The Declaration of Independence
There are several important documents that bear heavily on the kind of life we live in these United States.
One of them is the Declaration of Independence.
And although it is true that the Declaration of Independence has no legal standing
and never has had any from the time it was first written,
its influence has been profound,
and the thoughts contained in it are probably today less understood than at
the time they were first put there, but nonetheless those thoughts continue to
be important expressions of ideas that are meaningful primarily to those of us
who live in the United States. Since it is quite probable that we have not all
learned to think about the Declaration of Independence in the same way, I would
I'd like to go over the most meaningful part of the declaration so that we could at least
for a very short time think about it in the same way so that we could understand what
it was that the men who wrote it were trying to say and trying to set down as a guiding
principle for their actions and conceivably for the actions of others.
First we have to set this into a chronological context. The war that was to separate the
colonies from the mother country of England had begun a little better than a year before.
Usually we say that the war began with the Battle of Lexington in April of 1775. Then
All through the rest of 1775, the war continued, and in January of 1776, Tom Paine, a bridge builder that no one had ever heard about, wrote a little track called Common Sense, and from that came the general idea that was then to be set forth in the Declaration of Independence.
Tom Paine, being a virtual unknown, was nonetheless very influential with his pamphlet, and the
consequence was that other persons who were influential thought that they had best get
together and issue a public statement, which in a very real sense was nothing more than
a paraphrase of what Paine had already put down in his pamphlet Common Sense.
So in July of 1776, these influential men, fifty-six in number, gathered in Philadelphia.
The declaration itself is, we believe, written by Thomas Jefferson, who got the job of writing
it. It was discussed relatively briefly. So far as we understand, only one serious debate
arose relating to the wording in the document. Otherwise, there were a few minor corrections
made and then all 56 of the people present accepted it and signed it and it became the
Declaration of Independence. Now, the document falls into four sections very logically. There
is a kind of preamble which is the first paragraph and it begins with those well-known words
and so on.
Then the second part begins with the second paragraph, and that's the point I want to
focus our attention on because the real meat of the instrument is contained therein.
Now after we are through with the second paragraph, we go into the third part, which is really
a bill of indictment against the King of England.
is a listing of the particular offenses which the colonists felt the king was guilty of
and tabulates just how bad they are. We won't take the time to get into that part of the
declaration, but I hope that you will do so at your leisure and examine it because what
you will find is, I think, a reason for surprise.
The things that the colonists were up in arms about were so minor compared to the heavy
burdens that our government has placed on us that I think today, if you could, you would
be quite willing to turn around and say, well, let's have George III back again.
Even with all of his excesses, he never came close to what our own government is doing
today.
Be that as it may, that is the third part of the declaration.
And then the final and concluding part is sort of a summation wherein the authors say
that they have appealed to the king again and again for some kind of redress of their
grievances and he has treated each appeal with indifference and scorn and therefore
although they don't want to do it, they are compelled by the circumstances that they face
to do it and they hereby declare that they intend to separate and go their separate way
and then appear the signatures of the 56 men who were present for the occasion.
The signature of John Hancock, of course, as you know, is a very large one, and it has
always been said that when he signed it, Hancock said very sardonically, well, I'll sign it
in a way where George won't have to use his spectacles, and so he wrote it large enough.
That's the Declaration of Independence.
It's a very short, a very brief document, and yet in a very real sense it is an extremely
revolutionary document, and that essence is in the second paragraph, and what I propose
to do is this.
I'd like to take the first five sentences from the second paragraph, and I'll read each
one so that we have the general sense of it, and then I'll go back over each of those sentences
to analyze it to be sure that we are thinking alike about it.
Now the first sentence in the second paragraph is this one, 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.
Now that's the first sentence.
And let me go over that to be sure that we understand what these words say and what they
they meant at the time they were put down. We hold these truths to be self-evident. Now
when we are speaking in terms of self-evident truth in philosophy, we are speaking in terms
of an axiom. All philosophy, in fact all reason, is predicated upon axioms. It begins at an
axiomatic level, at levels where you cannot prove, but you just know that it is so. An
An example would be this axiom, man is. Is that true? Well, of course it's true. We all
know it's true. Can you prove it? No, you can't prove it because there is a contradictory
axiom that is also true and that is man dies. Well, how can we say man is and at the same
time say man dies? Well, we can because they're both true. You can't prove either one. We
We don't know what man is, we don't know what existence is, but it's self-evident, it's
a self-evident truth.
And so when we find this phrase appearing here, we know that the authors of the Declaration
are intending to make a very deep, philosophical, fundamental statement.
This is not to be an expedient political device for accomplishing some minor objective.
This is to be bedrock stuff, and they are setting it forth by saying, we hold these
truths to be self-evident. In other words, here is an axiomatic position upon which we
are basing everything that we intend doing. Now, that is a very important thing to understand.
