Episode 4 of the TTP podcast starts a 3-part series on the Declaration of Independence. In it, I read through the DOI, offering commentary and analysis of the text as I go. I conceived of the idea of this short series when I first started outlining the podcast a couple of years ago. At first, I didn’t know of many people who had done such a thing, but since then I’ve come across a number of wonderful resources to enrich and deepen our appreciation of America’s founding document.
And now, you can listen to the podcast on Anchor and Apple Podcasts!
The transcript below is edited for clarity.
Overview of Episode 4
Like Hawkeye and Black Widow facing off in Captain America: Civil War, it’d be good to ask one another, “We’re still friends, right?” We’re still playing on the same team with the same rule book right? If so, then we can do some productive civic discourse. If not, then we need to work on identifying just what we believe and agree on as a political community, locally and nationally. The Declaration of Independence sounds like a good place to start.
Main topic: The Declaration of Independence, Part 1
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
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 Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
My mom used to give me such a bad time about run on sentences, and WordPress now fills in that role. To those who would say the run on sentence serves no purpose I give you: Thomas Jefferson. Seriously, one sentence intro to the DOI and it is loaded. I’m going to quickly run through this phrase by phrase and make a few observations.
First: “it becomes necessary”. Jefferson and the Founders saw what they were doing as part of a natural historical process. That’s an an astounding assertion, especially coming out of a European Enlightenment context that emphasized the divine right of kings. If you assumed the divine right of kings to rule, then to “dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another” would sound, well, treasonous. Jefferson and the Founders are therefore appealing to a higher philosophy, or guiding principle, in making this claim. That’s the second phrase I want to look at.
Second: “the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them.” Don’t miss the word “entitle” here. The assumption is that there is a higher moral decrees than a monarch that determines a right to self-determination for a people. Those are “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” This is a puzzling phrase because if Jefferson is appealing to a higher power, why is he appealing to two, especially if there’s an implicit hierarchy between the two? There’s a couple of ways to look at this.
First, Jefferson is satisfying both secular and religious Enlightenment thinkers who made up the Continental Congress, so this could be interpreted as a purely political move. But Jefferson is a lawyer and philosopher who understands that an argument, like a good theory, is stronger when it satisfies multiple criteria. So he appeals to both a philosophical and theological principle. In other words, Jefferson saying, “multiple systems of thought agree with this principle.” It places his argument for American self determination on the “right side of history” as it were.
However, before we think this is some radical break with the past, that “separate and equal station” line is a reference to the Westphalian norms of international relations that had governed European interactions for over a hundred years. Even as the American colonies were arguing to make an unprecedented break with England, this is not an attempt to completely rewrite the 18th century Western political system. In fact, Jefferson is arguing that this is merely applying what is already known to be true.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The line of all lines. The touchstone of American political thought and society. Seriously, I don’t think I can overemphasize this, if we, as citizens cannot agree on this sentence, then we’re going to have a hard time preserving our constitutional system. It’s all more or less stemming from this basic assumption as the following sentences will demonstrate.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident.” We like to talk right away about equality, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but this first phrase is what gives those other nice things their meaning. Jefferson is saying that for Americans, fundamental human equality and Creator-endowed inalienable rights are accepted moral truths requiring little to no proof. They are articles of faith in our civil religion. More than that, they are doctrine. Serious stuff this.
Can we accept those two basic assumptions? Humans are created (not just born, but created) fundamentally equal and that they are born with these unique capacities (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) that no one can take away accept by abuse of force? That’s essentially what Jefferson says we believe. Life – our physical life, liberty – our natural freedom to live our own lives free from interference, pursuit of happiness – alive and free to pursue lives of moral virtue (yes, that’s what that phrase means).
These, Jefferson argues, are not given to us by parents, communities, or governments, they are just there. Before we argue about what constitutes a right (i.e. the right of education, or healthcare), or how we define happiness, or when life begins, we have to be able to affirm these things. Do we think that every human has a right to these three things? If so, to what degree is a government allowed the power of oversight or control?
