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.
–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
==In Congress: the unanimous Declaration of the 13 united States of America, July 4, 1776
These words are among the most radical statements ever written. It denies that government is established by divine right or ancient custom, and that subjects have no choice but to obey. It affirms that people have the right to form a government by free decision, and proceeds to do just that.
It is a philosophy that is hard for many people to accept—including, as I have found through experience, many supposedly well-educated 21st century Americans.
I have believed in the basic ideas of the Declaration’s since I was old enough to understand them. My interpretation of American history is that it consists of (1) a series of events leading up to the signing of the Declaration of Independence and the ratification of the Constitution and (2) a playing out of the consequences of those two actions.
Recently I read a book, OUR DECLARATION: A Reading of the Declaration of Independence in Defense of Equality by Danielle Allen which both reinforced and clarified my understanding of the Declaration.
What, Allen asked, does it mean to say “all men are created equal”? Obviously people are not the same in virtue, or ability, or wealth and social standing.
As she pointed out, we are all equal in the desire to live, in the desire to live free of subjugation to someone else’s will and in the desire (this is more controversial) to define for ourselves what we need to make us happy. If I demand these rights for myself, I have no standing to deny these rights to you.
The Declaration gives two possible sources of these rights – “the Laws of Nature” and “Nature’s God.” The first reflects the ideas of the 18th century Enlightenment; the second of radical Protestant Christianity.
All Christians believe that human beings are made in the image of God, and are in some sense descended from Adam and Eve and then from Noah. Protestants believe that human beings can have a direct relationship to God without the need for a priesthood to serve as intermediary. Radical Protestants such as the Congregationalists, Baptists and Quakers practiced democracy in their congregations, and in town meetings.
The rationalist thinkers of the Enlightenment thought in the same manner, except without the Biblical scaffolding. They held that all human beings, regardless of their other differences, had a moral sense. They thought people should think of government as a social contract—a mutual agreement based on mutual benefit.
The social contract was only a theory for John Locke and other 18th century philosophers. But social contracts were made by the American colonists—first in the Mayflower Compact of the Pilgrims as they voyaged to Plymouth Rock, then of various frontier communities, and finally the Constitution of the United States.
The most radical of the Declaration’s affirmations is the right of revolution. The United States of America is founded not on a principle of authority or national unity, but on principles of freedom and equality to which the government itself must submit or risk dissolution.
Read the rest of this entry »