Transcripts For CSPAN3 Lectures In History Preamble Of The D

About the declaration of indent. He talks about it line by line and he explores what they may have intended by their word choices. Good afternoon, everybody. So for the last six weeks in this class, we have been examining the political thought of the imperial crisis. We have been looking at the debates between officials and american wig patriots and it has come down to one issue which is broadly speaking, what is the constitution and how does it be fine prelations. What is the political and constitutional relationship between the parliament and the port, and over the cover aurt about 12 years, the british par employment passed a series of laws. In 1764 is started with the sugar act and then the stamp act. And then in 1775 the prohib tire act. But standing behind all of these acts of british legislation was one over arching piece of legislation that i think was the driving force behind all of these acts. And that meant that par employmeparliment was supreme and the pour and authority was supreme, right . So it could pass taxes which it had never done before. It could pass colonies for reve. It put a stamp on pair needed for all legal and transformational transactions. It was where to draw the jurisdictional boundary. Between the authority of parliament and the authority of the colonial legislatures. With regard to the tamp act, the british argued that the stamp act was league and therefore constitutional. The mens by contrast arted that the stamp act was unjust and therefore unconstitutional. And so over the course of the next 10 or 11 years, officials and american patriots started a search for principals. They had competing understandings. But for the americans, the debase was not simply over president they began starting in 1765, they started a search for deeper moral principals. The real question is how or in what way is the stamp act unjust. So americans smarted a search for stand ands, of rights and solver ten pi and in the course of 10 or 11 years, they started to see that the principals that once tied the poer country to the colonies no long er worked. And they started to see it had to be grounded in absolute permanent principals, and this is what they searched for in the years of the imperial crisis. Now in many ways, as john adams argued in a let near he wrote, the real American Revolution was not about the par. He wrote what do we mean by the revolution . The sfwhar that was no part of the revolution. It was only an effect and con sequence of it. The revolution was in the fimin of the people from 1760 to 1775 in the course of 15 years 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 we will find the true meaning of the revolution was in this transformation that took place in the minds of the American People. Nanny 1782, thomas payne, in a let near he wrote in france, he said this about the going into the American Revolution. 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 that we formally used. Right now again, think about the meaning of what payne is arguing here, some kind of radical transformation took place in the way that the americans saw the wor world. The way they thought about the most important and fundamental concepts of justice. That takes us now to the topic of the lecture which is the philosophy of the declaration of independence. Over the course of the last six weeks, we have been mostly looking at the political and constitutional principals. And institutions that were with developed by American Revolutionaries. But this comes to a head in 1776. The last link, it was through the relationship with the person of the king. But in jan of 1776 with the publication of the common sense, there is a big pet puppy now. There is no lingering remnant between the colonist. They are no longer members of the british empire. So that takes us straight to july 4th 1776. And to the passage which we talked about last week, last class, of the declaration of independence. What was the dak lar ration of independence. It is indeed a political and in some ways a diplomatic document. It was written in part for george the third. It was diplomat, it is 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 are states, independ political yupts that now have the Political Organization with foreign alliances. In 1825 Thomas Jefferson was asked by henryly henry lee. He says this was the object of the deck lair ration of independence. It was an expression of the american mind. Think about what that means. On one hand what it clearly and obviously mean is that the declaration is a summing up of all of the principals that the persons were searching for. And it is proving that these are the principals. But as an expression, the declaration was also laying the foundation for the new constitutions and the new governments that were going to be with the government of the United States. And what it does is it establishes the moral foundations not just of these new states but of the United States of america. That is the great meaning. Is that it provides the moral foundation for this new nation going forward. We are going to line by line go through the declaration. But before duo that, let me mention something that we talked about before in this class. So in any view. The philosophic principals. They are in fact embodiyed in the declaration of independence. The three philosophies of the United States. What im going to argue is that it is in a sense summed up and embodies in the declaration. And the second paragraph of the declaration. It is a abstract of the core basic principals that you will find in the second tretis of government. Let me sum up for you the core ideas and principals of enlightenment. I think it can be seen as having been transposed. So i think there is an enlightenment project. There is as we say, we can identify a kind of comprehensive philosophy of this period known as the enlightenment. Like all comprehensive symptomatic philosophies, e first it is meta physics. It is the pranish of fis loss if is and the branch of reality. I can sum up for you the enlightenment view. The Second Branch is epistemology. I can sum up the enlightenment view of epistemology and that is reason. There is also an ethical theory. Is there is human action and hum human relationships. And i can sum up the view which is rights. And finally the enlightenment has a view of politics and politics is a bran of of philosophy concerned with social and Political Organization. And if i had to sum up the enlightenment view of politics in one world it would be constitutionalism. All right, now