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 whig patriots. And that debate has really 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 legislators . And over the course of about 12 years between 1764 and 1776, the British 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 acts and then the tea act and then the coercive acts and then in 1775 the prohibittory 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 its authority was absolutely supreme. Right . So it could pass it could pass taxes which it had never done before and it could pass taxes in the american colonies for revenue. And the most famous of course of all of these pieces of british legislation was the stamp act of 1765 which put a tax on stamped 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 the colonial legislatures. With regard to the stamp act, the british argued that the stamp act was legal and therefore constitutional. The americans by contrast argued that the stamp act was unjust and therefore unconstitutional. And so over the course of the next 10 or 11 years, British Imperial officials and american patriots began a kind of search for principles. The principles 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 constitutional, 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 10 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 if he could from 1760 to 1775 in the course of 15 years before a drop of blood was shed 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 paine in a letter that he wrote to the abaranault of france 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 formerly used. Again, think about the think about the meaning of what paine is arguing here. 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. 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, the last link between the colonists and the mother country was through their relationship, the colonistsrelationship with the person of the king. But in january, 1776, with the publication of tom paines common sense that relationship is forever severed. So there is now intellectually there is no lingering remnant allegiance or loyalty between the colonists and the mother country. Once they have severed their connection with the person of the king, psychologically they are no longer members of the british empire. And so that then takes us straight to july 4, 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 4, 1776. Well, the first thing to note about it is that it is indeed a political and in some ways even a diplomatic document. It was written in part for george iii. It was written for european diplomats and financiers. And it was written of course for the American People, to organize, 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 thats 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 to 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 principles that the americans had been searching for during the years of the imperial crisis. Its a summing up. So when it says we hold these truths to be selfevident, and then it lays out its selfevident truths. This is these are the principles of the american mind. But as an expression of the american mind, the declaration was also laying the foundation for the new constitutions 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. All right. Before we jump into the declaration, and what were going to do in todays class is we are 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 philosophic background of the declaration of independence. So in my view, the declaration is the embodiment, it is a prasie of the philosophical principles of the enlightenment. All of the great enlightenment ideas and principles are in effect embodied in the declaration of reasons. And the three great philosophers of the enlightenment were sir isaac newton in his great work the princitia mathimatica, john lookes essay concerning human understanding, and lockes second treaties of government. And what im going to argue is that the ideas, the fundamental core ideas of newtons principia and lockes essay are in a sense summed up, embodied in the first paragraph of the declaration. And the second paragraph of the declaration is it is it is a it is an abstract, it is an abstract of the core basic principles that you will find in lockes second treatise of government. All right. Now, so let me just sum up for you very quickly the core ideas, the Core Principles of the enlightenment which i think can be seen as having been transposed onto the declaration of independence. So there is i think an enlightenment project, right . We can say we can 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 has four basic branches. It includes four basic branches of philosophy. First is metaphysics. What is metaphysics . Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of reality. And i can sum up for you in one word the enlightenments view of metaphysics. Nature. The Second Branch is epistemology. And epistemology is that branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of knowledge. And i can sum up the enlightenments view of epistemology in one word which is reason. The enlightenment also has an ethical theory. And an ethics is that branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of human action and human relationships. And i think i can 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. If i had to sum up the enlightenments view of politics in one word, it would be constitutionalism. All right. 