The Declaration of Independence is not the Republic, nor is it the Politics. It is what it says of itself: as submission of facts and principles to a candid world--it is an explanation, not a systematic justification, and it is a mistake to take it as such. Jefferson wrote of it:
"This was the object of the Declaration of Independence. Not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take. Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion. All its authority rests then on the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversation, in letters, printed essays, or in the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, &c."
--T. Jefferson, Letter to Henry Lee, May 8, 1825.
It is, perhaps an American creed.
I have one single trouble with it. I do not understand the necessity of the language of "rights." A gold star to anyone who can tell me what a right is, other than convenient circular shorthand. The "right to life" means "you can't kill me." But why? "Because I have a right to life." I suppose that we mean that men ought be treated in certain ways, according to their shared human nature, and some of those ways we simplify with the term "rights."
But I will leave my Aristotelian cognitive dissonance for another day. In this post, I'm going to try to work through the Declaration passage by passage in hopes of coming to understand it better, or at least to find possibilities within it. I think there are a great many thoughts embedded in the document not apparent in the first reading. I've tried to bring some of these to light. Of course, I'll be wrong about some of them, so if you feel I read too deeply or too shallowly into it, post and tell me where I'm wrong.
------------------------------------
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
------------------------------------
Let's start here. Thirteen states--separate entities now considering themselves "of America" rather than colonies "of Britain," come together (Congress' literal Latin meaning), united in one voice. This is powerful language--try to get thirteen men or women to agree on a course of action.
A declaration, in this sense, is not simply a statement. It is not a memo to the king, but a formal legal resolution passed by a legislative body.
------------------------------------
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another,
------------------------------------
The language here is deep. The question is one of when, not if, and the events are distinctly human. What are the implications?
The very first word asserts that what follows is not mere theory, but the wisdom of accumulated experience: this has happened before, and it will happen again.
"Human events" is a throwaway phrase, but spend a minute to consider it. Why "human?" Beasts are not political. They have no station by equality of nature. They are without moral obligations, possessing only instinct. Gods are above the powers of the earth, under no obligation to the opinions of men.
Only mankind has such a place. Only human men and women have these troubles, and only we must declare with words--those most human of all things--our reasons to one another, out of respect for our mutual participation in the same nature.
------------------------------------
... 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 for the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
------------------------------------
The first word I want to talk about is "station." It comes from the Latin, and before that the Greek. There are two senses to the word--the first is the notion of making a stand, as in "Here I stand, I can do no other." The second is a sense of placement, i.e., the colonies have been placed in a separate and equal relation to the powers of the earth, placed by Nature and by God.
Flowing from this fount of equality (which we will see later) is a decency that must acknowledge the opinions of other men. Something about human nature must be important, then, that we must declare our causes even to those they do not concern. Note that decency requires acknowledgment of the humanity of others, not a request for permission to act.
At this point, the authors of the Declaration have explained what they are about, and the thing itself really begins. They are going to lay out their principles, set forth their grievances, and then declare themselves consequently independent.
------------------------------------
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."
------------------------------------
Perhaps never has a greater political statement been made in mortal history.
Self-evident truths.
Such principles must be like oaks in a sunlit field: one sees them or one does not--they cannot be argued. First principles never are. They must simply be accepted or rejected.
If all men are created equal, in what way? I deliberately do not say that men are equal in their rights. As soon we begin a discussion of rights, we see that they are not equal. Some have the right to vote and others do not. Men are clearly not equal in their abilities--I cannot paint like Michelangelo. Men are equal before God, equal in their participation in human nature, and ought to be equal before the law.
How are we to understand the next phrase, "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights?" I take it to mean that the way men should be treated inheres in their nature and depends on no mortal will. Man's nature--and therefore his rights--are not determined by any human agency. Be he an Atheist, a Deist or a Catholic, a man can believe this as long as he believes man's nature to be fixed.
Why are the three rights mentioned Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness? I think these arguments come from Jerusalem rather than Athens (the history majors among you may say that they come, in fact, from France and I would not be terribly inclined to disagree).
If there is a god who has made us stewards of our own lives, then it is not our place or that of others to take and destroy what has been entrusted to us. There must be a "right" to life.
If we are no longer to worship the gods of our cities and ancestors, but one God in many cities, what does this mean for the nature of our politics and our government? There must be freedom of conscience, and of religion. Government then must be limited. Men must have liberty.
This changes the nature of government. It can no longer be virtue, or human excellence, or righteousness--not if there is to be freedom of conscience. The end of government must now be the self-government of its citizens. It exists to supply what they cannot--what Locke called the "defects of the state of nature":
--Lack of a common and established Law
--Lack of an effective power to enforce the Law
--Lack of an impartial arbitrator to judge between men under the Law
Hence the legislative, executive and judicial branches of our government. This is the argument of Locke, and of the Declaration.