the question is how did jefferson and the committee of five that helped him draft the declaration of independence, how did they take those ideas and put them into the declaration. How do we see those ideas in the declaration of independence. So what i would like to do now is just start to systematically go through what, effect, ladies and gentlemen is just the first two sentences of the declaration. Sometimes people call the first and second paragraph, but if you think about it it is just two very long sentences, and were going to parse these sentences and were going to try to pull out of them the deepest philosophical meaning. Lets take the first sentence the first braf of the declaration which says when, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bans that seconds them with another, and to assume among the powers of the arrest the peoples god entitle them a decent respect to the peoples kind, that impel them to the separation. Now what im going to argue is that this first sentence or paragraph has built into it a metaphysics and epitemology that is in the enlightenment. What do i mean they be . Lets just first identify the core ideas of that first sentence. And it has an othverarch ingove structure to it. It has causes that be break from the mother country, and it has a principal, or a standard, a moral standard of nature and natures god. And the first paragraph or sentence also implies an action. And the action is the necessity to dissolve the connection between these two countries. In my view, in many ways, the most interesting word for me in the first of this paragraph is the word necessary. For them to dissolve the political bans, 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. So say it is necessary suggest thats it must. But in human affairs, there is nothing that must be. They are the four colon yials a that time. The last third had not made up their mind about whether or not they support independence or not. So how is it that the americans argue that it is now necessary. So the question is necessary. When in the course of human events, it is optional. To dissolve our political bans. Im going to come back to the question at the end of the talk. I think that the word nesz tells us something deeply important about the moral characters of thoses that signed the declaration of independence. Let me brake down the idea thats are contains in that first paragraph. So it has a meta physics somed 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, what were calls natural philosophers, now called scientists, they started to discover certain laws of nature. Scientific or physical laws of nature. They organize the universe. Governed by certain core laws. These laws of physical nature are absolute. They apply throughout the whole june verse. As a result of these discoveries, moral philosophers in the 17th and 18th centuries began to look or try to discover certain moral laws of nature. So the declaration of laws of nature and natures god, it is referring to moral laws of nature, right . And if you remember, going back to one of the very first classes when we read john adams diary, the young 21yearold writing about the things he was learning as an under graduate at harvard college. What we 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 noise having identity, it is covered by certain laws and cause and effect if is a much more difficult leap to go from discovering scientific laws of nature to discovering human, moral, laws of nature. But that was, at the deepist philosophical level. That was the quest. That was the search of 18th century moral philosophers including the Founding Fathers. And we 1993 that first paragraph, let me just back up and say that the phrase in the declaration and the laws of god and natures god. Now it is 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 that can change the laws of nature at will, but rather a god who is like a watch maker or a clockmaker who set the universe in motion and then stepped back. That is what i think is being refer this to there. The causes which impel them to the separation. So this is a kind of view of causation. So nortsds so 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. It is a little separation of the colonies. In order to understand the actions of declaration of independence, you have to understand the causes. In the second, and the long body of the second declaration, it lays out its charges against king george iii. The first paragraph. And it mean thats it will, in some way, praise and promo promote mans faculty of reason. How does do that in the first paragraph . In the end of the first paragraph, it refers to a decent respect. In this declaration to the world, the americans are speaking from one mind to another. Theyre speaking to the reason or the powers of reason everywhere. They respect the idea that they can lay ut case or an argument and appeal to the people of the world and those reasons can be under stood. Right . And that is why in the second paragraph, just before the charges are laid out against the king if says the meaning, the t ocho tism of the tyranny of george iii, to prove this tyranny, let facts be submitted to a candid world. The americans are making essentially a written indictment against george the iii. And it lays out the declaration lays out all of the crimes committed by george iii and the British Parliament. So by laying out the facts, theyre laying them out to people everywhere to determine whether or not the charges are in fact true or not true. That is why were submitting to a candid world. Appealing to the minds and the reasons of people everywhere. All right. Lets now turn to the second paragraph. Which is one at least what is often considered to be the second perhaps that is really just one long sentence. It says we hold these truths to be self evident. That all men are created equal. That they are endowed with unalienable rights and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And that to secure these lights, they are instituted among money deriving their powers from the consent of the government that when any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish is and to Institute New government laying its foundation on such principals and organizing its powers in touch power has to them will 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 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 what theyre really doing at a deeper level is laying out the principals, the moral standards, by which all governments everywhere should be judged. All right, now, that this very long complex sentence