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 legislators. Between 1774 and 1776 the British Parliament passed a series of laws. In 1774 it was the sugar act. Then a year later the stamp act. In 1767 the townsend act. Then the tea act. Then in 1775 the prohibiting act. Standing behind all these acts 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 its power and authority was absolutely supreme. All 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 these pieces of british legislation was the stamp act of 1765 which put a tax on stamped paper which the colonies needed for all legal and commercial transactions. What was the specific constitutional issue . It was where to draw the ju jurisdictional boundaries. Now with regard to the stamp act the british argued that the stamp act was legal and therefore constitutional. The americans by contrast argued that the stamp act was unjust and therefore un constitutional. Over the course of the never 10 or 11 years british officials and american patriots began a search for principles. The principles first of the british constitution. They had competing understandings of the british constitution. For the americans the debate was not simply over the british constitution. The americans began starting in 1765 a search, a search for deeper moral principles. When they argued that the stamp act was unjust, the real question is how or in what way was the stamp act unjust . Over the course of the next 10 or 11 years the americans began this search for new standards, new principles of justice, of liberty, of equality, of rights, of sovereignty. Over the course of these 10 or 11 years they began to see that the principles that once tied the mother country to the colonies no longer worked. 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. Thats what they searched for over the years of the imperial crisis. Now, in many ways, as john adams argued in a letter 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 effective from 1760 to 1775 in the course of 15 years before a drop of blood was shed at lexington. Now think about that. Adams is arguing that the real American Revolution was not military. It was not constitutional. It was not political. It was not economic. The real, the deepest cause where well 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 in a letter he wrote to france, he said this about the period leading up to the American Revolution, quote, our style and manner of thinking have undergone a revolution. More extraordinary than the Political Revolution of the country, we see with other eyes. We hear with other ears and think other thoughts than those we formerly used. Now, again, think about the meaning of what paine is arguing here. Some kind of radical transformation took place in the way that the americans saw the world, the way they thought about the most important, the most fundamental concepts of justice. That takes us now to the topic of todays lecture which is the philosophy of the declaration of independence. 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. All of this comes to a head in 1776. As we talked about last class, the last link between the colonies and the mother country was through their relationship, the colonies relationship with the person of the king. In january 1776 with the publication of tom paines common sense, that relationship is forever severed. There is now sintellectchually relationship between the colonies and the king. That takes us straight to july 4, 1776 and to the passage that we talked about last class of the declaration of the independence. What was this declaration of independence . It was ratified on july 4, 1776. 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 financers. It was written for the American People to help organize the American People politically. 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. Thats what they are now. They will no longer be colonies. They are states. Independent, political units that now have the authority to create their own constitutions, their own governments and to forge alliances with foreign powers. But the declaration was more than that. In 1825 Thomas Jefferson was asked by henry lee what his object, what the purpose was in writing the declaration of independence. 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 the principles that the americans had been searching for during the years of the imperial crisis. Its a summing up. When it says, we hold these truths to be selfevident, right, and then it lays out its selfevident truths, this is these are the principles of the american mind. But, as an expression of the american mind, the declaration was also laying the foundation for the new constitutions and for the new governments that were going to be created by the new states. In fact, what the declaration of course does is establish the moral foundations, not just of these new states, but of the United States of america. Right . That is the great meaning of the declaration. Its that it provides the moral foundation for this new nation going forward. All right. Before we jump into the declaration what were going to do in todays class 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 before in this class, which is the if i low so fik background of the declaration of independence. In my view the declaration is the embodiment its a precipe of the principles of enlightenment. All ideas are embodies in the declaration of independence. The three great philosophers of the enlightenment were sir isaac newton in his great work, john locks essay and locks second treatise of government. Ill argue that the ideas, the fundamental core ideas from newton and lock are in a sense summed up, embodied in the first paragraph of the declaration and the second paragraph of the declaration is it is it is a it is an abstract. Its an abstract of the core basic principles youll find in locks second treatise of government. All right. Now, 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 on to the declaration of independence. So, there is i think an enlightenment project. We can identify a kind of comprehensive philosophy of this period known as the enlightenment, the 17th and 18th century enlightenment. Like all comprehensive systematic philosophies it has four basic branches. It includes four basic branches of philosophy. First is me thtaphysics. I can sum up for you in one word the enlightenments view of metaphysics. Nature. The Second Branch is epistemology, thats concerned with the nature of knowledge. I can sum up the enlightenments view in one word. Reason. The enlightenment also has an ethical theory. Ethics is that branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of human action and human relationships. I think i can sum up in one word the enlightenments view of ethics. That is rights. Finally, the enlightenment has a view of politics. 