------------------------------------
--That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"
------------------------------------
I don't believe there can be much argument as to what the end of American government is. Whether these ought to be the ends of government is a different question--this is what is. Certain monarchists I know aside, I feel that this if we were each born for a reason, then there was likely also a reason we were born in America. I cannot change the foundations of America any more than I can change the tectonic plates beneath my house, even if I wanted to.
Governments derive just powers from consent. The word "just" implies that governments can and do acquire unjust powers. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, it affirms that certain powers are just for it to have, and therefore good. Government is not itself a "necessary evil," but, rightly formed and executed, it is a positive good.
Consent. Let's be clear: this does not mean direct Athenian democracy deciding all debates. Congress is elected by the people and is a filter for popular rule. Consent is a principle, not a direct practice.
------------------------------------
--That whenever any form of Government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
------------------------------------
For a government to become destructive of its own ends is for it to lose its authority. A house gutted by fire is no longer a house, and may be fit only to be torn down and rebuilt. Those who live under that roof must decide. A father who simply abandons his family loses all authority over them (and all credibility as a man). A king who fractures and dissolves the rule of law has no jurisdiction over a people who wish to maintain law and order. There is no divine right of kings.
The second half the clause is a clever reference of the Declaration to itself--the authors are laying out the principles that to them seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. The organizing of powers will come 11 years later.
------------------------------------
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.
------------------------------------
The phrasing is very clear and to the point in this passage. There is only one thing I want to mention, which is that the disposition of mankind here is not a bad one. It is in fact very good--consider those who cannot let any insult pass, or consider a world in which every injustice, however small, was met with a new revolution. Such a place would be far worse than the worst tyranny.
------------------------------------
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.
------------------------------------
Abuses are misuses of power. Usurpations are unlawful acquisitions of power. Both crop up in the list of grievances at the end. If men are to be self-governing, they must resist certain things. The question of where one draws the line is one to be answered prudentially, but clearly the Fathers thought the time had come.
------------------------------------
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. 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...
------------------------------------
The rest of the Declaration I leave unexamined, save to say that the destabilization of the rule of law in the colonies is listed first, as the paramount issue. For more, see my previous post here.
One last thing:
Absolute = Beyond or outside the law.
Tyranny = Rule of one man, without laws.
The elimination of colonial laws and legislatures was both against British constitutionalism and the establishment of tyranny. Tyranny does not require mass murder or an Iron Curtain. The defiance of the King was not a hyperbolic accusation but a determined last stand on principles of law and liberty.
"This was the object of the Declaration of Independence. Not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take. Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion. All its authority rests then on the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversation, in letters, printed essays, or in the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, &c."
--T. Jefferson, Letter to Henry Lee, May 8, 1825.
It is, perhaps an American creed.
I have one single trouble with it. I do not understand the necessity of the language of "rights." A gold star to anyone who can tell me what a right is, other than convenient circular shorthand. The "right to life" means "you can't kill me." But why? "Because I have a right to life." I suppose that we mean that men ought be treated in certain ways, according to their shared human nature, and some of those ways we simplify with the term "rights."
But I will leave my Aristotelian cognitive dissonance for another day. In this post, I'm going to try to work through the Declaration passage by passage in hopes of coming to understand it better, or at least to find possibilities within it. I think there are a great many thoughts embedded in the document not apparent in the first reading. I've tried to bring some of these to light. Of course, I'll be wrong about some of them, so if you feel I read too deeply or too shallowly into it, post and tell me where I'm wrong.
------------------------------------
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
------------------------------------
Let's start here. Thirteen states--separate entities now considering themselves "of America" rather than colonies "of Britain," come together (Congress' literal Latin meaning), united in one voice. This is powerful language--try to get thirteen men or women to agree on a course of action.
A declaration, in this sense, is not simply a statement. It is not a memo to the king, but a formal legal resolution passed by a legislative body.
------------------------------------
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another,
------------------------------------
The language here is deep. The question is one of when, not if, and the events are distinctly human. What are the implications?
The very first word asserts that what follows is not mere theory, but the wisdom of accumulated experience: this has happened before, and it will happen again.
"Human events" is a throwaway phrase, but spend a minute to consider it. Why "human?" Beasts are not political. They have no station by equality of nature. They are without moral obligations, possessing only instinct. Gods are above the powers of the earth, under no obligation to the opinions of men.
Only mankind has such a place. Only human men and women have these troubles, and only we must declare with words--those most human of all things--our reasons to one another, out of respect for our mutual participation in the same nature.
------------------------------------
... 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 for the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
------------------------------------
The first word I want to talk about is "station." It comes from the Latin, and before that the Greek. There are two senses to the word--the first is the notion of making a stand, as in "Here I stand, I can do no other." The second is a sense of placement, i.e., the colonies have been placed in a separate and equal relation to the powers of the earth, placed by Nature and by God.