I think this sentence could be a podcast episode on its own, but let me say one quick word on “pursuit of happiness”. Jefferson does not necessarily mean this in the “positive emotional feels” kind of way, he means it in a classical sense. Schooled in Greek and Roman philosophy, the founding fathers were unanimous in their belief that a representative government requires morally upright citizens. They extolled the classical virtues, and happiness was one of them. Generally, it was understood to be the virtue of essentially doing the right thing. It presupposed a moral compass focused on identifying ‘the good’ of a person and a society. This is not a statement about personal feeling, but personal moral sense and social responsibility.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,— That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Jefferson lays out here the skeletal structure of American government and its justifications. Again, note how it flows from the previous paragraphs.
First paragraph: it’s normal, even right, to set up new governments and countries.
Second paragraph:Humans are endowed with fundamental equality and rights
Here, consent-based government’s role is to protect those rights and equality, the citizen’s role is ensure that is does, or change it. Line by line, Jefferson is building his case for the American nation. Like the previous sentences, this one is loaded. Note the distinction on government: Natural and divine law give rights to humans, but humans build governments. It’s a flat rejection of any kind of divine-right rule. Furthermore, it acknowledges that governments can err, but it’s important to recognize in what ways the government errs: “Becomes destructive of these ends” – equality and inalienable rights.
So is it time to overthrow a government? Jefferson provides a criteria: is the government establish via consent? Is the government actively destroying fundamental human equality? Is the government actively limiting, destroying, or otherwise abridging those inalienable rights? If the answer is “yes” then it’s time for a change. However, it really important to be careful here in our own day to define what it means to overthrow a government, In fact, Jefferson qualifies his call for revolution right away:
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
Directly paraphrasing John Locke, Jefferson acknowledges that though a government may meet the criteria of one that needs overthrowing, it must next reach a threshold beyond which peaceful resolution is impossible. This is perhaps more relevant in a context of life-long monarchical rule. He is now engaging the obvious counterargument against his main point: King George’s abuse has not been bad enough to justify such a break.
But 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, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
So what is the threshold to finally overthrow a government in a morally right manner? Jefferson’s standard is a “long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism”. A government must demonstrate on ongoing policy of reducing and removing the rights of persons. To the extent that an strong opposition exists to preserve those rights, then we’d have to conclude a country hasn’t reached the point of overthrow, no matter how much some might want it.
Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
Major shift here. Up to this point, Jefferson has been talking theoretical. Laying the philosophical justification for the truly groundbreaking statement: We’ve hit the threshold, the king has met the criteria, it’s time to strike out on our own.
The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
Jefferson closes what’s really the introduction of the DOI with a transition sentence of sort. He’s basically summing the first three sentences up with: All that stuff I said about what a government should do? George doesn’t do it. All that stuff I said about when a country to set up a new government? We’re that new country. Lest you doubt, here’s my evidence. What I find interesting here is that Jefferson is not writing this to the King of England, but to posterity: “let facts be submitted to a candid world.” Because he believes that the English monarchy has given no opportunity to appeal, he now turns and puts the king on trial. King George is about to be tried in a court of public opinion.
Conversation starters
Jefferson is not just writing a political document with all the rigid logic of a lawyer. He’s also writing a moral philosophy treatise, outlining the behavior of citizens in relationship to the state. The big takeaway for us, today, is to ask ourselves, do these moral principles still hold true? Not hold true based on the behavior of current individuals in politics, but hold true period? Can we affirm that this is how we should see one another and what we should expect from our government? If not, why not? That’s where our public conversations need to start.
The spoken and written word (podcasts, reading, and film)
NPR has a cool tradition of producing a recording every 4th of July of their journalists reading the Declaration.
If you like the idea of a more notable person reading the Declaration, you can check out John F. Kennedy’s reading of it.
Danielle Allen’s Our Declaration is a fabulous commentary on the Declaration. Beyond just being a superb book of readable political philosophy, it’s a master class in how to teach a great book/document.
For a dramatization of the politics and editorial process surrounding the Declaration, you can’t get a better depiction than Episode 2 of HBO’s excellent miniseries, John Adams.
The last word
In the next two episodes, we’ll look at Tom’s “facts” regarding the abuses of King George and the British government. In the meantime, please join the conversation on Facebook where I’ll post these questions. I’ve asked the questions, now its over to you, and me, to thoughtfully and respectfully engage in that conversation.
If you enjoyed listening, I would also love it if you would leave a review on iTunes so other people would hear about us and join the conversation.
Thanks and I look forward to talking politics with you next time on Tim Talks Politics.