contains a whole universe of ideas and moral principals. And this one sentence of the declaration, it is a summing up, it is a precede of the second treatise of government. So all of these ideas in one sentence sum up the core fundamental principals of the second treatise of government. So lets unpack the meaning of this complex sentence. We hold these truths to be self evident. In many ways 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, i think, just because it is so simple and so elegant in its formulation that we just are our eyes read over it, and we wanted to get to the truths themselves. But i think this first clause is critically important. We hold these truths to be self evident. Now, most scholars of the declaration of independence tend to focus on the notion of selfevident. We hold these truths to be selfevident. What could that mean that the truth thats are to follow are self evident. Well this idea of selfevidency is a philosophical term. And the technical definition is that in a proposition the subject and the predicate have to be in agreement with each other which simply means that a self evident truth is one or a selfevident proposition is one that is perceptually self evident to anybody with eyes to see. Up is not down. Black is not white. In is not out. These are perceptually self evident truths. But surely that cant be what jefferson is referring to relative to the declaration. Because as we will see, the four truths of the declaration are much, much more complex than being perfect seceptual lyperce viewer. So what could it possibly mean . I will explain this in just a minute. I think the most important word in we hold these truths to be self evident is truths, the world truths or truth. Why is it important in i think it is certainly important for us in the 21st century. And i would argue that it is hard for us to understand what we meant by the concept of truth, because in our world today. In our post 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 the 2016 word of the year. For us we live in a post truth world apparently. But that was not true for americas Founding Fathers. They believe that the concept truth meant that there are capital t truths that mean 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, would be that they are absolute, certain, universal, and timeless. So to sum up, americas Founding Fathers did believe that there are moral truths that are not subjective. They dont change with the times or the place, but they are absolutely true in all places and all times. All right, now, how do we get self evident truths. How did the American People get selfevident truths. I think it is the case that the four truths are not self evident. What could jefferson have possibly meant . When he said we hold these truths to be selfevident. Who is the we in we hold these truths. We who are tasked with drafting the declaration that included ben franklin, john adams, 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 means the American Revolution<\/a> was not about the par. He wrote what do we mean by the revolution . The sfwhar that was no part of the revolution. It was only an effect and con sequence of it. The revolution was in the fimin of the people from 1760 to 1775 in the course of 15 years think about that, adams is arguing that the real American Revolution<\/a> was not military, it was not constitutional. It was not political, it was not economic. The real, 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<\/a>. Nanny 1782, thomas payne, in a let near he wrote in france, he said this about the going into the American Revolution<\/a>. Our style and manner of thinking have undergone a revolution more extraordinary than the Political Revolution<\/a> of the country. We see with other eyes. We hear with other ears, and think other thoughts than those that we formally used. Right now again, think about the meaning of what payne is arguing here, some kind of radical transformation took place in the way that the americans saw the wor world. The way they thought about the most important and fundamental concepts of justice. That takes us now to the topic of the lecture which is the philosophy of the declaration of independence. Over the course of the last six weeks, we have been mostly looking at the political and constitutional principals. And institutions that were with developed by American Revolution<\/a>aries. But this comes to a head in 1776. The last link, it was through the relationship with the person of the king. But in jan of 1776 with the publication of the common sense, there is a big pet puppy now. There is no lingering remnant between the colonist. They are no longer members of the british empire. So that takes us straight to july 4th 1776. And to the passage which we talked about last week, last class, of the declaration of independence. What was the dak lar ration of independence. It is indeed a political and in some ways a diplomatic document. It was written in part for george the third. It was diplomat, it is to help organize the American People<\/a> 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 are states, independ political yupts that now have the Political Organization<\/a> with foreign alliances. In 1825 Thomas Jefferson<\/a> was asked by henryly henry lee. He says this was the object of the deck lair ration of independence. It was an expression of the american mind. Think about what that means. On one hand what it clearly and obviously mean is that the declaration is a summing up of all of the principals that the persons were searching for. And it is proving that these are the principals. But as an expression, the declaration was also laying the foundation for the new constitutions and the new governments that were going to be with the government of the United States<\/a>. And what it does is it establishes the moral foundations not just of these new states but of the United States<\/a> of america. That is the great meaning. Is that it provides the moral foundation for this new nation going forward. We are going to line by line go through the declaration. But before duo that, let me mention something that we talked about before in this class. So in any view. The philosophic principals. They are in fact embodiyed in the declaration of independence. The three philosophies of the United States<\/a>. What im going to argue is that it is in a sense summed up and embodies in the declaration. And the second paragraph of the declaration. It is a abstract of the core basic principals that you will find in the second tretis of government. Let me sum up for you the core