Flowing from this fount of equality (which we will see later) is a decency that must acknowledge the opinions of other men. Something about human nature must be important, then, that we must declare our causes even to those they do not concern. Note that decency requires acknowledgment of the humanity of others, not a request for permission to act.
At this point, the authors of the Declaration have explained what they are about, and the thing itself really begins. They are going to lay out their principles, set forth their grievances, and then declare themselves consequently independent.
------------------------------------
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."
------------------------------------
Perhaps never has a greater political statement been made in mortal history.
Self-evident truths.
Such principles must be like oaks in a sunlit field: one sees them or one does not--they cannot be argued. First principles never are. They must simply be accepted or rejected.
If all men are created equal, in what way? I deliberately do not say that men are equal in their rights. As soon we begin a discussion of rights, we see that they are not equal. Some have the right to vote and others do not. Men are clearly not equal in their abilities--I cannot paint like Michelangelo. Men are equal before God, equal in their participation in human nature, and ought to be equal before the law.
How are we to understand the next phrase, "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights?" I take it to mean that the way men should be treated inheres in their nature and depends on no mortal will. Man's nature--and therefore his rights--are not determined by any human agency. Be he an Atheist, a Deist or a Catholic, a man can believe this as long as he believes man's nature to be fixed.
Why are the three rights mentioned Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness? I think these arguments come from Jerusalem rather than Athens (the history majors among you may say that they come, in fact, from France and I would not be terribly inclined to disagree).
If there is a god who has made us stewards of our own lives, then it is not our place or that of others to take and destroy what has been entrusted to us. There must be a "right" to life.
If we are no longer to worship the gods of our cities and ancestors, but one God in many cities, what does this mean for the nature of our politics and our government? There must be freedom of conscience, and of religion. Government then must be limited. Men must have liberty.
This changes the nature of government. It can no longer be virtue, or human excellence, or righteousness--not if there is to be freedom of conscience. The end of government must now be the self-government of its citizens. It exists to supply what they cannot--what Locke called the "defects of the state of nature":
--Lack of a common and established Law
--Lack of an effective power to enforce the Law
--Lack of an impartial arbitrator to judge between men under the Law
Hence the legislative, executive and judicial branches of our government. This is the argument of Locke, and of the Declaration.
------------------------------------
--That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"
------------------------------------
I don't believe there can be much argument as to what the end of American government is. Whether these ought to be the ends of government is a different question--this is what is. Certain monarchists I know aside, I feel that this if we were each born for a reason, then there was likely also a reason we were born in America. I cannot change the foundations of America any more than I can change the tectonic plates beneath my house, even if I wanted to.
Governments derive just powers from consent. The word "just" implies that governments can and do acquire unjust powers. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, it affirms that certain powers are just for it to have, and therefore good. Government is not itself a "necessary evil," but, rightly formed and executed, it is a positive good.
Consent. Let's be clear: this does not mean direct Athenian democracy deciding all debates. Congress is elected by the people and is a filter for popular rule. Consent is a principle, not a direct practice.
------------------------------------
--That whenever any form of Government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
------------------------------------
For a government to become destructive of its own ends is for it to lose its authority. A house gutted by fire is no longer a house, and may be fit only to be torn down and rebuilt. Those who live under that roof must decide. A father who simply abandons his family loses all authority over them (and all credibility as a man). A king who fractures and dissolves the rule of law has no jurisdiction over a people who wish to maintain law and order. There is no divine right of kings.
The second half the clause is a clever reference of the Declaration to itself--the authors are laying out the principles that to them seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. The organizing of powers will come 11 years later.
------------------------------------
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.
------------------------------------
The phrasing is very clear and to the point in this passage. There is only one thing I want to mention, which is that the disposition of mankind here is not a bad one. It is in fact very good--consider those who cannot let any insult pass, or consider a world in which every injustice, however small, was met with a new revolution. Such a place would be far worse than the worst tyranny.
------------------------------------
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.
------------------------------------
Abuses are misuses of power. Usurpations are unlawful acquisitions of power. Both crop up in the list of grievances at the end. If men are to be self-governing, they must resist certain things. The question of where one draws the line is one to be answered prudentially, but clearly the Fathers thought the time had come.
------------------------------------
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. 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...
------------------------------------
The rest of the Declaration I leave unexamined, save to say that the destabilization of the rule of law in the colonies is listed first, as the paramount issue. For more, see my previous post here.
One last thing:
Absolute = Beyond or outside the law.
Tyranny = Rule of one man, without laws.
The elimination of colonial laws and legislatures was both against British constitutionalism and the establishment of tyranny. Tyranny does not require mass murder or an Iron Curtain. The defiance of the King was not a hyperbolic accusation but a determined last stand on principles of law and liberty.
No comments:
Post a Comment