Founding fathers and 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 imperrial crisis. That is, we have been looking at the debates between British Imperial officials and american waeched patriots. And that debate has in many ways come down to one issue,y is, broadly speaking, what is the british constitution and how does it define relations between the mother country and her colonies . And more specifically, even, the real question is, what is the political constitutional relationship between the power and the authority of the British Parliament and americas Colonial Legislatures . And over the course of about 12 years, between 1764 and 1776, the British Parliament passed a series of laws. In 1764, it began with the sugar act and then a year later, the stamp act and then in 1767 68 the townsend act and the tea act and the coercive acts and in 1775, the prohibitory act. But standing behind all of these acts, a british legislation was one overarching piece of legislation, which i think was the driving force behind all of these particular acts. And that was the declaratory act of 1766, which claimed that parliaments authority extended to the american colonies in all cases whatsoever. And that meant that parliament was not only supreme over the colonies, but, in fact, its power and its authority was absolutely supreme. Right . So, it could pass, it could pass taxes, which it had never done before. It could pass taxes in the american colonies for revenue. And the most famous, of course, of all of these pieces of british legislation was the stamp act of 1765, which put a tax on stamps paper which the colonists needed for almost all legal and commercial transactions. So what was the what was the specific constitutional issue . It was where to draw the jurisdictional boundary between the authority of parliament and the authority of 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 unjust and, therefore, unconstitutional. And so over the course of the next 10 orb 11 years, British Imperial officials and american patriots began a kind of search for principles. All right. The principles first of the british constitution. Because they had competing understandings of the british constitution. But for the americans, the debate was not simply over the british constitution. The americans began starting in 1765, they began a search, 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 10 11 years, americans began the search for new standards, new principles of justice, of liberty, of a quality, of rights, of sovereignty, and over the course of these 10 or 11 years, they began to see that the pinsprinciples that had onc tied the mother country to the colonies no longer worked. And the americans with their newlydeveloping understanding of what the british constitution was, they began to see that it had to be grounded in absolute permanent universal principles. And that was what they searched for over the course of the years of the imperial crisis. Now, in many ways, as john adams argued, in a letter that he wrote to Thomas Jefferson in 1815, the real American Revolution was not about the war. In 1815, adams wrote, quote, what do we mean by the revolution . The war . That was no part of the revolution. It was only an effect and consequence of it. The revolution was in the minds of the people, and this was effected, from 1760 to 1775, in the course of 15 years before a drop of blood was shed at lexington. All right. 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 r. And then in 1782, thomas payne in a letter that he wrote to the abay reynold in france, he said this about the period leading up to the American Revolution. Quote our style and manner of thinking have undergone a revolution, more extraordinary than the Political Revolution of the country. We see with other eyes. We hear with other ears. And think other thoughts than those we formerly used. All right, 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 world. The way that they thought about the most important and most fundamental concepts of justice. And that takes us now to the topic of todays lecture, which is the philosophy of the declaration of independence. Right. And so, thus far in this course, over the course of these last six weeks, we have been mostly looking at the political and constitutional principles and institutions that were developed by American Revolutionaries. But all of this comes to a head in 1776. As we talked about last class, right, the last link between the colonists and the mother country was through their relationship, the colonists relationship with the person of the king. But if january, 1776, with the publication of tom paynes common sense, that relationship is forever severed. So there is now intellectually, there is no lingering remnant allegiance or loyalty between the colonists and the mother country. Once they have severed their connection with the person of the king, psychologically, they are no longer members of the british empire. And so that then takes us straight to july 4th, 1776. Into the passage, which we talked about last week, or last class of the declaration of independence. So what was this declaration of independence . That was ratified on july 4th, 1776. Well, the first thing to know about it is that it is, indeed, a political and in some ways a diplomatic document. It was written, in part, for george, iii, it was written for european diplomats and financiers, and it was written, of course, for the American People. To organize, 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 thats what they are now. They will no longer be colonies. They are states, independence, 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 if writing the declaration of information. And he wrote, quote this was the object of the declaration of independence. It was intended to be an expression of the american mind. Now, think about what that means, an expression of the american mind. So, on the one hand, what it clearly and obviously means is that the declaration is a summing up of all of the 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, right, and then it lays out its selfevident truths. All right. 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. 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. Right. 