About the preamble of the declaration of independence. He views each line and explores what the Founding Fathers may have intended by their word choices. Good afternoon, everybody. So for the last six weeks in this class weve been examining the political thought of the imperial crisis. That is weve been looking at the debates between British Imperial officials and american wig patriots and that debate has in many ways come down to one issue which is broadly speaking, what is the british constitution and how does it define relations between the mother country and her colonies. And more specifically even, the real question is what is the political constitutional relationship between the power and the authority of the British Parliament and americas colonial legislatures. And over the course of about 12 years, between 1764 and 1776, the Britain Parliament passed a series of laws. In 1764 it began with the sugar act and then a year later the stamp act and then in 176768, the townsend act and then the tea act and then the coercive act and then in 1775 the prohibtory act. But standing behind all of these acts of british legislation was one overarching piece of legislation which i think was the driving force behind all of these particular acts and that was the declaratory act of 1766 which claimed that parliaments authority extended to the american colonies in all cases whatsoever. And that meant that parliament was not only supreme over the colonies, but in fact, its power and authority was absolutely supreme, right. So it could pass, it could pass taxes which it had never done before. It could pass taxes in the american colonies for revenue. And the most famous of course, of all of the pieces of british legislation was the stamp act of 1765 which put a tax on stamp paper which the colonists needed for almost all legal and commercial transactions. So what was the what was the specific constitutional issue . It was where to draw the jurisdictional boundary between the authority of parliament and the authority of colonial legislatures. Now with regard to the stamp act, the british artued that the stamp act was legal and therefore constitutional. The americans by contrast argued that the stamp act was unjust and therefore unconstitutional. So over the course of the next 10 or 11 years, British Imperial hoof officials an american patriots began a kind of search for principals. The principals, first of the british constitution. Because they had competing understandings of the british constitution. But for the americans, the debate was not simply over the british constitution. The americans began starting in 1765, they began a search, a search for deeper moral principles. So when they argued that the stamp act was unjust and therefore constitution, the real question is how or in what way was the stamp act unjust. So over the course of the next 10 and 11 years the americans began this search for new standards, new principles of justice, of liberty, of equality, of rights, of sovereignty. And over the course of these ten or 11 years, they began to see that the principles that had once tied the mother country to the colonies no longer worked. And the americans with their newly developing understanding of what the british constitution was, they began to see that it had to be grounded in absolute permanent universal principles. And that was what they searched for. Over the course of this the years of the imperial crisis. Now, in many ways, as john adams argued, in a letter that he wrote to Thomas Jefferson in 1815, the real American Revolution was not about the war. In 1815 adams wrote, quote, what do we mean by the revolution . The war . That was no part of the revolution. It was only an effect and consequence of it. The revolution was in the minds of the people, and this was effected from 1760 to 1775 in the course of 15 years before a drop of blood was she at lexington. Now think about that. Adams is arguing that the real American Revolution was not military, it was not constitutional, it was not political, it was not economic. The real, the deepest cause where well find the true meaning of the revolution was in this transformation that took place in the minds of the American People. And then in 1782, thomas payne in a letter that he wrote to the abe renault in france, he said this about the period leading up to the American Revolution. Quote, our style and manner of thinking have undergone a revolution, more extraordinary than the Political Revolution of the country, we see with other eyes, we hear with other ears, and think other thoughts than those we formally used. Again, think about the meaning of what payne is arguing here. Right. Some kind of radical transformation took place in the way that the americans saw the world, the way that they thought about the most important, the most fundamental concepts of justice. And that takes us now to the topic of todays lecture. Which is the philosophy of the declaration of independence. All right. And so thus far in this course, over the course of these last six weeks, weve been mostly looking at the political and constitutional principles and institutions that were developed by American Revolutionaries. But all of this comes to a head in 1776. As we talked about last class, right, the last link between the colony and the mother country was through their relationship, the colonists relationship with the person of the king. But in january of 1776, the publication of tom paynes common sense, that relationship is forever severed. So there is now intellectually, there is no lingering remnant allegiance or loyalty between the colony and the mother country. Once theyve severed their connection with the person of the king, psychologically they are no longer members of british empire. And so that then takes us straight to july 4th, 1776. And to the passage which we talked about last week or last class of the declaration of independence. So what was this declaration of independence . That was ratified on july 4th, 1776. Well, the first thing to note about it is that it is indeed a political and in some ways a diplomatic document. It