have an equal right to selfgovernment because we are selfowning and selfgoverning 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 superior to others in understanding, he was not therefore lord of the person or property of others, close quote. So equality then means we have an equal right. Equality is it really should be an adjective. An adjective to rights. Equality means equal rights. All right. Now, on to the second selfevident 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 too many of us take to be so obvious that we dont actually think about what it really means. So, for instance, when i often ask students, what rights are, the typical answer is, well, rights are life. Liberty. Property. The pursuit of happiness. No. Thats not what rights are. Those are particular instances of what rights are. That is not a definition 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 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 indisputably true. But i also think its true that most American Revolutionaries, most enlightenment 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 rights of nature. Everybody believed that. So we can at the very least say that that is the source of rights. Namely, nature. And then we can, 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. And the first is that the individual is the primary unit of moral and political value. And the second assumption was their rejection of the initiation of physical force. 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 itself was developed largely in the 17th century, mostly lets say beginning with locke and then developed in the 18th century and particularly really fleshed out by American Revolutionaries. It begins with the individual as the primary unit of value and it rejects the initiation of physical force as a value, right . All 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 ive read scores of pamphlets and essays and newspaper articles, probably hundreds of newspaper articles on from the 1760s and 1770s and 1780s and what im going to present now to you is a definition is a definition that essentially emerged with American Revolutionaries in the period leading up to 1776. So what is a right . A right is a moral principle defining the sphere or spheres of freedom that are necessary for humans flourishing within the context of civil society. Thats what a right is. It defines spheres of freedom. And you can look at rights and in defining these spheres of freedom, you can look at the concept of rights as having two primary characteristics. In one sense, rights are like a license. They are a license to act. Its concerned with the freedom of action. But we can also look at rights in a sense as a fence. A fence around each and every individual. Rights in part protec us. They protect us from those who would initiate force against us. So that i think is a pretty decent definition from the perspective of American Revolutionaries of what rights are. All right. Lets now drill down even more deeply into this second selfevident truth and look at the various rights of nature. And the first right of course which is the most fundamental of all rights is the right to life. And what is the right to 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 the right to life also embedded in it is the moral right for each and every individual to pursue those values which promote their lives. All right. What about the right to liberty . What is the right to liberty . The right to liberty means a kind of unobstructed freedom to think, choose, act, produce and acquire both material and spiritual values. Its unobstructed freedom, although constrained by the right to liberty of other individuals. All right. Now, the declaration of independence does not include a right a natural right to liberty. But im going to include it, basically because Thomas Jefferson and the author of the declaration believed that property was just as much a fundamental right as were life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and because virtually all of americas Founding Fathers did. But for complicated reasons which but for complicated reasons we dont understand, he did not include the right to property in the declaration of independence. Jefferson himself and every other founding father included property as, in a sense, the linchpin between life and liberty on the one hand and 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 lockes second treatise, the idea is when you mix your labor, both physical and mental, with nature, which has no value once you mix your labor with that which has no value, you can claim it as your property, because it is now an extension of you. Finally, the last right of nature listed in the declaration is the pursuit of happiness. What is it . This right to the pursuit of happiness is a curious one, because it doesnt appear in virtually any other of the bills of rights, with the exception of the virginia bill of rights. The 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 . 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 happiness that you get from eating a good steak or having ice cream, but that is not what is meant here. The pursuit of happiness means the achievement of ones highest value. Let me add one important point here. In a sense, the most interesting word is pursuit. You have a right to the pursuit of happiness. You do not have the right to happiness, 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. 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. That is not what is meant. Quite the opposite. The pursuit of happiness implies and indeed it implores that individuals be virtuous. Now on to the third selfevident truth. In many ways, this third truth is the most complex of the four. It actually embodies several principles. I identified the one word i identified with the third selfevident 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 governed. If you stop and think about what that means, you can actually take this one truth, the one clause of the larger sentence, and break it down into its component parts. What does the third truth mean . The first thing it means the first thing it says quite clearly is that the purpose of government is to protect rights. It does not say that the purpose of government is to make men good or virtuous. It does not say that the purpose of government is to make all men equal, or the same. It says that the purpose is to protect rights. What rights does it mean . It means the rights contained in the second selfevident truth, the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, which includes the right to property. That is it. That creates if the sole purpose of government is to protect rights. That means, by definition, a limited government. That takes us to the second part of the third truth, governments are necessary to secure rights. Americas Founding Fathers were not anarchists. They believed that there is a legitimate role for government to play in a free society, to protect rights, the natural rights of all human beings. But then question is, what kind of government best does that . 