ideas and principals of enlightenment. I think it can be seen as having been transposed. So i think there is an enlightenment project. There is as we say, we can identify a kind of comprehensive philosophy of this period known as the enlightenment. Like all comprehensive symptomatic philosophies, e first it is meta physics. It is the pranish of fis loss if is and the branch of reality. I can sum up for you the enlightenment view. The Second Branch<\/a> is epistemology. I can sum up the enlightenment view of epistemology and that is reason. There is also an ethical theory. Is there is human action and hum human relationships. And i can sum up the view which is rights. And finally the enlightenment has a view of politics and politics is a bran of of philosophy concerned with social and Political Organization<\/a>. And if i had to sum up the enlightenment view of politics in one world it would be constitutionalism. All right, now the question is how did jefferson and the committee of five that helped him draft the declaration of independence, how did they take those ideas and put them into the declaration. How do we see those ideas in the declaration of independence. So what i would like to do now is just start to systematically go through what, effect, ladies and gentlemen is just the first two sentences of the declaration. Sometimes people call the first and second paragraph, but if you think about it it is just two very long sentences, and were going to parse these sentences and were going to try to pull out of them the deepest philosophical meaning. Lets take the first sentence the first braf of the declaration which says when, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bans that seconds them with another, and to assume among the powers of the arrest the peoples god entitle them a decent respect to the peoples kind, that impel them to the separation. Now what im going to argue is that this first sentence or paragraph has built into it a metaphysics and epitemology that is in the enlightenment. What do i mean they be . Lets just first identify the core ideas of that first sentence. And it has an othverarch ingove structure to it. It has causes that be break from the mother country, and it has a principal, or a standard, a moral standard of nature and natures god. And the first paragraph or sentence also implies an action. And the action is the necessity to dissolve the connection between these two countries. In my view, in many ways, the most interesting word for me in the first of this paragraph is the word necessary. For them to dissolve the political bans, et cetera, et cetera, the question is necessary why necessary . How is it necessary that the American People<\/a> dissolve their connection to the mother country. So say it is necessary suggest thats it must. But in human affairs, there is nothing that must be. They are the four colon yials a that time. The last third had not made up their mind about whether or not they support independence or not. So how is it that the americans argue that it is now necessary. So the question is necessary. When in the course of human events, it is optional. To dissolve our political bans. Im going to come back to the question at the end of the talk. I think that the word nesz tells us something deeply important about the moral characters of thoses that signed the declaration of independence. Let me brake down the idea thats are contains in that first paragraph. So it has a meta physics somed 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, what were calls natural philosophers, now called scientists, they started to discover certain laws of nature. Scientific or physical laws of nature. They organize the universe. Governed by certain core laws. These laws of physical nature are absolute. They apply throughout the whole june verse. As a result of these discoveries, moral philosophers in the 17th and 18th centuries began to look or try to discover certain moral laws of nature. So the declaration of laws of nature and natures god, it is referring to moral laws of nature, right . And if you remember, going back to one of the very first classes when we read john adams diary, the young 21yearold writing about the things he was learning as an under graduate at harvard college. What we 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 noise having identity, it is covered by certain laws and cause and effect if is a much more difficult leap to go from discovering scientific laws of nature to discovering human, moral, laws of nature. But that was, at the deepist philosophical level. That was the quest. That was the search of 18th century moral philosophers including the Founding Fathers<\/a>. And we 1993 that first paragraph, let me just back up and say that the phrase in the declaration and the laws of god and natures god. Now it is interesting that it doesnt say the laws of nature and of god, it says natures god. So for most American Revolution<\/a>aries 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 that can change the laws of nature at will, but rather a god who is like a watch maker or a clockmaker who set the universe in motion and then stepped back. That is what i think is being refer this to there. The causes which impel them to the separation. So this is a kind of view of causation. So nortsds so 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. It is a little separation of the colonies. In order to understand the actions of declaration of independence, you have to understand the causes. In the second, and the long body of the second declaration, it lays out its charges against king george iii. The first paragraph. And it mean thats it will, in some way, praise and promo promote mans faculty of reason. How does do that in the first paragraph . In the end of the first paragraph, it refers to a decent respect. In this declaration to the world, the americans are speaking from one mind to another. Theyre speaking to the reason or the powers of reason everywhere. They respect the idea that they can lay ut case or an argument and appeal to the people of the world and those reasons can be under stood. Right . And that is why in the second paragraph, just before the charges are laid out against the king if says the meaning, the t ocho tism of the tyranny of george iii, to prove this tyranny, let facts be submitted to a candid world. The americans are making essentially a written indictment against george the iii. And it lays out the declaration lays out all of the crimes committed by george iii and the British Parliament<\/a>. So by laying out the facts, theyre laying