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 how can we see those ideas within the declaration of independence . So what i would 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, its really just two sentences. Two very long sentences. And were going to were going to parse these sentences and try to pull out of them the deepest philosophic meaning. All right. 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 decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation, close quote. Now, what im going to argue is that this first sentence or paragraph has built into it a metaphysics and an epistemolorgy. That it draws on from the enlightenment. Now, what do i mean by in a . Lets first identify sort of the core ideas of that first sentence. And that first sentence has a kind of overarching thematic structure to it. It has a purpose, right . And whats the purpose of the first sentence . It is to declare to the world the, quote, causes which impel us to the separation. The causes which impel us to break from the mother country. And and in this case a moral standard. That moral standard would be the laws of nature and of natures guide and that first paragraph sentence also implies an action. The action is the necessity to dissolve the connection between these two countries. Let me just say, that in my view, in many ways, and i will talk about this at the end of the class, the most interesting word for me of this first paragraph is the word necessary. Right in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political ban. The question, is necessary . Why necessary . How is it necessary that the American People dissolve their connection to the mother country . To say that it is necessary suggests that it must be. Been in human affairs, there is nothing that must be. The fact of the matter is, and 1776, at least a third of all american colonials at that time or loyalists, selfidentified loyalists. And the third had made up their mind about whether they supported independence or not. So how is it on july 4th 1776 the americans argue that is now necessary so the question is why necessary . Why not say win in the course of human events it is optional . To dissolve our political bans . Why necessary . I will come back to that question at the end of the top. I think the word necessary tells us something deeply important about the moral logic says and the moral characters of those who signed the declaration of independence. Let me break down what i think are the philosophical ideas, the enlightenment philosophically ideas that are contained in that first paragraph. So the declaration, as i have suggested, it has a metaphysics that it draws on from the enlightenment. Summed up in one word, which is nature. We see that in the declaration when we talk about the laws of nature and of natures got. In the 17 than 18 centuries says Natural Force oliver philosophers what what we would call scientists, they began to discover certain laws of nature. Scientific or 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. For instance the laws of gravitation, newtons love planetary motion. But these laws a physical nature were absolutely and absolute. They are universal implied throughout the whole universe. They are permanent. As a result of these discreet discoveries of scientific laws of nature, more philosophers, the late 17th and into the 18th centuries, began to look or try to discover certain moral laws of nature. When the declaration refers to the laws of nature and the natures god, it is referring to moral laws of nature. If you go back to the very first class is when we read john adams diary. 21yearold john adams writing in his diary about what was he was learning as a graduate at harvard college. What he learned says in the universe, according to new tons laws, entities, physical things out there in nature have an identity. That identity is absolute. In addition to having identity, because it has identity, it is governed by certain laws of cause and effect. The same adams argued is true for human action as well. It is a bit more difficult leap from discovery scientific laws of nature to discovering human moral laws of nature, but that was at the deepest philosophical level. That was the quest, that was the search of 18th century moral philosophers, including the Founding Fathers. Says and we see in that first paragraph. Let me back up and say the laws of god and the nature scarred. It is interesting that it doesnt say the laws of nature and of god it says natures got. So for most American Revolutionist who were the philosophical grandchildren of the enlightenment, they viewed natures god not as the same guided steel testament, not the kind of omnipresent god who can change the laws of nature it will, but rather a guy who is like a watchmaker, or clock meager, who set the universe in motion and stepped back. That is what i think is being refer to their with regard to natures god. In that first sentence, it talks about the causes which compelled him to separation. This is a view of causation, in other words to understand how and why there is this declaration of independence and separation you have to understand the causes. There is a cause which leads to an effect. The effect is the declaration of independence and a literal separation of the colonists another country but it has causes. In order to understand the independent separation you have to understand the causes, which is a principal part of what the laws of independent dense. Does it lays out its charges against king george the third the first paragraph also has an epistemological. And in the context of the enlightenment of americas Founding Fathers, that means that it is going to in some way praise and promote mince faculty of reason how to do that in the first paragraph . Well at the very end of that first paragraph, it refers to a decent respect to the opinions of mankind. In other words, in this declaration to the world the americans in other words are speaking from one mind to another says theyre speaking to the reason for the powers of reason of all people everywhere. They respect the opinions of mankind. They respect the idea that they can lay out a case, appeal to the people around the world and that those reasons can be understood. That is why in the second paragraph just before the charges are laid out, the declaration says quote to prove this this meaning the absolute despotism of george the third as stated in the declaration, to prove this tyranny, let facts might be submitted to a candid world. Says the americans have written an indictment against george the third and indirectly to the British Parliament as well. Says it lays out the declaration, lays out all of the crimes committed by george the third in the breach parliament. By laying out those facts, they are laying them out to people everywhere, to determine whether the charges are in fact true or not true. This is why it says we are submitted to a candid world. We are appealing to the mines, to the reasons of people everywhere. Let us now turn to the second paragraph, which is, what is often considered to be the second paragraph is one long sentence. It says, we hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal. 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 government, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to Institute New government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers and such form, as to them shall see most likely to affect their safety and happiness. That is, in my view, without question, the most famous and the single most important sentence ever written in american history. Maybe even the single most important sentence written in world history. That one sentence, that one very long sentence, establishes the philosophical moral standard by which the colonists are going to judge the actions of king george the third and parliament. In fact, what they are really doing at a deeper level, is laying out the principles, the moral standard by which all governments everywhere should be judged. This very long complex sentence contains a whole universe of ideas and world principles. Let me just say, or repeat, that this one sentence of the declaration, it is a summing up, of john locks second treatise government. All of the ideas contained in this one sentence sum up the core, fundamental principles of locks second treatise of government. Let us now begin to unpack the meaning of this complex sentence. It begins, we hold these truths to be self evidenty. In many ways, i think this is the most important clause of the most important sentence of the most important document in american history, but it is one that is often passed over. And part, it is passed over because it is so simple and so elegant that it is in its formulation, that we just it just we just read over it and we want to get to the truths themselves. But i think this first clause is critically important. We hold these truths to be self evident. Most scholars of the declaration of independence tend to focus on this notion of self evidence. We hold these truths to be self evident. What can that possibly mean . To say that the truths that our to follow our self evident . This idea of self evidence is a technical philosophical term. The technical definition of self evident see is that in a proposition, the subject and the predicate have to be in agreement with each other, which simply means that a self evident truth is one, or self evident proposition, is one that is perception really self evident to anybody with eyes to see. Up is not down. Black is not white. In is not out. These are perception lee self evident truths, but surely that cannot be what jefferson is referring to relative to the declaration, because as we will see, the four truths of the declaration are much more complex than being perceptible evident to the viewer. What can it possibly mean . Except i will explain this in just a minute. I think the most important word in, we hold these truths to be self evident, it is truths. The word truths, or truth. Why is it important . It is certainly important for us in the 21st century to try to understand what americas Founding Fathers meant by the concept of truth. I would argue that in many ways it is hard for us to understand what they meant by the concept of truth, because in our world today, and our postmodern 21st century academic world, we have discarded the concept of truth. The oxford dictionary recently said that the word post truth, as and we live in a post truth society, i believe it was 2016 word of the year. For us, we live in a post truth world, apparently but that was not true for americas Founding Fathers. They believed that the concept of truth meant that they are in fact, capital tea truth, which means truths that first and most importantly in the definition connect to reality. A trans is concept that has to connect and some fundamental objective way to reality. Are these truths, the characteristics of the concept truth would be that they are absolute, certain universal, and timeless. Americas Founding Fathers did believe that there are moral truths that are not subjective. They do not change with the times or place, but they are objectively, absolutely true in all places and all times. How do we get self evident truth . How did the American People get self evident truths . If it is the case, and i think it is partly, that the four truths hours we