There is also a secondary meaning that may appear here, and that is not merely a philosophic
approach, but really quite a pragmatic one. Because you see, of course, with the benefit
of hindsight, we know what they're going to say. And what they had in mind was making
a clear declaration of the fact that the king didn't have any more rights than they did
as individuals. And that's at this time a very revolutionary idea. This was really to
The General Conception was that if you survived, it was only because you were under the control
of a monarch who had been divinely ordained.
We had had a very practical experience in the colonial area, in what we called the new
world, because thanks to the indifference and the slothfulness of the British kings,
we had left that part of the world, the old world, come to the new world and gotten out
from under their control in large measure. We had been untaxed and unregulated for 150
Years, and we had made it. It was working well. And so when these leading citizens put
down the idea, we hold these truths to be self-evident, and of course we know what they're
going to say, then they were perhaps also thinking not only in a philosophic term, but
in a very practical sense. In other words, we have gotten out from under the king for
150 years, and we're not dead, therefore you don't really need a king. And this is really
So in that very first sentence, the gauntlet is thrown down, so to speak. We hold these
truths to be self-evident, and then there's a comma, and then it says that all men are
created equal. And how often I wish that they had taken that phrase and copied Tom Paine
a little more closely, because again and again, that phrase has been lifted out of context
to make it appear that what they are trying to say is that all men have equal ability,
that all men have equal brain power, and that all men are equal in every conceivable sense.
And the men putting this down were among the foremost in the world who would have known
that that wasn't true. These men were elitists, and they certainly knew that men are not equal
in any physical sense, nor were they trying to suggest that. What they are really setting
What they are setting forth is a concept of morality that is absolutely new.
You see, in the old days, the king could do no wrong because he had rights and they were
divinely ordained and no one else had any.
Now they were setting forth the idea that every man had the same rights and therefore
the king didn't own anybody and therefore since all men had equal rights there would
be certain areas in which each man could act where he could do no wrong.
And this would be in areas in respect to his own person and property.
That's what they're setting forth.
It is a declaration of individualism that they are getting at and that appears in that
that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain
unalienable rights. In other words, what they're getting at is this, rights are not
granted to you by the state or by other men. You have them originally because at the moment
of birth you happen to be a man, so you come fully equipped with rights. And then they
Certain Unalienable Rights
say that among these, they're not going to list them all, that among these are life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And believe it or not, it was right there that
they got into their big debate in the discussion. Because in the Virginia Bill of Rights, which
had just been drafted prior to this, and also in Tom Paine's Common Sense, the implication
is clear, and even the direct words are used, that all men have rights to life, liberty,
property and the pursuit of happiness. But the word property does not appear. And a debate
ensued as to why didn't it appear? Well, it worked out this way, that in the South we
We had slavery at the time, and the definition of a slave was a man who had lost his rights
to own property because he himself had become a property and property doesn't own property.
Therefore the slave is a man who has lost his rights to own property, and therefore
If you were to say that all men had a right to property, you would be saying that slavery
was immoral.
Well, the owners of slaves from the South didn't want to say that, because this would
mean that in order for them to regain their moral position, they would have to get rid
of their slaves.
In fact, Jefferson, it is said, made that observation.
He said that if the word property were put into the declaration, then he would have to
Unfortunately, the delegates from South Carolina and Georgia ganged up on this particular point
and refused to budge.
They said that if the declaration were approved with the word property put into it, they would
The Declaration of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness
Restored. Now, this, of course, does provide an ambivalence in the declaration, but that's
where it came about and that's what it's about. One cannot help but wonder what a history
of this country might have been had the word property been put in. Certainly, the trilogy
of essences that inspired the entire revolutionary effort was life, liberty, and property, irrespective
of what the Declaration of Independence said. But let me go on with it. Here's the second
sentence, an equally potent and meaningful sentence. That to secure these rights, governments
are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Now,
let me go back over that to be sure we're thinking alike. That to secure these rights,
now wait a minute, that sounds like a contradiction to the first sentence because in the first
The first sentence, it says, all men are endowed with certain unalienable rights, and now it says that to secure them, governments are instituted. Is it a contradiction? Actually, no. In our use of the language, it appears to be because we have corrupted the language from its original usage at the time this was written. When this was first penned, the word secure meant only to make safe, to nail down. Presently, the word is used to mean to obtain
as well as to retain.
And so we have a double meaning there that was not in the use of that word at the time
this was written.
So what they are really saying is that you are born with certain equal and unalienable
rights and all men have them.
Now these relate to your moral position.
And to make certain that nothing immoral happens, that's the idea.
To make certain that nothing immoral happens, governments are instituted among men to wit,
governments are created by men and instituted among them, and get this phrase, deriving
their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Now that clearly indicates that it would be possible for a government to have just powers.
It makes it quite clear that the government, to have just powers, must have them as a result
of a contractual relation that would be established between the governed and the governor.
In other words, if the government is to have just powers, it could only be that power granted
to it by an individual having rights.