them out to people everywhere to determine whether or not the charges are in fact true or not true. That is why were submitting to a candid world. Appealing to the minds and the reasons of people everywhere. All right. Lets now turn to the second paragraph. Which is one at least what is often considered to be the second perhaps that is really just one long sentence. It says we hold these truths to be self evident. That all men are created equal. That they are endowed with unalienable rights and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And that to secure these lights, they are instituted among money deriving their powers from the consent of the government that when any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish is and to Institute New<\/a> government laying its foundation on such principals and organizing its powers in touch power has to them will 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<\/a>. And maybe even the single most important sentence written in world history. 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 what theyre really doing at a deeper level is laying out the principals, the moral standards, by which all governments everywhere should be judged. All right, now, that this very long complex sentence contains a whole universe of ideas and moral principals. And this one sentence of the declaration, it is a summing up, it is a precede of the second treatise of government. So all of these ideas in one sentence sum up the core fundamental principals of the second treatise of government. So lets unpack the meaning of this complex sentence. We hold these truths to be self evident. In many ways this is the most important clause of the most important sentence of the most important document in American History<\/a> but its one thats often passed over. In part, i think, just because it is so simple and so elegant in its formulation that we just are our eyes read over it, and we wanted to get to the truths themselves. But i think this first clause is critically important. We hold these truths to be self evident. Now, most scholars of the declaration of independence tend to focus on the notion of selfevident. We hold these truths to be selfevident. What could that mean that the truth thats are to follow are self evident. Well this idea of selfevidency is a philosophical term. And the technical definition is that in a proposition the subject and the predicate have to be in agreement with each other which simply means that a self evident truth is one or a selfevident proposition is one that is perceptually self evident to anybody with eyes to see. Up is not down. Black is not white. In is not out. These are perceptually self evident truths. But surely that cant be what jefferson is referring to relative to the declaration. Because as we will see, the four truths of the declaration are much, much more complex than being perfect seceptual lyperce viewer. So what could it possibly mean . I will explain this in just a minute. I think the most important word in we hold these truths to be self evident is truths, the world truths or truth. Why is it important in i think it is certainly important for us in the 21st century. And i would argue that it is hard for us to understand what we meant by the concept of truth, because in our world today. In our post 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 the 2016 word of the year. For us we live in a post truth world apparently. But that was not true for americas Founding Fathers<\/a>. They believe that the concept truth meant that there are capital t truths that mean 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, would be that they are absolute, certain, universal, and timeless. So to sum up, americas Founding Fathers<\/a> did believe that there are moral truths that are not subjective. They dont change with the times or the place, but they are absolutely true in all places and all times. All right, now, how do we get self evident truths. How did the American People<\/a> get selfevident truths. I think it is the case that the four truths are not self evident. What could jefferson have possibly meant . When he said we hold these truths to be selfevident. Who is the we in we hold these truths. We who are tasked with drafting the declaration that included ben franklin, john adams, so the we means the committee of five, but it also means the 56 members of the Continental Congress<\/a>. And then on top of the 56 members of the Continental Congress<\/a> it means the American People<\/a>. We are speaking on behalf of we the people, we the people of the United States<\/a> of america. We hold these truths. But there is a problem. What does it mean to say we hold these truths to be self evident. They are pretty complex concepts as we will see in a minute. And did all americans come to see these truths all at the same time . Surely there is a difference in incident intellectual capacity, for instance, between say Thomas Jefferson<\/a> or john adams on one hand and an uneducated farmer on the other. I think the keyword to unlock the meaning of self evident truth is the word hold. We hold these truths. 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 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<\/a> that. All right. Lets turn now to the truths. The declaration says we hold these truths to be self evident. Well, what are these truths . Well it turns out that the declaration claims that there are four self evident truths. Now i can sum up the four self evident truths each in a word. First the quality. Second, rights. Third, consent. Fourth, revolution. And we can also superimpose the last two component pieces of a systematic philosophy on a 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 episiology. The moral part of the four selfevident truths would be the principle of consent and revolution. Lets drill down and look at each one of the four self evident truths. What do they actually mean . And more particularly how do they cash out . These are not simply abstract floating ideas in the at most fear. These are truths identified by American Revolution<\/a>aries, not only as the standard by which they are judging the degradations of george iii and the British Parliament<\/a>, but these four truths are also going to serve as the foundation, the moral foundation, the moral Political Foundation<\/a> of the constitutions and governments they are about to draft, and they are going to provide a kind of ideal for the American People<\/a>. An ideal that Many Americans<\/a> 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 said all men are created equal. So what does that mean, how does it cash out . There is a problem. One might even say there is 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 particular ly 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 shimmera. It doesnt really exist, right . 