will see them are not self evident. What the jefferson what could he have possibly meant . When he said we hold these truthss as self evident. Let us analyze. Who is the weekend we hold these truths . We means first, jefferson and the committee of five, who are tasked with drafting the declaration, which included ben franklin, john adams, Roger Sherman and robert livingston. So the we, means the committee of five, but it also means the 56 members of the continental congress. On top of the 56 members of the continental congress, it also means the American People, it declaration of the independence speaking on behalf of we, the people. We, the people of the United States of america. We hold these truths. But there is a problem. What does it mean to say we hold these truths to be self evident . Some of these truths are pretty complex philosophical concepts. Did all americans come to see this truths all at the same time . Surely there is a difference in intellectual capacity for instance, between Thomas Jefferson and john adams on the one hand, and an educated, Hard Scrabble farmer on the western frontier of massachusetts. I think that, the key word to unlock the meaning of self evident truth, is the word hole. We, hold these truths. To hold is in effect to grasp. But to grasp if something that can take place overtime. By different people at different points in time. So we hold these truths, that is to say we have identified or at least, some great thinkers and philosophers have identified these truths, and now we, the people as a whole, we hold them as well. I think this first clause of the declaration means Something Like that. Let us turn now to the truths. The declaration says we hold these truths to be self evident. What are these truths . It turns out, the declaration claims that there are four self evident truths. I can sum up the for self evident truths each in a word . First the quality. Second rights. Third consent. So forth, revolution. We can also super impose the last two component pieces of a systematic philosophy on the second sentence, that is to say, the second sentence of the declaration or the second paragraph, has an ethics and politics in the same way that the first paragraph had a metaphysics and epistemological. The ethics, the moral part of the four self evident truths would be equality and rights, and the political principles of the four self evident truths would be the principle of consent and revolution. Let us drill down, now. Let us take a look at each one of the four self evident truths. What do they actually mean . More particularly, how do they actually cash out . These are not simply abstract flowing ideas. Somewhere up in the stratosphere. These are actually truths identified by American Revolutionaries, not only as the standard by which they are judging the depredations of george the third and the British Parliament, but these four truths are also going to serve as the foundation, the moral foundation, the moral Political Foundation of the constitutions and government they are about to draft, and they will provide a kind of ideal for the American People. An i deal that Many Americans still live by. Let us take the first self evident truth. It says, all men are created equal. What could this possibly mean . The first thing to know is that it says all men are created equal. It does not say some men. It does not say white colonial americans. It says all men are created equal. And virtually all of the bills of rights that follow the declaration of independence, the state bills of rights, all men are created equal. What does that mean . How does it cash out . There is a problem. One might even say that there is a self evident problem with this idea of equality. In the 19th century, as this country was moving towards civil war, a congressman from indiana described the truth of the declaration of independence as self evident lies, and he was referring particularly to the equality truth. A self evident lie. What exactly does it mean . When you could say for instance, that equality doesnt really exist. Just look out into the world. Look into the world in which we live here now and today. Do you see equality . Do i see equality right now as i am sitting here and standing here in this room looking at all of you . I dont see equality. I see differences. Differences do not necessarily mean equality. I know for a fact, in this room right now, there is say, tall and short, more particularly strong and weak, there is fast and slow, and surely there are differences, intellectual differences amongst even the people sitting here in this room. Im pretty confident that there are differences and maybe even inequalities in terms of basic talents and even virtue. So what does it mean to say all men are created equal . How is that not a self evident lie . Jefferson himself and john adams, recognized that there is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of which he said are virtue and talents. A natural aristocracy by definition is going to mean inequality. Why does the declaration say all men are created equal why does not say all men are created an equal . Because that would be just as true as saying all men are created equal. So we have to ask the question. What did jeffe pitt. Einsteinconinrnrw3co. Inni terms ofni measurable qualities, nrwe arq not the same cowhat does equalityconr meanlpn technical problem nrcoxdco equy means whatnrnrnr i calls7co qu3 nr o saneness. Certainly as nrhuman beingsnicoe having virtueni nrand freewill o are all the samenib relative to dowmpdninini ninihorses forni. ]nininiconrnininini right toni 5aself government. Okweni have