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. 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 how can we see those ideas within the declaration of independence . All right. 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 it the first paragraph and second paragraph. If you think about it, its just two sentences, two very long sentences. Were going to pars these sentences and were going to try to pull out of them sort of the deepest if i low so fik meaning. Lets take the first sentence 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 entitled them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires 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 epistomology. What do i mean by that . Well, lets first identify the core ideas of that first sentence. That first sentence has a kind of overarching theme structure to it. It has a purpose. Whats the purpose of the first sentence . Its 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. That first paragraph also has a principle or a standard. In this case a moral standard. That moral standard would be the laws of nature and of natures god. That first paragraph or sentence also implies an action. 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 ill talk about this at the end of class the most interesting word for me of this first paragraph is the word necessary. When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands, et cetera, 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 colonies at that time were loyalists. 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 . The question is why necessary . Why not say when in the course of human events its optional to dissolve our political bands . Why necessary . Ill come back to that question at the end of the talk. 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 contained in that first paragraph. The declaration, as i suggested, it has a metaphysics it draws on summed up in one word, nature. We see that when it talks about the laws of nature and of natures god. In the 17th and 18th centuries natural what were called at the time natural philosophers, what we would call natural scientists today, they began to discover certain laws of nature. Scientific or physical laws of nature. These laws of nature in effect organized the universe, kept it in harmony, kept it as a system governed by certain core laws. Like the law of gravitation or newtons three laws of planetary motion. These laws of physical nature were absolute. They were and they are absolute. They are universal. They apply throughout the whole universe. They are permanent. As a result of these discove discoveries, 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, its referring to moral laws of nature, right . If you remember and 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 at harvard college. What he learned is that in the universe, according to newtons laws, that entities, things, physical things out there in nature, have an identity and that identity is absolute. In addition to having an identity it is governed by certain laws of cause and effect. Then the same adams argued is true for human action as well. Its a more difficult leap to go from signty fik laws of nature to discovering human laws of nature. That was the quest, that was the search of 18th century moral philosophers including the Founding Fathers. We see in that first paragraph let me just im sorry. Let me back up and also say that the phrase in the declaration is the laws of god and of natures god. Its interesting that it doesnt say the laws of nature and of god. It says natures god. For most American Revolutionaries who were the grandchildren, the ifphilosophi grandchildren of enlightenment, they viewed natures god as not the god in the old testament. Not the god who can change the laws of nature at will. Rather a god who was like a watch maker or clock maker who set the universe in motion and then stepped back. Thats what i think is being referred to there with regard to natures god. Then in the first sentence it talks about the causes which impel them to the separation. Right . This is a kind of view of causation. In other words, to understand how and why there is this declaration of independence and separation, you have to understand the causes. There is a cause which leads to an effect. The effect is the declaration of independence and the little separation of the colonies from the mother country. It has causes, right . 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 declaration does. In the second and very long body of the second paragraph of the declaration it lays out its charges against king george iii. Now the first paragraph also has an epistomolojy. In the context of the Founding Fathers that means its going to in some way praise and promote mans faculty of reason. How does it do that in the first paragraph . Well, at the very end of the 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. Right . 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 tyranny 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. It lays out the declaration lays out all of the crimes committed by george iii and the British Parliament. Right . So by laying out those facts, they are laying them out to people everywhere to determine whether the charges are, in fact, true or not true. This is why it says we are submitting it to a candid world. Were appealing to the minds, to the reason of people everywhere. All right. Lets now turn to the second paragraph which is one at least whats often considered to be the second paragraph, is really just one long sentence. 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. 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. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, its the right of the people to alter or abolish it and to Institute New government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness. Well, that is in my view without question the most famous and the single most important sentence ever written in American History and maybe even the single most important sentence written in world history. That one sentence, that one very long sentence, establishes the philosophic moral standard by which the colonies are going to judge the actions of king george iii and parliament. In fact, what theyre really doing at a deeper level is laying out the principles, the moral standards 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. Let me just say or repeat that this one sentence of the