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 standing here in this room looking at all of you . I dont see equality. I see differences. And differences dont necessarily mean equality. I know for a fact in this room right now there is, say, tall and short, more particularly there is strong and weak. There is fast and slow. And surely there are differences, 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 in which he said are virtue and talents. Now a natural aristocracy, by definition, will mean inequality. So why doesnt the declaration say all men are created unequal . 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 . 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<\/a> win the 100meter dash at the world track and field competition. As much as i would like to think i was as fast as he is, at his age, the fact is that im not as fast. And im not as strong as the greatest weight lifter in the world. Im not as handsome as brad pitt. Im 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. What do i mean by qualitative sameness . What i mean is that we all share certain qualities as human beings. We have species equality. Were all members of the same species as defined by having eio fundamental characteristics, 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<\/a> . Equality means that we have an equal right to Self Government<\/a>. We have an equal right to Self Government<\/a> because were selfowning and selfgoverning individuals. Just as there are no natural rulers in the world, there are no natural slaves. There is not a natural right to rule, and there are no natural slaves. As jefferson once put it in a note, because sir isaac newton was superior to others in understanding, he was not the property to the person. So it means we have an equal right. Equality is really, it should be an adjective. Equality means rights. 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 defense 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. I also think it is true that most American Revolution<\/a>aries, most enlightment philosophers, spoke of unalienable natural rights. So whether or not you believe in god or dont believe in god, one thing all of the American Revolution<\/a>aries believed in was that there were rights of nature. Everybody believed that. So we can at the very least we can say that is the source of rights. Namely, nature. And we can, and as some American Revolution<\/a>aries 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 Revolution<\/a>aries. 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, right . In certain ways, the idea of rights should be seen in opposition to the principle of force and, more importantly, the initiation of force, right . So if i walk up to you and punch you in the nose, 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, lets say beginning with locke, and then developed in the 18th century and particularly really flushed out by American Revolution<\/a>aries. It begins as the primary unit of value and it rejects the initiation of physical force as a value. Rig right . All right. Now we can turn to a definition. How did American Revolution<\/a>aries understand, how did they define the concept of rights . Well, ive read scores of pamphl pamphlets and essays, newspaper articles, probably hundreds of newspaper articles from the 1760s, 1770s and 80s. And what im going to present now to you is a definition, a definition that essentially emerged with the American Revolution<\/a>aries 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 Human Flourishing<\/a> within the context of civil society. Thats what a right is. It defines spheres of freedom. 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. Theyre a license to act. It is concerned with the freedom of action. We can also look at rights in a sense as a fence. A fence around each and every individual. Rights in part protect this. They protect us from those who would initiate force against us. So that is a pretty decent definition of what rights are. So lets drill down more deeply into the second selfevident truth and look at the various rights of nature. And the first right, of course, which is the most fundamental which is the right to life. And what is the right to life . What does that mean . What does that imply . It says that individuals are sovereign over their own lives. It means each individual is self owning and self governing. And that life is sacrosanct. And that the right to life, embedded in it, is the moral right for each and every individual to pursue those values that 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 material and spiritual values. Its unobstructed freedom, although constrained by right to liberty of other individuals. Now the declaration of independence does not include a right to a natural right to liberty. But i am going to include it basically because the declaration thought it was just as important and virtually all of americas Founding Fathers<\/a> did. But for complicated reasons that we dont fully understand, he did not include the right to property in the declaration of independence. But every other including founding father included it as the lynch pin right between life and liberty on one hand. And liberty on one hand. What is the right to property . It is the right to keep, use, and dispose of ones physical and mental labor. So for those of you that read the famous what happen ter five, the idea is that when you mix your labor. Once you mix your labor with that which has no value, you can claim it as your property. It is now an extension finally, the last is the pursuit of happiness. It is a curious one. It doesnt really appear in virtually any of the others except for the virginia bill of rights. It leads to be, in part at least to jefferson himself. And he gets the idea from john lockes essay concerning human understanding. So what does the right of pursuit of happiness mean . It means freedom. It is the freedom to choose and pursue those values that lead to ones happiness. There are different kinds of happiness, of course. Both locke and jefferson talk about real and true happiness. A spiritual consequence of long term goals and values being achieved. There is shortterm happiness which is pleasure, something you get from eating a good steak or eating ice cream. But that is not really