an equal niright too owning and selfjfnr governing ical problem nijfnr governing just asni there are no ninatural rulersniconi in the worldninr ti u ere is o hta natural righo are no natural slaves. nrasnr jeffersonnr once put it a letter quoteconrconini because c newton was superior to coothers int nii] counderstandingnininin then means,ninr we have an equal rightconrnrnrnini. Equality nioknrnr really shouln lnrnininrco rightsconrcocow3coh nrnrthose areninrs7 particulara of what rights areniniconinr. Wh rights arefani. That isconinr a question we havo qk ip p h nnr . ;ninrniv im going toconr cotry to answei firsazquestion, and partnrco nii ron i will tryni coi]to answerco nia characteristics are. Writesni i÷niurcosays t ia nrwee sourceinixd0lni ive rightsu5v undisputable true. nrni iconrxde inhtnr certai3 riqts should be seen inokconrni r ninrit4hn definesco nispheres o. And you could look at rights and in definingninr these sphers of freedom you can look at the concept ofw3ni nirapes as two py characteristics. Lice7m 5hp p h y;ynrtheynrnininr are a licens. Its concerned withni a freedom ofnini ap conibut wei]xdnr facan also loos innininrni htimm every nrindividual. Writesni nrnrin part protect us. conithey prgt ct us from nrxdtho wouldt initiate forcemynini 5i us. Meni so that i think isconr coay nr n qq inition from the perspective of r american n revolutionaries righs are. Let usni conow drill downnr eve1 deeplyni into theconr nisecond 3wconijf nvoj1 of a right as liberty and pursuit of happiness. Jefferson himself and every founding father included property as a lynch pin right. The lynch pin between life and liberty on the one hand and the pursuit of happiness on the other. It is the freedom to keep use, and dispose of the product of once physical and mental labor. For those of you who have read the treaties and the famous chapter five on property, the idea is that when you mix your labor both natural and mental with nature which has no values, whence you mix your labor with that which has no value, you can claim it as your property because it is now an extension of you. Finally, the last rate of nature listed in the declaration is the pursuit of happiness. What is it . This right to the pursuit of happiness is a curious one because it really does not appear in virtually any of the other bills of rights with the exception of the bill of rights. The formulation seems to be in part at least you need to jefferson himself i think he actually gets this idea of the pursuit of had from john locks. What is the right to the pursuit of happiness mean . Like the other rights, the right to property. It means freedom. It is the freedom to choose and pursue those values that lead to ones happiness. Now there are different kinds of, happiness of course. John lock and Thomas Jefferson both said, gaza real or true happiness tends to be a kind of spiritual consequence of achieving certain long term goals and values. Of course there is short term happiness, which is kind of a physical pleasure. The pleasure, the happiness that you get from eating a good stake, or having ice cream, but that is not really what is meant here. The pursuit of happiness means the pursuit and the achievement of ones highest values. Let me just at one important point here. In a sense, the most interesting word is pursuit. You have the right to the pursuit of happiness. You do not have a right to happiness but you have a right to pursue it. Jefferson, and all of the other Founding Fathers understood the right of the pursuit of happiness. To have a profound moral component to it. The pursuit of happiness for certainly jefferson and adams meant to have, to employ certain virtues. In other words, there was a profound connection for jefferson and the American Revolutionaries. Between virtue and happiness, you cannot achieve happiness without having employed in your life, without having employed in the pursuit of certain values, certain virtues. This is not some kind of hedonistic pursuit of happiness. That is not what is meant. Quite the opposite. The pursuit of happiness implies, it employers that individuals beat virtuous. All right. On to the third self evident truth. This third self evident truth is the most complex of the four. It embodies several principles. I have identified the one word that i have identified with his consent, but it could equally be government or limited government or constitutionalism. This third truth as a complex concept. It says quote, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. If you just stop and think about what that means. You can take this one truth, the one clause of the larger sentence and break it down into its component parts. What is the third truth mean . The first thing means, the first thing it says, quite clearly, is that the purpose of government is to protect rights. It does not say that the purpose of government is to make men good or virtuous. It does not say that the purpose of government is to make all men equal or the same. It says that the purpose is to protect rights. What rights does it mean . It means the rights contained in the second self evident truth. The right to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which includes the right to property. So thats it. That creates, if the sole purpose of government is to protect rights, that means by definition, a very limited kind of government. That takes us to the second part of the third truth, which is that governments are necessary to secure rights. The first thing to note here is that americas Founding Fathers were not anarchists. They believed that there is a legitimate role for government to