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 if todays class, is we are going to systematically linebyline go through the declaration to elicit the deepest meaning of the declaration. Before we do that, though, let me mention something that we have talked about a little bit before the in this class which is the philosophical background of the declaration of independence. So in my view, the declaration is the embodiment, a fill sock cal principles of the enlightenment. All of the great enlightenment and principles are, in effect, embodied in the declaration of independence and the three great philosophers of the ep lightenment enlightenment were sir isaac newton in his great work, john locks essay concerning human understanding. And locks second treatis of government. What i will argue sui that the ideas, the fundamental core ideas of newton and locks essay 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, it is an abstract of the core basic principles that you will find in locks second treatise of government. All right. Now, so let me just sum up for you very quickly the core ideas, the Core Principles, of the enline lightenment enlightenment, which i think can be seen as having been transposed onto the declaration of independence. So there is, i think, an enlightenment project. There is we can say, 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 philosophies. First is met a physics. What is meta physics . Its the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of reality. Can i sum up for you in one word the enlightenments view of metaphysics. Nature. The Second Branch of philosophy is epistemology is the branch concerned with the nature of knowledge. And i can sum up the enlightenments view of epistemologys view, which is reason. The enlightenment also has an ethical theory. Ethics is that branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of human reaction and human relationships. And i think i can sum up in one word the enlighten. s view of ethicles. 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 into question adversely, how can we see those ideas within the declaration of information . All right. So, what id like to do, now, is just start to systematically go through what, in effect, ladies and gentlemen, is just the first two sentences of the declaration . Sometimes people call the first paragraph and the second paragraph, but if you think about it, its really just two sentences. Two very long sentences. And were going to pars these sentences and try i to pull out of them sort of 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 decla irthe causes which impel them to the separation. Now, what im going to argue is that this first sentence or paragraph has built into it a met a physics metaphysics and an epistom ol thology that it dn from the enlightenment. Now, what do i mean by that . Well, lets just first identify for the core ideas of that first sentence. And that first sentence has a kind of overarching themematic 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, et cetera, et cetera. The question is necessary . Why necessary . How is it necessary that the American People dissolve their connection to the mother country . To say that its necessary suggests that it must be, but in human i affairs, there is nothing that must be. Right. The fact of the matter is, in 1776 at least a third of all american colonials at that time were loyalists. Self identified loyalists. And a third hasnt made up their mind about whether they supported independence or not. So how is it on july 4th, 1776, the americans argue that it is now necessary, so the question is, why necessary . Like why not say when in the course of human events, its optional to dissolve our political bands . Why necessary . Im going to come back to that question at the end of the talk. Because i think the word necessary tells us actually something deeply poernt about the moral logic important about the moral logic and characters of those who signed the declaration of independence. All right. Now, let me break down what i think are the fill offic 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. 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, well, they were called at the time natural philosophers, what we today 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 gravtation or newtons three laws of planetary motion. Right. But these laws of physical nature, they were absolute they were, they are absolute. They are universal. They apply throughout the whole universe. And they are permanent. And as a result of these discoveries, the discovery of these 69 liviscientific laws of nature, moral Police Officers late in the 17th and 18th centuries, began to look or tried to discover certain moral laws of nature. Right . And so when the declaration refers to the laws of nature and of natures gods, it is referring to moral laws of nature. Right. And if you remember, go back to one of the very first classes, when we read john adams diary, the young 21yearold john adams writing in his diary about the things he was learning as an under graduate at harvard college. Right. 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. Right. And in addition to having identity, because it has identity, it is governed by certain laws of cause and effect. Right. And then the same adams argued is true for humaning a as well. Now, its 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 deepest philosophic levelful 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, let me just im sorry, let me back up and also say the phrase in the declaration is the laws of god and of natures god. Now, its interesting 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 this with regard to natures god. Right. Then in the declaration. In that first, it talks about the causes which impel them to the separation. Right. So this is a kind of a view of causation. Right. 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 little separation of the colonies from the mother country. But it has causes. Right . And in order to understand the action of the 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 the very long body of the second paragraph of the declaration, right . It lays out its charges against king george iii. Now, the first paragraph also has an epistomology and in the context of the enlightenment and americas founding father us, 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 layout a case, an argument, appeal to the reason of people around the world and that those reasons can be understood. Right . And that why in the second paragraph, just before the charges are laid out against the king,