But note, please, the inference is clear that it would be possible for a government to have
And if that would be the case, then an unjust power would obviously be a power which the
government has taken without the consent of the governed.
And note this one additional point.
It doesn't say without the consent of a majority of those governed.
It clearly indicates that each individual to be governed must grant his consent.
Otherwise the first sentence is null and void where it states clearly that each individual is endowed with certain equal and unalienable rights.
Therefore each person has a right and could grant to a government a power if he chose to, but if he does not choose to, the government has no rightful power over him, and if the government presumes to take a power over him, it is a wrongful power by definition.
Now that's what the Declaration says. It clearly sets it forth.
And I venture to say there are many Americans who don't know that.
Let me go on. This is quite an instrument here.
This is the third sentence.
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 affect their safety and happiness.
Let me go back over that.
That whenever any form of government, now if words have meanings at all, that clearly indicates that at any time, any particular kind of government, in other words there is no time that is sacred,
and there is no kind of government that is sacred. At any time, any form of government, if it becomes
destructive of these ends, what ends? The ends of maintaining your moral position, that is, your
right to do as you please with your person and your property, your right to life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness, in other words. If at any time, any government becomes destructive of these
The right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and now at the same level the right to alter or abolish your government.
And, of course, this has to be the case, because if you have rights, then the government has only a confided power, and therefore your position is superior to your government's, your government is merely your servant, and if it serves you, well and good.
Good.
But when it presumes to act for you, and specifically against your wishes, your rights are greater
than its power, and therefore you have a right to alter it, to change it so it won't be doing
what it's doing, or if you don't want to do that, or for any reason don't feel that you
can do so, then your right goes even to the point of abolishing the government and replacing
Let me take sentence number four.
It introduces a note of caution.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for
light and transient causes, and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are
more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the
and the forms to which they are accustomed.
Actually that says two things.
It says, first of all, take it easy, don't be hot-headed, don't get upset over light
and temporary problems.
But at the same time it says mankind are prone to suffer and suffer and suffer, so it indicates
don't die on the vine, don't give up, just don't quit.
Stay alert, don't be hot-headed, but don't let the chains and shackles of tyranny press
you down. So it's a note of caution both ways.
And then we come to sentence number five, which, as I view it, is probably the most
revolutionary of all in this instrument, and may very well be the most revolutionary statement
in the English language, possibly in any language. This is a fantastic statement. Listen carefully.
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.
Did you get that?
When a government evinces a pattern of behavior in which your rights are ignored or deliberately
obscured, where indeed the government begins to presume that it is the important item and
that you are not, that its function is not to serve you, but to make you serve it, when
If this happens, you not only have a right to throw off such government, you have a duty
to get rid of it. How about that? That's the Declaration of Independence. That's the
meaningful core of the whole idea within it. Now, I don't know whether you like that
or not. That's not the point. The point is that it is there. The founding fathers who
who saw the situation they were in and who wanted to do something about it, recognized
these ideas and set them down in this way.
Very interesting things have happened about the declaration.
I remember when I was a small lad, we always used to celebrate the 4th of July with great
enthusiasm and there were exciting speeches and we had firecrackers and it was really
quite a thing.
But of course, the government has been protecting us from this for a long time now.
It's very dangerous to celebrate, and it's particularly dangerous to bring out the Declaration
of Independence and read it. And, most of all, read it and understand it. Because when
you understand it, it clearly sets forth the proposition that the government is the least
of your blessings, it is only a safeguard to protect your rights, and if it forgets that,
you have the right and the government does not. The government has only a confided power,
and thus it remains with you as to what you will do with the government, not the government
Let me give you an instance of just what happened.
Some of my students attending the University of Wisconsin, having studied with me prior
to this, thought they'd conduct a little experiment.
So they typed out those five sentences that I've just read to you on a piece of paper.
They typed at the head of it, petition.
And then at the bottom they put places for signatures and they went out on the street
and approached private citizens and they handed them this petition and they said, read this
and if you approve of it, sign it.
That's all.
Didn't ask to do anything, just read this and if you approve of it, sign it.
They approached over a hundred people and only two signed it.
And you know what the comment was by the rest of them?
Oh boy, that's communist stuff, isn't it?
Wow, I wouldn't dare sign that. I'd get fired. I'd lose my job. Hey, how come you guys are running
around like this? This is a lot of red propaganda, isn't it? Ladies and gentlemen, this is the
Declaration of Independence, a basic instrument that inspired men around the world. When this
instrument was first struck off and people glimpsed the idea, it created a fantastic
Image for this country. It created the idea that we could call image America, a land of the free.
In this country, there wasn't going to be a king or any super people called politicians who had
power over you. Goodness, no. The idea was that you had the same rights everybody else did.
You could look anyone in the eye and say, you and I are equal morally. Sure, you may have more
ability than I have, but that doesn't make you any better than I am from a moral point of view.
That was the idea that rocked the world. And we in America actually have this document,
and many Americans have forgotten what it says and what it means.