play in a free society. That legitimate role is to protect rights. The natural rights of all human beings. But then the question is, what kind of government best does that . And built into their idea or this third truth, is that there are certain kinds of governments which protect rights better better than others. What kind of governments are those . Well, i think this is reading between the lines because ive read just about every word Thomas Jefferson, and john adams and ever wrote. I think i have a pretty clear idea of what they meant by government. A government to protect rights. They meant constitutional government. Particularly, they meant a Constitutional Republic. What is a Constitutional Republic . It is one that is based on lead the people, but it has a constitution that defines, establishes and limits the powers of government. It means, by definition, because it is constitutional, it means a limited government. A limited constitutional government. A government whose powers are defined by the constitution. And then finally, this third truth says that the just powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed. Built into this part of the third truth. Obviously the idea of consent, this comes out of the revolutionary crisis. No taxation without representation, which means no taxation without the consent of the people. So the principle, the moral principle of consent is that is at the heart of the American Revolution, more specifically the declaration of independence, and consent is a principle. It is a principle that is kind of it is a principle that unites, connects. The deeper principles of equality and rights on the one hand and government on the other. Consent is the link between rights and government. The principle of consent as it is institutionalized its in the form of the principal of sovereignty. Sovereignty is the principal which defines where the power of government ultimately rests. As weve seen in this class also mester, the whole question, the whole debate between British Imperialism and american patriots was in part over the question of where does sovereignty rest . Does it rest in parliament or does it rest in the low neil charters and colonial legislators . And the principle of consent also implies one other principle which is representation. Representation is the core principle defining republican government. So this third truth establishes or implies a Constitutional Republic the ideal form of government. Let us now go to the fourth self evident truth. It reads, 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 see most likely to affect their safety and happiness. This fourth self evident truth is also very complex. Like the third self evident truth. It is so complex that it is not obviously self evident, but it is self evident only in a sense that it builds on the third self evident truth, and this third self evident truth builds on the second, and the second builds on the first and they are held together as a unity. If you understand the first self evident truth and the principle of equality and it can be understood as being self evident and some way, and then by logical deduction, you go from the first, second, third and finally the fourth self evident truth, which is what i call the revolution truth. What is this right to revolution . The declaration does not use the word revolution. It talks about altering or abolishing. That in effect it means revolution. And the right to revolution calls, i think, for two kinds of actions. The first action is destructive, and the second is constructive. If you read the fourth self evident truth, the first part of that sentence says that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive to its and it is the right of people to alter or abolish it. That is the destructive part. What that means is what i call negative consent or consent withdrawn. It is when the people withdraw their consent to be ruled or governed by this particular government. Revolution in this context becomes justified when governments become tyrannical. The largest part of the declaration of independence lays out the facts which are being submitted to a candid world, demonstrating to a candid world, i how george the third and the British Parliament have established an absolute despotism over them. The second part of this fourth self evident truth says, quote, and to Institute New government laying its government and such form as to them shall seem most likely to protect their safety and happiness. That is a construct of it is the power on the basis of consent, consent given to create government. So on the one hand, you abolish or alter an old government, but on the other hand, you create a stab lush a new government. And the declaration suggests that when it uses the word, whenever any form of government so it turns out that literally any kind of government can become destructive of rights, including democracy or republicanism. It also implies that you can have a government that protects the rights of an individual that is not necessarily republic. You can have a monarch pickle republic. The government of england had been up until the time of the imperial crisis. All right the right of revolution has to be tempered. The very next word after the right to revolution is the word prudence. It says prudence will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and frenzy and causes. In other words, what this means is, the right to revolution is not absolute or unlimited. It has to be used prudently. The question you have to ask yourself is for instance, what would it have been prudent to launch a revolution against the