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 . This is somewhat reading between the lines. But it is only reading between the lines because i read just about every word Thomas Jefferson and James Madison ever wrote. I think i have a pretty good idea what they meant by government, a government whose sole purpose is the protection of rights. They meant constitutional government, a Constitutional Republic. What is the Constitutional Republic . It is one based on we, the people, but it has a constitution that defines, establishes, and limits the powers of government. It means, because it is constitutional, a limited government, a government whose powers are designed by the constitution. And finally, this third truth says the just powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed. Now, built into this part of the third truth is the idea of consent. This comes out of the revolutionary crisis. No taxation without 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 unites, connects. Equal rights on the one hand, but government on the other. Consent is the link between rights and government. Consent as it is institutionalized is in the form of the principle of sovereignty is the principle which defines where the power of government rests. As we have seen in this class, the 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 in the colonial charters and colonial legislatures . The principle of consent also implies one more political principle, which is representation. Representation is the core principle defining republican government. This third truth 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 not obviously selfevident. It is selfevident only in the sense that it builds on the third selfevident truth, which builds on the second, and the second builds on the first. They are held together as a unity. If you understand the first selfevident truth and principal of equality can be understood as selfevident in some way, and by logical deduction, you go from the first, second, third, and finally the fourth fourth, which i call the the revolution truth. It talks about altering or abolishing, but in effect, it means revolution. The right to revolution calls for two kinds of action. The first action is destructive, the second is constructive. If you read the fourth selfevident truth, the first part of that sentence the first part of that sentence says that whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. That is the destructive part. What that means is it is negative consent, or consent withdrawn. It is the people withdrawing consent to be ruled or governed by this particular government. 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 iii and the British Parliament have established an absolute despotism over them, a tyranny. The second part of this fourth selfevident truth says and to lay its 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 old 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 republic. You can have a monarchical republic, like what the British Government had been up until the time of the imperial crisis. But the right of revolution has to be tempered. The very next word after the right to revolution is the word prudence. It says prudence will dictate government shall not be established for light causes. The rights to revolution is not absolute or unlimited. It has to be used prudently. The question you have to ask yourself is would it have been prudent to launch a revolution against the British Government in 1765 after the passage of the stamp act . Not one American Revolutionary would have said yes to that question, nor would they have said yes after the passage of the townsend and tea acts. Now some americans are starting to think, yes, maybe we have the grounds for establishing revolution. Prudence dictates that may be too early in 1774. There is a real question about when revolutions are launched. You cannot be some radical yahoo who decides he does not like a five cent tax on his new can of soda and launches a revolution. That would be profoundly imprudent. I am coming close to the end. I want to end this discussion on the declaration of independence by talking about the moral logic or the American Revolution, the moral logic contained in the declaration of independence. If you remember now, earlier in this talk, when we were examining the first paragraph, the first words of the declaration of independence, when in the course of human events it becomes necessary to dissolve the political bands that connected them with one another. What could that possibly mean, to say it is necessary . Necessary, as i said, implies 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. By declaring independence that means they are declaring war. In declaring war, they are committing themselves to death and destruction. Why is this necessary . It is necessary now skipping into the second sentence of the declaration. It says, when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same object offenses 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 that they are saying, it is necessary we dissolve the political bands that connected us to one another. How is it a duty for them to declare independence . Then on top of that, they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to the cause of the revolution. What does this mean . What is the moral universe they are living in . I think what it means is that they had a view of moral action that did not separate theory from practice. They believed that if you hold certain moral principles, then it is necessary that you act in a certain way. You can view it in philosophic terms in what is called a conditional imperative. If given then. 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 compelling American Revolutionaries. To sum up, what does all of this mean . What is the ultimate meaning of the declaration of independence . I think it can be summed up in the words of abraham lincoln. Who, in 1957, on the dred scott decision said, speaking of the declaration of independence, he wrote i think the authors of that notable instrument meant to set up a standard maxim for a free society. I think that is exactly what the declaration is, a standard maxim for a free society, which should be familiar to all and revered by all, constantly looked 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. I think that is what the declaration of independence does. It establishes a standard maxim for a free society by which we can judge tyranny. It turns out, not just the tyranny of george the third and the British Parliament, but also the tyranny of 19th century of 19th century southern slaveholders. Because it is the declaration which is the standard maxim of a free society for the abolitionists. Let me close with a few words from, i think, americas greatest 20th century poet, robert frost. In his 1915 poem, the black cottage. That is a hard mystery of jeffersons. What did he mean . The easy way is to decide it simply isnt true. It may not be. I heard a fellow say so. But nevermind. The welshman got it planted where it will trouble us 1000 years. I think that is exactly right. If you look at all subsequent American History, from the time of the declaration of independence until today, i think he will find all you will find all of the intellectual and political debates in this country for 235 years, in one way or another, have written have been a debate how to interpret the Core Principles of the declaration of independence, the selfevident truth of equality and selfevident truth of rights. Just here today in the United States in 2019, the political controversies of this country today, at the deepest philosophic level, really come down to those two concepts, those two selfevident truths, equality and rights. And like the revolutionary generation of 1776, it is, 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 done. I will see you all on monday. Youre watching American History