what is being meant here. It means the pursuit of ones highest achievements. Let me add an important point here. The most interesting word is pursuit. You a right to the pursuit of happiness. Not to the right to happiness, per se, you only have the right to pursue it. And all of the Founding Fathers<\/a> understood this pursuit of happiness. The pursuit of it is meant to have, to employ, certain virtues. In other words, there was a profound connection for jefferson and the American Revolution<\/a>aries 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 . This is not some kind of hedonistic pursuit of happiness. Thats not whats meant. Quite the opposite. The pursuit of happiness implies and, indeed, it implores that individuals be virtuous. All right. Now on to the third selfevident truth. In many ways, this third selfevident truth is the most complex, i would say, of the four. It actually embodies several principles. I have identified the one word that i have identified with the third selfevident truth is consent, but it could equally be government or limited government or constitutionalism. Its a this third truth is a complex concept. So it says, quote, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Right . So if you just stop and think about what that means, you can actually take this one truth, the one clause of the larger sentence and break it down into its component parts. So what does the third truth mean . Well, the first thing it means, the first thing it says, quite clearly, is that the purpose of government is to protect rights. It does not say that the purpose of government is to make 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 protect rights. And what rights does it mean . It means the rights contained in the second selfevident truth, the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which includes the right to property. So thats it. And that creates if the purpose of government if the sole purpose of government is to protect rights, that means, by definition, a very limited kind of government and that takes us then to the second part of the third truth, which is that governments are necessary to secure rights. Well, the first thing to note here is that americas Founding Fathers<\/a> 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. But then the question is what kind of government best does that . And built into their idea or built into this third truth is that there are certain kinds of governments which protect rights better than others. And what kinds of governments are those . Well, i think im this is somewhat reading between the lines, but its only reading between the lines because ive read just about every word Thomas Jefferson<\/a> and john adams and James Madison<\/a> ever wrote, and i think i have a pretty good, pretty clear idea of what they meant by government. They meant a government that, for its sole purpose, is the protection of rights. They meant constitutional government, they meant a Constitutional Republic<\/a>. And what is a Constitutional Republic<\/a> . It is based on we the people, and we have a constitution that defines, establishes, and limits the powers of government. It means, by definition, because it is constitutional, it means a limited government, a limited constitutional government, a government whose powers are defined by the constitution. And then finally this third truth says that the just powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed. Right . Now, built into this part of the third truth, all right, obviously is the idea of consent, right . And this comes out of the revolutionary crisis, right . No taxation without representation. No taxation without the consent of the people. So the moral principle of consent is at the heart of the American Revolution<\/a> and, more importantly, the declaration of independence. And consent is a principle. Its a principle that is kind of a 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 is in the form 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, the whole debate between british 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 applies one other political principle, which is representation. Representation is the core principle defining republican government. So this third truth establishes or implies a Constitutional Republic<\/a> as the ideal form of government. All right. Lets now go to the fourth selfevident truth, which reads whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and to Institute New<\/a> 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. So this fourth selfevident truth is also very complex, like the third selfevident truth. And its so complex, right, its not obviously self evident. Its self evident 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 can be considered as self evident and by logical deduction, you go from the first, the second, the third and then finally this fourth selfevident truth, which i call this revolution truth. What is the right to revolution . The declaration does not use the word revolution. It talks about alter or abolish but, in fact, it means revolution. It calls for two kinds of action. The first action is destructive and the second is constructive. If you read the fourth selfevident truth, the first part of that sentence says whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. Thats the destructive part. What that means is 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 tyrranical, 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<\/a> have established an absolute dosp ocho dospotism over them, how theyve established a tyranny. Dspotism over them, how theyve established a tyranny. Despotisme established a tyranny. How theyve established tyranny. The fourth selfevident truth says, organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect 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 alter or abolish an old government. But on the other hand, you create, establish a new government. Right . And the declaration suggests that and it uses the word whenever any form of government, right . So it turns out that literally any kind of government can become destructive of rights, including democracy or republicanism. And it also implies that you can have a government that protects the rights of individuals that is not necessarily republic. You can have a monarchal republic, like the government of england, what the British Government<\/a> had been up until the time of the imperial crisis. All right. But the right of revolution has to be tempered and the very next word after the right to revolution is the word prudence. It