British Government in 1765 after the passage of the stamp act. I can tell you not one American Revolutionary would have said yes to that question. Nor would they have said yes to that question after the passage of the towns in, and the tea acts. By the time we get to 1774, now some americans are starting to think, yes, samuel adams, john adams, george washington, Thomas Jefferson are beginning to think we have grounds for establishing revolution. But still, prudence dictates that even in 1774 that may be too early. There is a real question about when revolutions are launched. It cannot beaches some radical yahoo who decides that he does not like the fivecent tax on his new can of soda that he will launch a revolution. That would be profoundly imprudent. I am coming close to the end. I want to end this discussion, this talk on the declaration of independence by talking about the moral logic of the American Revolution, or precisely, the moral logic contained in the declaration of independence. If you remember now, earlier in this top, when we were examining the first paragraph, in fact the very first word that the declaration of independence when in the course of human advance it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bans. What could that possibly mean, to say that it is necessary . When in the course of human events it becomes necessary necessary as i have said, implies that it must be, but of course nothing has to be, but yet in the minds of American Revolutionaries, it was absolutely necessary that they declare independence, and by declaring independence, that means they are declaring war, and in declaring war they are committing themselves to death and destruction. Why is it necessary . It is necessary now skipping to the first into the second sentence of the declaration. The declaration says, after the prudence sentence, it says, when a long train of abuses pursuing invariably the same object evens is a design to reduce them under absolute despotism. It is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government. So yes, they have the right, but more fundamentally, jefferson and the authors of the declaration are saying we have a duty in the same way that they are saying it is necessary that we dissolve the bands that have connected as to another. It is a duty, so how is it necessary . How is it a duty for them to declare independence . And then on top of that, they pledge their lives to fortunes, and their sacred honor to the cause of the revolution. What does this mean . What is the moral universe that they are living in . I think what it means is that they had a view of moral action that did not separate theory from practice. They believed that if you hold certain moral principles, then it is necessary that you act in a certain way. You can view it in philosophically terms it is called in an conditional imperative. If given then, conditional imperative. If you believe and certain principles that is to say, if you want to live in a free and just society, given the crimes that have been committed by george the third and the British Parliament, then it is necessary, if you are to be a moral person, to live up to your moral principles. That is, i think, the moral logic which is impelling americans. All right so to sum up. What does all of this mean . What is the meaning . What is the ultimate meaning of the declaration of independence . I think it can be summed up in the words of abraham lincoln. Who, in 1957, in his opinion on the dred scott decision, said, speaking of the declaration of independence, he wrote quote, i think the authors of that notable instrument meant to set up a standard maxim for a free society. I think that is exactly what the declaration is. It is a standard maxim for a free society. It should be familiar to all and revered by all. Constantly look to constantly labor, for even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of all colors everywhere. And i think that is with the declaration of independence does. It establishes the standard maxim for a free society by which we can judge tyranny and it turns out, not just the tyranny of george the third and British Parliament, but also the tyranny of 19th century southern slavery. It is the declaration which is the standard maxim of a free society for the abolitionist. Let me close with these last few words from americas greatest 20th century poet, robert frost in his 19 15th the black cottage. That is a hard mystery of jeffersons. What did he mean . Of course the easy way is to the side its simply isnt true. It may not be. I heard of fellow say so, but never mind, the welshmen got atlantic where it will trouble less 1000 years. I think that is exactly right. If you look at all subsequent american history, from the time of the declaration of independence until today, what i think you will find is that all of the intellectual and certainly all of the political debates in this country for 235 years, have basically and one way or another been a debate over how to interpret the Core Principles of the declaration of independence and particular, the self evident truth of equality, and the self evident truth of rights and just here now today, in the United States in 2019, the political controversies of this country today at the deepest philosophical level, really come down to those two concepts. To those two self evident truths, equality and rights. And like the revolutionary generation of 1776, its i think your responsibility to dedicate your lives, your fortunes and your sacred honor to keeping alive the declaration of independence. Thank you. We are done. I will see you all on monday. I