was written in part for george iii, it was written for european diplomats and financiers and for the American People to help organize the American People politically. But the declaration of independence, of course, was a lot more than just a political document declaring the independence of these 13 colonies and the calling forth of new states. Because that is what they are now. They will no longer be colonies, they are states. Independent, political units that now have the authority to create their own constitutions, their own governments and forge alliances with foreign powers. But the declaration was more than that. In 1825, Thomas Jefferson was asked by henry lee what his object, what the purpose was in writing the declaration of independence. And he wrote, quote, this was the object of the declaration of independence, it was intended to be an expression of the american mind. Now think about what that means. An expression of the american mind. So on the one hand, what it clearly and obviously means is that the declaration is a summing up of all of the principals that the americans had been searching for during the years of imperial crisis. It is a summing up. So when it says we hold these truths to be selfevident, right, and then it lays out its selfevident truths, right, this is the principles of the american mind. But as an expression of the american mind, the declaration was also laying the foundation for the new constitution and for the new governments that were going to be created by the new states. And, in fact, what the declaration, of course, does, is it establishes the moral foundations, not just of these new states, but of the United States of america. And that is the great meaning of the declaration. Is that it provides the moral foundation for this new nation going forward. Before we jump into the declaration and what were going to do in todays class is were going to systematically line by line go through the declaration to elicit the deepest meaning of the declaration. Before we do that, though, let me mention something that weve talked about a little bit before in this class, which is the fill sofic background of the declaration of independence. In my view the declaration is the embodiment, it is a pray of the philosophic principles of the enlightenment. They are all in effect embodied in the declaration of independence. And the three great philosophiers of the enlightenment were isaac newton and john locks essay concerning understanding and locks second treatise of government. And what im going to argue is that the ideas, the fundamental core ideas of newton pret ippica is summed up embodied if the first paragraph of the declaration and the second paragraph of the declaration is it is an abstract, an abstract of the core basic principles that you will find in locks second treat is of government. So let me sum up for you very quickly the core ideas, the core principals of the enlightenment, which i think could be seen as having been transposed on to the declaration of independence. So there is, i think an enlightenment project. We could identify a kind of comprehensive philosophy of this period known as the enlightenment, the 17th and 18th century enlightenment. And like all comprehensive systematic philosophies, it was four basic branches. It includes four basic branches of philosophy. First is meta physics. What is meta physics. It is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of reality. And i could sum up for you in one word the enlightenments view of meta physics. Nature. The Second Branch of philosophy is eppistoology concerned with the nature of knowledge. And i could sum up the enlightenment view of it in one word which is reason. The enlightenment also has an ethical theory and ethics is that branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of human action and human relationships. And i think i could sum up in one word the enlightenments view of ethics and that is rights. And then finally, the enlightenment has a view of politics. And politics is that branch of philosophy concerned with social and political organization. And if i had to sum up the enlightenment view of politics in one word it would be constitutionalism. Now the question is, how did jefferson and the committee of five who helped him draft the declaration of independence, how did they take those ideas and put them into the declaration, or to put the question ab versely, how could we see those ideas within the declaration of independence . So what id like to do now is just start to systematically go through what, in effect, ladies and gentlemen, is just the first two sentences of the declaration. Sometimes people call them the first paragraph and the second paragraph. But if you think about it, it is really just two sentences. Two very long sentences. And were going to pars these sentences and were going to try to pull out of them sort of the deepest philosophic meaning. So lets take the first sentence, the first paragraph of the declaration. Which says, when in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of natures god entitle them, a descent respect to the opinions of mankind, requires that they should declare the causes which impale them to the separation, closed quote. Now what im going to argue is that this first sentence or paragraph has built into it a meta physics and a epistomology that is draws on from the enlightenment. Now what do i mean by that . Well, lets just first identify sort of the core ideas of that first sentence. And that first sentence has a kind of over arching trstructur to it. It has a purpose. And what is the purpose of the first sentence . It is to declare to the world the, quote, causes which impel to the separation. The causes which impel us to break from the mother country. And that first paragraph also has a principle or a standard. And in this case, a moral standard. And that moral standard would be the laws of nature and of natures god. And that first paragraph or sentence also implies an action. And the action is the necessity to dissolve the connection between these two countries. Now, let me