says prudence will dictate that governments long established should not be changed 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. The question that you have to ask yourself is, for instance, would it have been prudent to launch a revolution against the British Government<\/a> in 1765, after the passage of the stamp act . I can tell you not one American Revolution<\/a>ary 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 acts of 1774, now some americans are starting to think yes. Samuel adams, george washington, Thomas Jefferson<\/a> are thinking yes, now maybe we have the grounds for establishing revolution. But still prudence dictates even in 1774 that may be too early. There is a real question about when revolutions are launched. And you cant be some radical yahoo who decides he doesnt like, you know, the 5 cent tax on his new can of soda, that hes going to launch a revolution. That would be profoundly imprudent. All right. Im coming close now 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<\/a>, or more precisely the moral logic contained in the declaration of independence. So if you remember now, earlier in this talk, when we were examining the first paragraph in fact, the very first words of the declaration of independence, when in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands that have connected them with another. Right . What really, what could that possible mean to say its necessary when in the course of human events it becomes necessary. Necessary, as ive said, implies that it must be. But, of course, nothing has to be. But yet in the minds of American Revolution<\/a>aries, it was absolutely necessary that they declare independence. And by declaring independence, that means they are declaring war. And in declaring war, they are committing themselves to death and destruction. So why is it necessary . Well, its necessary now skipping into the second sentence of the declaration. The declaration says, after the prudence sentence, it says when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, 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 are saying they have a duty in the same way theyre saying it is necessary we dissolve the political bands that have connected us to one another. How is it necessary . How is it a duty for them to declare independence . And then on top of that, they pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to the cause of the revolution. What does this mean . What is the moral universe that they are living in . I think it means is that they had a view of moral action that did not separate theory from practice. They believe that if you hold certain moral principles, then it is necessary that you act in a certain way. You can view it in philosophic terms, conditional imperative. An if given, then conditional imperative. If you believe in certain principles. That is to say, if you want to live in a free and just society, given the crimes that have been commit bid george iii and the British Parliament<\/a>, 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 which is impelling American Revolution<\/a>aries. So, to sum up, what does all of this mean . Whats the meaning . Whats the ultimate meaning of the declaration of independence . Well, i think it can be sumed up in the words of Abraham Lincoln<\/a> who, in 1957 in his opinion of the dred scott decision, said speaking of the declaration of independence, he wrote, quote, i think the authors of that notable instrument meant to set up a standard maxim for a free society. And i think thats exactly what the declaration is. Its a standard maxim for a free society, which should be familiar to all and revered by all, constantly looked to, constantly labored for and even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of all colors everywhere. And i think thats what the declaration of independence does. 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 Parliament<\/a>, but also the tyranny of 19th century southern slave holders, because it is the declaration which is the standard maxim of a free society for the abolitionists. All right. Let me close 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 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 welshman 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<\/a> from the time of the declaration of independence until today, what i think you will find is that all of the intellectual and certainly all of the political debates in this country for 235 years have basically, in one way or another, been a debate over how to interpret the Core Principles<\/a> 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<\/a> 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, i think its 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. Youre watching a special edition of American History<\/a> tv, airing during the week while members of congress are in their districts due to the coronavirus pandemic. Tonight at 8 00 p. M. Eastern, Gary Gallagher<\/a> discusses the misconceptions that americans have about the civil war and concepts crucial to understanding the conflict. A simple oymposium hosted by and library of virginia in richmond. American history tv now and over the weekend on cspan3. Every saturday night, American History<\/a> tv takes you to classroom classrooms around the country. This transformation that took place in the minds of the American People<\/a>. So were going to talk about both of these sides of this story here, right . The tools, the techniques of slaveowner power and well also talk about the tools and techniques of power that were practiced by enslaved people. Watch history professors lead discussions with their students on topics ranging from the American Revolution<\/a> to september 11th. Lectures in history on cspan3 every saturday at 8 00 p. M. Eastern on American History<\/a> tv and lectures in history is available as a podcast. Find it where you listen to podcasts. Up next on the presidency, we hear from emily voss about James Madison<\/a>s role in shaping the constitution and bill of rights and the influence of his study of history and previous political experiences. Ms. Voss is educational director","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia902907.us.archive.org\/0\/items\/CSPAN3_20200428_132100_Lectures_in_History_Preamble_of_the_Declaration_of_Independence\/CSPAN3_20200428_132100_Lectures_in_History_Preamble_of_the_Declaration_of_Independence.thumbs\/CSPAN3_20200428_132100_Lectures_in_History_Preamble_of_the_Declaration_of_Independence_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240716T12:35:10+00:00"}