just say that in my view, in many ways, and ill talk about this at the end of class, the most interesting word for me of this first paragraph is the word necessary. When is the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands, et cetera, et cetera. The question is, necessary . Why necessary . How is it necessary that the American People dissolve their connection to the mother country . To say that its necessary suggests that it must be. But in Human Affairs there is nothing that must be. Right. The fact of the matter is, in 1776, at least a third of all american colonies at this time were loyalists, selfidentified loyalists. And the third hadnt made up their mind about whether they supported independence or not. So how is it on july 4th, 1776, the americans argue that it is now necessary. So the question is why necessary . Like, why now say when in the course of human events its optional to dissolve our political bands. Why necessary . Well im going to come back to that question at end of the talk. Because i think the word necessary tells us actually something deeply important about the moral logic and the moral characters of those who signed the declaration of independence. All right. Now let me break down what i think are the philosophic ideas, the enlightenment, contained in that first paragraph. So the declaration, as ive suggested, it has a meta physics. That it draws on from the enlightenment. Summed up in one word which is nature. And we see that in the declaration when it talks about the laws of nature and of natures god. So, in the 17th and 18th centuries, natural, what were called natural fill sof gers had scientific and physical laws of nature and these laws of nature in effect organized the universe, kept it in harmony, kept it as a system, governed by certain core laws like for instance the law of gravitation or three laws of planetary motion. But these laws of physical nature, they were they were, they are, absolute. They are universal. They apply throughout the whole universe. And they are permanent. And as a result of these discoveries, the discovery of these scientific laws of nature, moral philosophers, in the late 17th and then into the 18th centuries, began to look or try to discover certain moral laws of nature, right. So so when the declaration refers to the laws of nature, it is referring to moral laws of nature. And if you remember, go back to one of the very first classes when we read john adams diary, the young 21yearold john adams writing in his diary about the things he was learning as an undergraduate at harvard college. And what he learned was that in the universe, right, according to newtons laws, that entities, things, physical things out there in nature, have an identity. And that identity is absolute. Right. And in addition to having identities because it has identity, it is governed by certain laws of cause and effect. Right. And then the same, adams argued, is true for human action as well. Its a much more difficult leap to go from discovering scientific laws to human, moral laws of nature. That was at the deepest philosophic level, that was the quest, that was the search, of 18th century moral philosophers, include iing the founding fathe. And we see in that first paragraph, well, let me back up and also say that the phrase in the declaration is the laws of god and of natures god. It doesnt say the laws of nature and of god, it says natures god. So for most American Revolutionaries, who were the grandchildren of the enlightenment, they viewed natures god, not as the same god of the old testament. Not a kind of om any present god who can change the laws of nature at will, but rather a god who was like a watchmaker or clockmaker, who set the universe in motion then stepped back. And thats what i think is being referred to there with regard to natures god. Right . Then in that first sentence, it talks about the causes which impelled him to the separation. This is a kind of view of causation. So, in other words, to understand how and why there is this declaration of independence of separation, you have to understand the causes. There is a cause and which leads to an effect. The effect is the declaration of independence and the literal separation of the colonies from the mother country, but it has causes, right, and in order to understand the action of independence and separation, you have to understand the causes, which of course is a principle part of what the deck laration does. In the second and very long body of the second paragraph of the declaration, right, it lays out, it lays out its charges against king george iii. Now the first paragraph also has an an epistomology. That means in some way, its going to praise and promote mans faculty of reason. And how does it do that in the first paragraph . Well, at the end of that first paragraph, it said, it refers to a decent respect to the opinions of mankind. In other words, in this declaration to the world, the americans in in other words, are speaking from one line to another. Theyre speaking to the reason or the powers of reason of all people everywhere. Thigh respect the opinions of mankind. They respect the idea that they can lay out a case, an argument, appeal to the reason of people around the world and that those reasons kk unz stood. Thats why in the second paragraph, just before the charges are laid out against the king, the declaration says quote, to prove this, this mean ing the observe lute despisicm of george iii as stated in the declaration, to prove this tyranny, let facts be submitted to a candid world. The americans, they have essentially written an indictment against george iii and indirectly, to the British Parliament as well. And it lays out the declaration lays out all the crimes committed by george iii and the British Parliament. Right. And so, by laying out those facts, they are laying them out to people everywhere to determine whether the charges are true or not true. This is why it says we are submitting it to a candid world. Were appealing to the minds. To the reasons. People everywhere. Now to the second paragraph. Which is one, at